LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksSome of them turned out true
Not a prejudice, but a statistic: Unknown Milgram?s experiments - Web Exclusive Article - Significance Magazine
7Likes
November 28th, 2011, 05:21 PM
Some of them turned out true
Not a prejudice, but a statistic: Unknown Milgram?s experiments - Web Exclusive Article - Significance Magazine
Care to flesh your premise out a bit (lot) more before trying to get people to click a link to a random article???
Mainstream media constantly tells people that they are full of prejudices. That their world view is akin to that of naive rustics, who believe in strange forest presenses. That science easily proves that their belives are irrational and have no root in reality.Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
However, scientific experiments show that the so-called prejudices are true.
In my opinion, that is a lousy experiment. Milgram equated returning a handshake with 'niceness'. I think that is extremely suspect as a measure. The person who refuses to return a handshake may not be a nasty person, but a suspicious one. When you are approached often (in the city) by people wanting to 'sell' something, whether a religious belief, or an encyclopedia, you may not want to shake the hands of strangers, whereas in a small town, that unpleasant experience happens less often, engendering less suspicion. Yet the hand shake refuser in the city may be a very nice person, indeed.
It is also worth noting that homicide rates per capita in cities are lower than in small towns. What does that say for relative niceness?
Not a nasty, but a mean one. Ingenious objection.
Perhaps you could give the source of this knowledge?
December 1st, 2011, 03:07 AM
Niceness,Prejudices, are made behavior activity.
Real as reality.Television commercials.
Out of a care\into a care,the question.
The answer is, are you up to get beat up for this activity?
The planet are made Countries and Cities.Friendship and Culture.
The money activity and abusive business are economy activity,such the puppet ones.
The War Of Smiles. (Lucas da Costa Dantas)
Last edited by WDHellS; December 1st, 2011 at 03:27 AM.
I have encountered this statistic in several sources. Here is just one, from a quick google search.
Small towns have higher crime rates - thestar.com
Most people are surprised to find that, on a per capita basis, crime and especially violent crime, is higher in smaller communities. Perhaps it is because minor slights and grievances get more out of proportion in a small community??
there are many different types of people
but different is not the same as inferior.
you are what you are.
Imo Mainstream Media is propaganda, but Ive missed the part where they tell people they are full of prejudice, Im not sure I correctly understand what you are trying to convey.Mainstream media constantly tells people that they are full of prejudices.
Just make a search of a news site for "prejudice"
prejudice site:cnn.com - Google Search
What ISNT a form of propaganda? What makes your comment NOT propaganda?
What is learned everyday is that,
if something are made in money,it worth anything.
The effort of human mankind wasted in money.
Destruction is the form of value that enriches economy,
to shape everything capable of,and experiment another.
care to explain the relevance of this to the opening post? preferably with a better translator?
It is still not clear to me what the point is. Are you claiming that this presents some sort of contradiction?
It seems obvious to me that most people (perhaps everyone) has certain prejudices and biases. Even if they may not be aware of them and may not express them consciously. It seems equally likely that most of these are irrational; they are just attitudes we have learnt over our lives - sometime being taught them by parents or society, sometimes developing them based on personal good or bad experiences.
No doubt you can do experiments to detect/measure prejudices (whether this specific one is good or not, I don't know) and also to determine if they are rational or just emotional reactions.
I'm not sure which field of study these comments would come under.
Probably philosophy or psychology!
You think that some prejudices may be rational? Well, Oxford dictionary defines "prejudice" as something always irrational. I'll not go into discussion whether you do not know word's meaning or the Oxford dictionary offers incorrect definition. Suppose that you mean by "prejudice" what the dictionary means by "stereotype."
Now why would you think that most of them are irrational when they are
?
Parents, society and experience taught you them. Where from could you get the idea that most of them are irrational? Apparently from the news media.
Yeah, I know. I just have an aversion to making definitive statements
p.s. I'm still not sure what your original point was...
his original point was to drive traffic to his article and raise its google ranking, plain and simple.
Your statement is akin to saying that an idiot is in most cases a fool but sometimes intelligent. That is if you accept the definition that dictionary gives. Either you did not know the definition or not capable of logical thinking.Yeah, I know. I just have an aversion to making definitive statements
Thats what you are: not sure of anything.
The question was whether the things called "prejudices" are indeed such in the meaning of the word given by the dictionary, that is irrational and not based on experience. If they are not, then prejudices (in the dictionary defined meaning) do not exist.
