Racism the Ultimate Evil?

[Hobbit]

Enlighten me. We might both learn something.

A liberal is, by definition, a person who wants change. In the modern political scene, a liberal is somebody who wants the looser social regulations (legalizing drugs, deviant sexual practices, abortions, etc.) but tighter regulations on business and the economy, as well as a system of income redistribution from the 'rich' to the 'poor.'

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Enlighten me. We might both learn something.

"liberals" like to feel they're so smart as to be undefinable. Liberal does not mean "classical liberal" in the sense of personal freedom and freedom from stultifying institutions. "Liberal" today means, moral relativistic, anti american, braindead weenie who couldn't reason his way out of a wet sack.

 

[Diuretic]

A liberal is, by definition, a person who wants change. In the modern political scene, a liberal is somebody who wants the looser social regulations (legalizing drugs, deviant sexual practices, abortions, etc.) but tighter regulations on business and the economy, as well as a system of income redistribution from the 'rich' to the 'poor.'

Okay thanks. I know that Americans have a different definition of "liberal" and "liberalism" in politics than the rest of the English-speaking world so it's good to get some common understanding.

Now where do "libertarians" fit in here? I've read their website and I have to say I found it interesting. It seems to me that they're interested in maximum individual freedom and tight controls on government but do they also believe in regulation of corporations or is more of a laissez-faire form of capitalism they believe in?

 

[Diuretic]

"liberals" like to feel they're so smart as to be undefinable. Liberal does not mean "classical liberal" in the sense of personal freedom and freedom from stultifying institutions. "Liberal" today means, moral relativistic, anti american, braindead weenie who couldn't reason his way out of a wet sack.

Okay.

 

[Hobbit]

Okay thanks. I know that Americans have a different definition of "liberal" and "liberalism" in politics than the rest of the English-speaking world so it's good to get some common understanding.

Now where do "libertarians" fit in here? I've read their website and I have to say I found it interesting. It seems to me that they're interested in maximum individual freedom and tight controls on government but do they also believe in regulation of corporations or is more of a laissez-faire form of capitalism they believe in?

I'm a conservative libertarian myself, and most Americans would probably find they had quite a bit in common with libertarianism if the libertarian party wasn't so nutso. Anyway, libertarian is the belief in a smaller federal government, and little else. If libertarians ran the country, there would be very few federal laws, few federal taxes, and very few federal agencies, most of which would be charged with national defense and enforcement of interstate law. They want the government small, smaller, smallest. End of story. Many libertarians are also strong capitalists, who believe that free market forces should be allowed to work uninhibited and that nearly anything done can be done better by a capitalistic business than a government agency.

 

[deaddude]

I'm a conservative libertarian myself, and most Americans would probably find they had quite a bit in common with libertarianism if the libertarian party wasn't so nutso. Anyway, libertarian is the belief in a smaller federal government, and little else. If libertarians ran the country, there would be very few federal laws, few federal taxes, and very few federal agencies, most of which would be charged with national defense and enforcement of interstate law. They want the government small, smaller, smallest. End of story. Many libertarians are also strong capitalists, who believe that free market forces should be allowed to work uninhibited and that nearly anything done can be done better by a capitalistic business than a government agency.

What is the libertarian take on Trusts (as in the monopoly kind of trust)?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What is the libertarian take on Trusts (as in the monopoly kind of trust)?

Good one.

Yeah. These people are mostly nuts. There is just no way crack and meth should be legal. Weed should.

 

[Hobbit]

What is the libertarian take on Trusts (as in the monopoly kind of trust)?

Most libertarian minded people agree that, if allowed to collaborate, trusts can and will form, and should be made illegal to protect the foundations of capitalism. The libertarian party, however, thinks that trusts are a fairy tale meant to frighten people about big business and that anti-trust laws need to be repealed.

 

[deaddude]

If you wish to keep trusts illegal why then would you repeal the anti trust laws? Also how can trusts be considered a "fairy tale" when they have happened historicly, and were the cause of those same anti-trust laws.

 

[William Joyce]

Racism is the belief that one race is superior, period.

I'm a racist, but this isn't quite what I believe.

By IQ data, Asians are superior to whites. I recognize this, yet nobody has ever called me an "Asian supremacist."

What I do believe is this:

1. Different racial groups are genetically different. About this, there can be very little actual debate. Any sane scientist will admit this. Evolution is one explanation: the races of the world developed over thousands of years in different climates with different selection pressures.

