Is it ethical for the Democratic party to keep blacks on the plantation needing government handouts

[ding]

Given that you are arguing FOR an external locus of control and I am arguing AGAINST an external locus of control, our actions do not support your assertion.

I don't accept your definition of what I am arguing. Most of what I have said simply fills the holes in your faulty premises.I look for substance,which , BTW, is severely lacking in your narratives, even those originating from archaic quotes that do not apply now.

I don't care whether you accept it or not. It is easy to spot an external locus of control. Just look for the person making excuses and blaming others for what he failed to do.

Put it where the goats can get it. Are you still talking in context of the op title? I don't see where your observation applies to me.Be specific and stop talking in circles.

The answer is both. It is in the context of the OP and it most definitely applies to you as you ARE the one arguing FOR an external locus of control.

You are still too ambiguous. Show me specifically where I argued for an external locus of control. Quote me doing that.

You mean you don't believe we fail because of events beyond our control?

 

[JQPublic1]

I don't accept your definition of what I am arguing. Most of what I have said simply fills the holes in your faulty premises.I look for substance,which , BTW, is severely lacking in your narratives, even those originating from archaic quotes that do not apply now.

I don't care whether you accept it or not. It is easy to spot an external locus of control. Just look for the person making excuses and blaming others for what he failed to do.

Put it where the goats can get it. Are you still talking in context of the op title? I don't see where your observation applies to me.Be specific and stop talking in circles.

The answer is both. It is in the context of the OP and it most definitely applies to you as you ARE the one arguing FOR an external locus of control.

You are still too ambiguous. Show me specifically where I argued for an external locus of control. Quote me doing that.

You mean you don't believe we fail because of events beyond our control?

So you do not have a quote? Ok, your spurious assumption is noted.

 

[ding]

I don't care whether you accept it or not. It is easy to spot an external locus of control. Just look for the person making excuses and blaming others for what he failed to do.

Put it where the goats can get it. Are you still talking in context of the op title? I don't see where your observation applies to me.Be specific and stop talking in circles.

The answer is both. It is in the context of the OP and it most definitely applies to you as you ARE the one arguing FOR an external locus of control.

You are still too ambiguous. Show me specifically where I argued for an external locus of control. Quote me doing that.

You mean you don't believe we fail because of events beyond our control?

So you do not have a quote? Ok, your spurious assumption is noted.

You have been inferring that people don't control their own destiny with each post. Are you telling me that you do believe that people control their own destiny?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Is it ethical to allow people to starve and to die on the street?

Is it ethical for the rich to steal 90% of all wealth off the backs of the workers??? You my friend are the unethical one and Jesus would disagree with you violently as he believed in helping people.

/---- and in the same breath you complain about American obesity

 

[JQPublic1]

Put it where the goats can get it. Are you still talking in context of the op title? I don't see where your observation applies to me.Be specific and stop talking in circles.

The answer is both. It is in the context of the OP and it most definitely applies to you as you ARE the one arguing FOR an external locus of control.

You are still too ambiguous. Show me specifically where I argued for an external locus of control. Quote me doing that.

You mean you don't believe we fail because of events beyond our control?

So you do not have a quote? Ok, your spurious assumption is noted.

You have been inferring that people don't control their own destiny with each post. Are you telling me that you do believe that people control their own destiny?

I'm telling you that there are no absolutes. And I refuse to enjoin your absolutist thinking.. I'm making that statement in terms of human context. The internal locus of control that you keep refering to is what separates us from the other animals. So when did mankind evolve enough to have the privilege of exploiting the gift of iinternal locus of control? Sir, I feel the answer is far too complex to discuss here. In the midst of things to be discussed in that regard would be all the things civilize people depend on to survive.Unless you are prepared to grow your own crops or farm animals and have sex only with yourself , your philosophical overtures towards an internal locus of control is hypocrisy.

 

[ding]

The answer is both. It is in the context of the OP and it most definitely applies to you as you ARE the one arguing FOR an external locus of control.

You are still too ambiguous. Show me specifically where I argued for an external locus of control. Quote me doing that.

You mean you don't believe we fail because of events beyond our control?

So you do not have a quote? Ok, your spurious assumption is noted.

You have been inferring that people don't control their own destiny with each post. Are you telling me that you do believe that people control their own destiny?

I'm telling you that there are no absolutes. And I refuse to enjoin your absolutist thinking.. I'm making that statement in terms of human context. The internal locus of control that you keep refering to is what separates us from the other animals. So when did mankind evolve enough to have the privilege of exploiting the gift of iinternal locus of control? Sir, I feel the answer is far too complex to discuss here. In the midst of things to be discussed in that regard would be all the things civilize people depend on to survive.Unless you are prepared to grow your own crops or farm animals and have sex only with yourself , your philosophical overtures towards an internal locus of control is hypocrisy.