That's Canadian data. In the US statistics can be different. There is many times more blacks in the US. And many live in cities. It is dangerous to go to most US downtowns.I have encountered this statistic in several sources. Here is just one, from a quick google search.
Small towns have higher crime rates - thestar.com
Most people are surprised to find that, on a per capita basis, crime and especially violent crime, is higher in smaller communities. Perhaps it is because minor slights and grievances get more out of proportion in a small community??
The Oxford dictionary. I just checked the same word in a dictionary of my own language (Dutch) and the definition is different.Your statement is akin to saying that an idiot is in most cases a fool but sometimes intelligent. That is if you accept the definition that dictionary gives. Either you did not know the definition or not capable of logical thinking.Yeah, I know. I just have an aversion to making definitive statements
Thats what you are: not sure of anything.
The question was whether the things called "prejudices" are indeed such in the meaning of the word given by the dictionary, that is irrational and not based on experience. If they are not, then prejudices (in the dictionary defined meaning) do not exist.
I would say that "prejudices" as defined by the Oxford dictionary does not exist, but "vooroordelen" as defined by the "VanDale" dictionary does exist.
Why?
Because of the fact that prejudices can be based on nonrepresentative experience. Having one bad experience with a certain racial group member could cause a prejudice against the whole racial group, while it is not really a representative sample. The definition in the dutch dictionary is "an opinion or aversion based on a lack of knowledge.
You tell me that a list of links to news media mentioning "prejudice" is evidence that the news media is telling me I am full of prejudices, and then you tell me that being "based on experience" shows that a belief is rational.
You seem to have an irrational belief based on some experiences you've mistaken.
We all do have irrational prejudices. I remember being trained in employee selection. One trainer got us to write down privately the sort of things that annoyed us or affected our judgements of people. We didn't have to reveal this stuff, but a lot did anyway. People disliked everything from dirty, down at heel shoes to people who sniff to perfume/aftershave to race, through to choice of words (management bafflegab was the prime target here.) If you never consciously examine your own perceptions and reactions to people, it's very hard to see that you are, like everyone else, prejudiced in all sorts of little, and not so little, ways.
When it comes to the big ones, like race, it's worth accepting that you do have irrational prejudices. Try Avenue Q's famous piece on this. Avenue Q - Everyone's a Little Bit Racist - YouTube
Icewendigo rightly asks for evidence that mainstream media constantly tell people they are full of prejudices. You offer a search engine link to demonstrate this. Let's take a look at the first ten hits from this link.Just make a search of a news site for "prejudice"
prejudice site:cnn.com - Google Search
Summit teaches kids anti-prejudice messages - CNN
This link seems to demonstrate that there are well organised groups of citizens committed to eradicating prejudices wherever they are encountered. Certainly that acknowledges prejudice exists, but does the article 'constantly tell us we are full of prejudices'? I think not. The thrust of the article is that many people not only lack prejudice, but seek to fight it at every opportunity.
Prejudice – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs
Likewise in this site we lear how a Californian town, concerned about a cross burning incident, has called in the FBI to help investigate. So rather than telling us that 'we are all full of prejudices' the media are telling us that a concerned town administration has asked for federal help to combat a singular expression of prejudice.
Summit teaches kids anti-prejudice messages - CNN.com
This is a further report about the summit discussed in link 1. It contains this quote from a participant. "In my opinion, the best thing about the POP Summit is being able to see students become so open-minded about other people and ideas," said Adryan. It seems the media are telling us that prejudices can be efficiently erdicated from individuals, not that 'we are all full of prejudices'.
The fourth link is a review of a book called, I think, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Video: Activists claim prejudice in HIV fight – Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs
This is a sir Elton John, as an hiv activist, claiming their is prejudice against homosexual, black Americans and intra-venous drug users in relation to treatment. However, the entire thrust of the video is that this prejudice is being resisted.
So I find your statement disproven, which surely calls into question your argument.
simus, what's your understanding of the term "prejudice"? If you haven't thought about it, yet, you may start by translating the word.
A prejudice leads you to believe something. Whether that "something" turns out to be true or not does not change the fact that your belief originated from a prejudice, rather than from critical thinking. "True" or "false" has absolutely nothing to do with it. The question is "how did you arrive at your belief" ?
Take this for example. Let's say I am a president of a country, prejudiced against another country X, for whatever reason. Maybe I don't like the way those people look or talk, or the kind of church they visit. I am so obsessed with them, that I want to go to war. To justify that, I collect some ridiculously dodgy evidence that country X possesses weapons of mass destruction and intends to use them against us. I don't even believe the crap myself, but I use it to convince everyone that we need to attack. So we attack. We find no weapons of mass destruction. I shrug, and I say: Well, I guess that evidence wasn't really accurate, but how was I supposed to know? I hide the fact that I was always motivated by my prejudice, not real evidence. Now, let's consider the possibility that we might have found WMDs. Would that have vindicated me? In the view of the public, certainly, but that's just because they are ignorant of my deceit. If my ridiculous claim, based on fabricated evidence, had turned out to be true against all odds, purely by chance, would that make it any less of a prejudice and me any less of a disingenuous crook? Nonsense! Decisions have to judged by their rationale, given the quality of the evidence at hand, when the decision was made. A bad decision making process is not vindicated by chance success in hindsight.
If I predict that the world will end tomorrow, based on nothing but my current blood alcohol level, and the world turns out to end tomorrow... well, that makes me "right" in one sense. But it doesn't change the fact that I was telling you bull-shit at the time.
Whether your prejudice turns out to be right or wrong, it still is a prejudice.
The same logic applies to "lying". Whether I am lying or not is primarily a question of my own state of mind (that's why it's so difficult to detect and prove). I can tell you a falsehood because I happen to believe in it and just don't know any better. That's not lying. I am lying when I tell you something that I myself don't believe in. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant. I can tell you, as a matter of fact, that it will rain tomorrow. I am really don't believe it because I read the forecast of perfect sunshine. Well, the forecast turns out to be totally wrong at it does rain. So what? You could say I told you the "truth". But that was not my intention. That was not the truth in my mind. I still lied to you because I told you something I did not believe in myself.
Don't confuse absolute truth with subjective beliefs and intentions.
There are other modes of forming a belief without critical thinking: trusting an authority, relying on a reputation, and stereotyping. If you just split the word pre-judice than you can interprete it as forming a judgement before analyzing. However it is not how the word is used. It is used to describe an irrational mode of arriving to a belief. Similarly if I say that your argument is lousy it does not mean that I see lice crowling between the words of your comment.
Too bad. But you still might consider one thing in defence of that president: he did not get a Nobel peace prize.
And what about the case when you refuse to discuss the statistics just because you have a prejudice against the organization which presents it?
Racial oppression of the whites
It is an irrational mode of holding a belief.
It's a belief you hold coming in, that is held against rather than with reason. Approaching political situations in the belief that whites are an oppressed race in the US makes a pretty clear example.
Who does appoach situations in such belief? Where did you get it from? From your prejuddice? If you are talking about the tread "Racial oppression of the whites" it merely suggest to consider such a possibility. Most importantly, I linked to a particular post in that thread. Forum software attaches to such links the title of the thread. Did you ever follow that link?
Something like a quarter of the electorate in the US, if polls are worth anything.
On the general subject of the existence of prejudices, in particular racial ones, one might take in a viewing of this evening's (1/12) Daily Show's compilation of quotes from Newt Gingrich - Newt, we recall, has been elected by popular vote to statewide representative office, is considered to have great intelligence and superior political insight, and has been a well supported candidate for President of the entire nation.
I like people who are prejudiced(but not have hatred) towards others. I think their EQ(emotional quotient) is more and therefore there is certainty in actions of these people. These people have clearcut set of beliefs and we can tap this ressource for common benefit.
Are you thinking of someone like Hitler or Stalin?
Something like a quarter of the electorate in the US, if polls are worth anything.
On the general subject of the existence of prejudices, in particular racial ones, one might take in a viewing of this evening's (1/12) Daily Show's compilation of quotes from Newt Gingrich - Newt, we recall, has been elected by popular vote to statewide representative office, is considered to have great intelligence and superior political insight, and has been a well supported candidate for President of the entire nation.
I don't see how we can debate the views of Gingrich when you did not even post the quotations, which, by the way, could well be taken out of context. But you did not even present the out of contest quotations, just your prejudiced opinion. Most importantly you did not answer my straight question. Now I am not posting the link, but am quoting directly from the other thread.
Did i_feel_tiredsleepy demonstrate us his prejudice?The New Century Foundation is a white supremacist organization...
(Edit: Even worse is that they are funded by