2. This means that members of racial groups have characteristics that are not totally susceptible of environmental change. This includes intelligence and behavior.

3. This means that some GROUP characteristics are immutable. You can legitmately say that the average black IQ is 15 points lower than the average white IQ. Data confirms it. You can also say that fiddling with policy will not change this very much, because the differences are inherent, not environmental. Read "The Bell Curve," by some very non-racist men, if you don't believe this.

4. It also means that racial groups, for adaptive reasons, tend to favor their own. This is called ethnic nepotism. As RWA notes, t's natural, not evil. Think of it this way: nobody calls a woman who favors her own children over her neighbor's a "racist." They don't even question it. Races are, genetically, extended versions of families. So the same thing applies on a broader scale.

Even San Francisco self-segregates:

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/05/with_more_choic.php

5. What all this means is that the attempt to make race "fungible" is built on a faulty premise. Races are no more equal than the sexes or the seasons. But our current political structure not only ignores this, it punishes more-able groups because less-able groups aren't performing at the same level. "Racism" is the explanation for all differences observed.

6. The smoothest, calmest, happiest and most productive societies are racially homogenous. Japan is. Brazil is not. Don't believe me? Pick up a newspaper. Ever been to Maine? How about Harlem? Where'd you rather live?

7. I'm a member of a race, the white race. In my life, I've noticed that we've been accused of creating all the world's problems. Demands are made on us by blacks, Hispanics, etc., usually without much justification. Yes, we enslaved blacks. That was bad. But that's history, and history that can't possibly explain why a black teenager today can't do well in school.

8. I believe that my race is under attack for non-factual reasons. I do not believe that we should be "superior" over other races in such a way that would support slavery or genocide, but we should have the right to direct our own destiny, as a people. We should be able to exclude members of other races if we so choose. The world's a big place. Not everyone has to crowd into the white countries. If blacks and Hispanics are so damn "equal" to whites, they can jolly well make "equal" societies in Mexico, Africa, etc. What's stopping them?

 

[dilloduck]

I'm a racist, but this isn't quite what I believe.

By IQ data, Asians are superior to whites. I recognize this, yet nobody has ever called me an "Asian supremacist."

What I do believe is this:

1. Different racial groups are genetically different. About this, there can be very little actual debate. Any sane scientist will admit this. Evolution is one explanation: the races of the world developed over thousands of years in different climates with different selection pressures.

2. This means that members of racial groups have characteristics that are not totally susceptible of environmental change. This includes intelligence and behavior.

3. This means that some GROUP characteristics are immutable. You can legitmately say that the average black IQ is 15 points lower than the average white IQ. Data confirms it. You can also say that fiddling with policy will not change this very much, because the differences are inherent, not environmental. Read "The Bell Curve," by some very non-racist men, if you don't believe this.

4. It also means that racial groups, for adaptive reasons, tend to favor their own. This is called ethnic nepotism. As RWA notes, t's natural, not evil. Think of it this way: nobody calls a woman who favors her own children over her neighbor's a "racist." They don't even question it. Races are, genetically, extended versions of families. So the same thing applies on a broader scale.

Even San Francisco self-segregates:

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/05/with_more_choic.php

5. What all this means is that the attempt to make race "fungible" is built on a faulty premise. Races are no more equal than the sexes or the seasons. But our current political structure not only ignores this, it punishes more-able groups because less-able groups aren't performing at the same level. "Racism" is the explanation for all differences observed.

6. The smoothest, calmest, happiest and most productive societies are racially homogenous. Japan is. Brazil is not. Don't believe me? Pick up a newspaper. Ever been to Maine? How about Harlem? Where'd you rather live?

7. I'm a member of a race, the white race. In my life, I've noticed that we've been accused of creating all the world's problems. Demands are made on us by blacks, Hispanics, etc., usually without much justification. Yes, we enslaved blacks. That was bad. But that's history, and history that can't possibly explain why a black teenager today can't do well in school.

8. I believe that my race is under attack for non-factual reasons. I do not believe that we should be "superior" over other races in such a way that would support slavery or genocide, but we should have the right to direct our own destiny, as a people. We should be able to exclude members of other races if we so choose. The world's a big place. Not everyone has to crowd into the white countries. If blacks and Hispanics are so damn "equal" to whites, they can jolly well make "equal" societies in Mexico, Africa, etc. What's stopping them?