Clearly you do not understand this concept. Yes, there are no absolutes. There are distributions. No, it is not the difference between humans and animals. At its core it has to do with overcoming or not overcoming obstacles. I can still buy my food at the grocery store.

 

[JQPublic1]

You are still too ambiguous. Show me specifically where I argued for an external locus of control. Quote me doing that.

You mean you don't believe we fail because of events beyond our control?

So you do not have a quote? Ok, your spurious assumption is noted.

You have been inferring that people don't control their own destiny with each post. Are you telling me that you do believe that people control their own destiny?

I'm telling you that there are no absolutes. And I refuse to enjoin your absolutist thinking.. I'm making that statement in terms of human context. The internal locus of control that you keep refering to is what separates us from the other animals. So when did mankind evolve enough to have the privilege of exploiting the gift of iinternal locus of control? Sir, I feel the answer is far too complex to discuss here. In the midst of things to be discussed in that regard would be all the things civilize people depend on to survive.Unless you are prepared to grow your own crops or farm animals and have sex only with yourself , your philosophical overtures towards an internal locus of control is hypocrisy.

Clearly you do not understand this concept. Yes, there are no absolutes. There are distributions. No, it is not the difference between humans and animals. At its core it has to do with overcoming or not overcoming obstacles. I can still buy my food at the grocery store.

If there is a lack of understanding it rests in your corner, not mine. And your creation of pseudo- esoteric straw-men by throwing undefined terms around underlines the lack of confidence in your statement. ..i.e "distributions."

Observing your application of internal locus of control as a human mental trait, I was surprised to see you avoid the discussion of whether animals of any kind are capable of using it. Obviously the concept is one that applies, abstractly, only to human beliefs. Since animals aren't known to "believe" anything neither internal or external loci controls can be assigned to them. So, it comes to this: The definition below suggests that religious or superstitious people are bound to the philosophical concept of "external locus of control." Conversely, atheism exemplifies an internal locus of control. But since there are no absolutes, as I said preciously, the loci of control would depend on the situation at hand. In other words, all of us use both concepts from time to time to define our actions more than you seem to want to accept!

Locus of control
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about Locus of control. For other uses, see Locus.
In personality psychology, locus of control is the degree to which people believe that they have control over the outcome of events in their lives, as opposed to external forces beyond their control. Understanding of the concept was developed by Julian B. Rotter in 1954, and has since become an aspect of personality studies. A person's "loci" (plural of "locus," Latin for "place" or "location") is conceptualized as internal (a belief that one's life can be controlled) or external (a belief that life is controlled by outside factors which they cannot influence, or that chance or fate controls their lives).[1]

Individuals with a strong internal locus of control believe events in their life derive primarily from their own actions: for example, when receiving exam results, people with an internal locus of control tend to praise or blame themselves and their abilities. People with a strong external locus of control tend to praise or blame external factors such as the teacher or the exam.[2]

Locus of control generated much research in a variety of areas in psychology. The construct is applicable to such fields as educational psychology, health psychology and clinical psychology. Debate continues whether specific or more global measures of locus of control will prove to be more useful in practical application. Careful distinctions should also be made between locus of control (a concept linked with expectancies about the future) and attributional style (a concept linked with explanations for past outcomes), or between locus of control and concepts such as self-efficacy.

Locus of control is one of the four dimensions of core self-evaluations – one's fundamental appraisal of oneself – along with neuroticism, self-efficacy, and self-esteem.[3] The concept of core self-evaluations was first examined by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997), and since has proven to have the ability to predict several work outcomes, specifically, job satisfaction and job performance.[4] In a follow-up study, Judge et al. (2002) argued the concepts of locus of control, neuroticism, self-efficacy and self-esteem measured the same, single factor.[5]

 

[mamooth]

A patronizingly racist thread, assuming that blacks are manipulated by evil democrats. See, it can't be that black are being rational and voting for their self interest. The entire race is just stupid and lazy!

Blacks, not being stupid, recognize that patronizing racism for what is it. It's a big reason they don't vote Republican.

Ding, why did you think you could call a whole race stupid and lazy, and not be called out for racism? After all, what what you did there is kind of a textbook definition of racism.

 

[ding]

A patronizingly racist thread, assuming that blacks are manipulated by evil democrats. See, it can't be that black are being rational and voting for their self interest. The entire race is just stupid and lazy!

Blacks, not being stupid, recognize that patronizing racism for what is it. It's a big reason they don't vote Republican.

Ding, why did you think you could call a whole race stupid and lazy, and not be called out for racism? After all, what what you did there is kind of a textbook definition of racism.

I didn't call a whole race stupid and lazy. I called 94% of them dupes.

 

[ding]

You mean you don't believe we fail because of events beyond our control?

So you do not have a quote? Ok, your spurious assumption is noted.

You have been inferring that people don't control their own destiny with each post. Are you telling me that you do believe that people control their own destiny?

I'm telling you that there are no absolutes. And I refuse to enjoin your absolutist thinking.. I'm making that statement in terms of human context. The internal locus of control that you keep refering to is what separates us from the other animals. So when did mankind evolve enough to have the privilege of exploiting the gift of iinternal locus of control? Sir, I feel the answer is far too complex to discuss here. In the midst of things to be discussed in that regard would be all the things civilize people depend on to survive.Unless you are prepared to grow your own crops or farm animals and have sex only with yourself , your philosophical overtures towards an internal locus of control is hypocrisy.

Clearly you do not understand this concept. Yes, there are no absolutes. There are distributions. No, it is not the difference between humans and animals. At its core it has to do with overcoming or not overcoming obstacles. I can still buy my food at the grocery store.

If there is a lack of understanding it rests in your corner, not mine. And your creation of pseudo- esoteric straw-men by throwing undefined terms around underlines the lack of confidence in your statement. ..i.e "distributions."

Observing your application of internal locus of control as a human mental trait, I was surprised to see you avoid the discussion of whether animals of any kind are capable of using it. Obviously the concept is one that applies, abstractly, only to human beliefs. Since animals aren't known to "believe" anything neither internal or external loci controls can be assigned to them. So, it comes to this: The definition below suggests that religious or superstitious people are bound to the philosophical concept of "external locus of control." Conversely, atheism exemplifies an internal locus of control. But since there are no absolutes, as I said preciously, the loci of control would depend on the situation at hand. In other words, all of us use both concepts from time to time to define our actions more than you seem to want to accept!

Locus of control
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about Locus of control. For other uses, see Locus.
In personality psychology, locus of control is the degree to which people believe that they have control over the outcome of events in their lives, as opposed to external forces beyond their control. Understanding of the concept was developed by Julian B. Rotter in 1954, and has since become an aspect of personality studies. A person's "loci" (plural of "locus," Latin for "place" or "location") is conceptualized as internal (a belief that one's life can be controlled) or external (a belief that life is controlled by outside factors which they cannot influence, or that chance or fate controls their lives).[1]

Individuals with a strong internal locus of control believe events in their life derive primarily from their own actions: for example, when receiving exam results, people with an internal locus of control tend to praise or blame themselves and their abilities. People with a strong external locus of control tend to praise or blame external factors such as the teacher or the exam.[2]

Locus of control generated much research in a variety of areas in psychology. The construct is applicable to such fields as educational psychology, health psychology and clinical psychology. Debate continues whether specific or more global measures of locus of control will prove to be more useful in practical application. Careful distinctions should also be made between locus of control (a concept linked with expectancies about the future) and attributional style (a concept linked with explanations for past outcomes), or between locus of control and concepts such as self-efficacy.

Locus of control is one of the four dimensions of core self-evaluations – one's fundamental appraisal of oneself – along with neuroticism, self-efficacy, and self-esteem.[3] The concept of core self-evaluations was first examined by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997), and since has proven to have the ability to predict several work outcomes, specifically, job satisfaction and job performance.[4] In a follow-up study, Judge et al. (2002) argued the concepts of locus of control, neuroticism, self-efficacy and self-esteem measured the same, single factor.[5]

And yet all major corporations use locus of control in their hiring exactly as I have described it. You might want to check out motivational based interviewing.

 

[mamooth]

I didn't call a whole race stupid and lazy. I called 94% of them dupes.

Oh, that's so much better. That makes it not racist at all.

Oh wait. It doesn't.

 

[ding]

I didn't call a whole race stupid and lazy. I called 94% of them dupes.

Oh, that's so much better. That makes it not racist at all.

Oh wait. It doesn't.

Was MLK Jr a racist?

 

[JQPublic1]

So you do not have a quote? Ok, your spurious assumption is noted.

You have been inferring that people don't control their own destiny with each post. Are you telling me that you do believe that people control their own destiny?

I'm telling you that there are no absolutes. And I refuse to enjoin your absolutist thinking.. I'm making that statement in terms of human context. The internal locus of control that you keep refering to is what separates us from the other animals. So when did mankind evolve enough to have the privilege of exploiting the gift of iinternal locus of control? Sir, I feel the answer is far too complex to discuss here. In the midst of things to be discussed in that regard would be all the things civilize people depend on to survive.Unless you are prepared to grow your own crops or farm animals and have sex only with yourself , your philosophical overtures towards an internal locus of control is hypocrisy.

Clearly you do not understand this concept. Yes, there are no absolutes. There are distributions. No, it is not the difference between humans and animals. At its core it has to do with overcoming or not overcoming obstacles. I can still buy my food at the grocery store.

If there is a lack of understanding it rests in your corner, not mine. And your creation of pseudo- esoteric straw-men by throwing undefined terms around underlines the lack of confidence in your statement. ..i.e "distributions."

Observing your application of internal locus of control as a human mental trait, I was surprised to see you avoid the discussion of whether animals of any kind are capable of using it. Obviously the concept is one that applies, abstractly, only to human beliefs. Since animals aren't known to "believe" anything neither internal or external loci controls can be assigned to them. So, it comes to this: The definition below suggests that religious or superstitious people are bound to the philosophical concept of "external locus of control." Conversely, atheism exemplifies an internal locus of control. But since there are no absolutes, as I said preciously, the loci of control would depend on the situation at hand. In other words, all of us use both concepts from time to time to define our actions more than you seem to want to accept!

Locus of control
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about Locus of control. For other uses, see Locus.
In personality psychology, locus of control is the degree to which people believe that they have control over the outcome of events in their lives, as opposed to external forces beyond their control. Understanding of the concept was developed by Julian B. Rotter in 1954, and has since become an aspect of personality studies. A person's "loci" (plural of "locus," Latin for "place" or "location") is conceptualized as internal (a belief that one's life can be controlled) or external (a belief that life is controlled by outside factors which they cannot influence, or that chance or fate controls their lives).[1]

Individuals with a strong internal locus of control believe events in their life derive primarily from their own actions: for example, when receiving exam results, people with an internal locus of control tend to praise or blame themselves and their abilities. People with a strong external locus of control tend to praise or blame external factors such as the teacher or the exam.[2]

Locus of control generated much research in a variety of areas in psychology. The construct is applicable to such fields as educational psychology, health psychology and clinical psychology. Debate continues whether specific or more global measures of locus of control will prove to be more useful in practical application. Careful distinctions should also be made between locus of control (a concept linked with expectancies about the future) and attributional style (a concept linked with explanations for past outcomes), or between locus of control and concepts such as self-efficacy.

Locus of control is one of the four dimensions of core self-evaluations – one's fundamental appraisal of oneself – along with neuroticism, self-efficacy, and self-esteem.[3] The concept of core self-evaluations was first examined by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997), and since has proven to have the ability to predict several work outcomes, specifically, job satisfaction and job performance.[4] In a follow-up study, Judge et al. (2002) argued the concepts of locus of control, neuroticism, self-efficacy and self-esteem measured the same, single factor.[5]

And yet all major corporations use locus of control in their hiring exactly as I have described it. You might want to check out motivational based interviewing.

Let's apply that to the title of your op. you've declared, without justification, that, in general, American Blacks are disciples of external loci of control and that the democrats are the high priests doling government handouts to the faithful. I'd certainly like to see your sources on that.

 

[JQPublic1]

A patronizingly racist thread, assuming that blacks are manipulated by evil democrats. See, it can't be that black are being rational and voting for their self interest. The entire race is just stupid and lazy!

Blacks, not being stupid, recognize that patronizing racism for what is it. It's a big reason they don't vote Republican.

Ding, why did you think you could call a whole race stupid and lazy, and not be called out for racism? After all, what what you did there is kind of a textbook definition of racism.

I didn't call a whole race stupid and lazy. I called 94% of them dupes.

And if they voted GOP, in your mind, they would still be dupes, But its ok if they are duped into voting against their own interests...RIGHT???

 

[ding]

You have been inferring that people don't control their own destiny with each post. Are you telling me that you do believe that people control their own destiny?

I'm telling you that there are no absolutes. And I refuse to enjoin your absolutist thinking.. I'm making that statement in terms of human context. The internal locus of control that you keep refering to is what separates us from the other animals. So when did mankind evolve enough to have the privilege of exploiting the gift of iinternal locus of control? Sir, I feel the answer is far too complex to discuss here. In the midst of things to be discussed in that regard would be all the things civilize people depend on to survive.Unless you are prepared to grow your own crops or farm animals and have sex only with yourself , your philosophical overtures towards an internal locus of control is hypocrisy.

Clearly you do not understand this concept. Yes, there are no absolutes. There are distributions. No, it is not the difference between humans and animals. At its core it has to do with overcoming or not overcoming obstacles. I can still buy my food at the grocery store.

If there is a lack of understanding it rests in your corner, not mine. And your creation of pseudo- esoteric straw-men by throwing undefined terms around underlines the lack of confidence in your statement. ..i.e "distributions."

Observing your application of internal locus of control as a human mental trait, I was surprised to see you avoid the discussion of whether animals of any kind are capable of using it. Obviously the concept is one that applies, abstractly, only to human beliefs. Since animals aren't known to "believe" anything neither internal or external loci controls can be assigned to them. So, it comes to this: The definition below suggests that religious or superstitious people are bound to the philosophical concept of "external locus of control." Conversely, atheism exemplifies an internal locus of control. But since there are no absolutes, as I said preciously, the loci of control would depend on the situation at hand. In other words, all of us use both concepts from time to time to define our actions more than you seem to want to accept!

Locus of control
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about Locus of control. For other uses, see Locus.
In personality psychology, locus of control is the degree to which people believe that they have control over the outcome of events in their lives, as opposed to external forces beyond their control. Understanding of the concept was developed by Julian B. Rotter in 1954, and has since become an aspect of personality studies. A person's "loci" (plural of "locus," Latin for "place" or "location") is conceptualized as internal (a belief that one's life can be controlled) or external (a belief that life is controlled by outside factors which they cannot influence, or that chance or fate controls their lives).[1]

Individuals with a strong internal locus of control believe events in their life derive primarily from their own actions: for example, when receiving exam results, people with an internal locus of control tend to praise or blame themselves and their abilities. People with a strong external locus of control tend to praise or blame external factors such as the teacher or the exam.[2]

Locus of control generated much research in a variety of areas in psychology. The construct is applicable to such fields as educational psychology, health psychology and clinical psychology. Debate continues whether specific or more global measures of locus of control will prove to be more useful in practical application. Careful distinctions should also be made between locus of control (a concept linked with expectancies about the future) and attributional style (a concept linked with explanations for past outcomes), or between locus of control and concepts such as self-efficacy.

Locus of control is one of the four dimensions of core self-evaluations – one's fundamental appraisal of oneself – along with neuroticism, self-efficacy, and self-esteem.[3] The concept of core self-evaluations was first examined by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997), and since has proven to have the ability to predict several work outcomes, specifically, job satisfaction and job performance.[4] In a follow-up study, Judge et al. (2002) argued the concepts of locus of control, neuroticism, self-efficacy and self-esteem measured the same, single factor.[5]

And yet all major corporations use locus of control in their hiring exactly as I have described it. You might want to check out motivational based interviewing.

Let's apply that to the title of your op. you've declared, without justification, that, in general, American Blacks are disciples of external loci of control and that the democrats are the high priests doling government handouts to the faithful. I'd certainly like to see your sources on that.

I don't believe blacks are disciples of external locus of control per se. I believe the victim mentality meme that has been pushed leads to an external locus of control.

 

[ding]

A patronizingly racist thread, assuming that blacks are manipulated by evil democrats. See, it can't be that black are being rational and voting for their self interest. The entire race is just stupid and lazy!

Blacks, not being stupid, recognize that patronizing racism for what is it. It's a big reason they don't vote Republican.

Ding, why did you think you could call a whole race stupid and lazy, and not be called out for racism? After all, what what you did there is kind of a textbook definition of racism.

I didn't call a whole race stupid and lazy. I called 94% of them dupes.

And if they voted GOP, in your mind, they would still be dupes, But its ok if they are duped into voting against their own interests...RIGHT???

Only if they did so because they were told it was not their fault and they were promised salvation for their vote. You know... like what a con man does.

 

[Mudda]

Only if they did so because they were told it was not their fault and they were promised salvation for their vote. You know... like what a con man does.

Like Jesus?

 

[ding]

Only if they did so because they were told it was not their fault and they were promised salvation for their vote. You know... like what a con man does.

Like Jesus?

No. But if that is how you want t see it, go right ahead. That doesn't affect me one way or another.

 

[danielpalos]

Can it be immoral to simply and merely, tax the rich into Heaven, by solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, by merely, "bearing true witness" to a federal Doctrine and our own, State laws.

 

[ding]

Can it be immoral to simply and merely, tax the rich into Heaven, by solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, by merely, "bearing true witness" to a federal Doctrine and our own, State laws.

Isn't that called communism?