The Controllers---just ask nuke winter !

sorry WJ---it was a good post---I just couldn't resist.

 

[ErikViking]

Interesting point of you you have! I have a completeley different point of view. Usually that would mean I had to disagree with you. But I can't find anything to disagree with really.

Here for instance:

1. Different racial groups are genetically different. About this, there can be very little actual debate. Any sane scientist will admit this. Evolution is one explanation: the races of the world developed over thousands of years in different climates with different selection pressures.

I would too call it racial groups, since I think of humans as one race. But I wouldn't stress differances as you do here, there is likley to be more differences in the genetic code between two humans of the same race group than between two humas from different race groups.

Point four is spot on isn't it? Is this not exactly how we all work?

4. It also means that racial groups, for adaptive reasons, tend to favor their own. This is called ethnic nepotism. As RWA notes, t's natural, not evil. Think of it this way: nobody calls a woman who favors her own children over her neighbor's a "racist." They don't even question it. Races are, genetically, extended versions of families. So the same thing applies on a broader scale.

And yet again I wouldn't stress the race group more than other groups we form. We desperatly need a belonging like in teams, music, clothing, work and so on. Race group belonging is one thing, but there are many others too.

Or here!

7. I'm a member of a race, the white race. In my life, I've noticed that we've been accused of creating all the world's problems. Demands are made on us by blacks, Hispanics, etc., usually without much justification. Yes, we enslaved blacks. That was bad. But that's history, and history that can't possibly explain why a black teenager today can't do well in school.

I am white too. I can't say I care at all if a black person demand something from me because I am white. In my eyes that person has just stressed the differences between racial groups too much.

But the true beaty in my eyes is this: When we celebrate the differences between all humans instead of making them into visible or invisible borders we can achieve alot more. Teams of any kind; work, sport, military or otherwise can make use this diversity to expand the abilities for a group beoynd the abilities of one man, or one type of man.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

there is likley to be more differences in the genetic code between two humans of the same race group than between two humas from different race groups. .

Do you have link to this information?



Additionally, YOU may not stress race difference, but society as a whole dispenses special favors based on race, this is wrong. WHen this stops, I'll embrace your Kum bah yah nonsense.

 

[ErikViking]

Do you have link to this information?

Eh... no. I just looked at the very fat guy across the corridor. I think his genetic code is closer to a rhino than mine. But his skin is atleast sort of... pink though.

Additionally, YOU may not stress race difference, but society as a whole dispenses special favors based on race, this is wrong. WHen this stops, I'll embrace your Kum bah yah nonsense.

If you too stop stressing the racial group differences we are another step closer, aren't we?

 

[ErikViking]

Do you have link to this information?

I actually found a link, but I have no idea how "valid" it is. But it speaks for my reasoning about the fat guy across the corridor!
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mcountry/Ac39901910.htm

Geneticists largely agree on the following points:

1. human populations are not now nor have they ever been isolated from each other; they can and always have interbred. Thus, they are not only the same species but it would be almost impossible to identify a set of genes that were both common to all members of one racial group or population and absent from all members of all other populations.

2. Research on the human genetic code reveal large genetic commonalities between similar species (i.e. mammals) and relatively few genetic differences within species. For example, humans are said to share 60% of their genetic code with mice, about 90% with primate species like gorillas and orangutans, and between 97 and 99.5% with their fellow humans, irrespective of race.

3. Individual genetic variations within given races or human relations are significantly greater than aggregate differences between the races. In other words, a given member of one race (person 'O1') is likely to have greater genetic differences with another member of her or his race (person '02 ') than with a given member of another race (person 'P1').

4. Most suspect are tests that seek to prove racial differences in intelligence-- tests that cannot be divorced from their social, cultural and/or political context.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I actually found a link, but I have no idea how "valid" it is. But it speaks for my reasoning about the fat guy across the corridor!
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mcountry/Ac39901910.htm

When they take the checkboxes of all applications I'll believe you.

You're basically a total moron.

 

[ErikViking]

When they take the checkboxes of all applications I'll believe you.

Stop that. The code behind different checkboxes vary less than the code behind different types of controls. Except radio buttons.

You're basically a total moron.

How dare you judge me on basis of what I say, instead of how I look!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Stop that. The code behind different checkboxes vary less than the code behind different types of controls. Except radio buttons.


How dare you judge me on basis of what I say, instead of how I look!

SHut up, sexy.:gross2:

 

[ErikViking]

SHut up, sexy.:gross2: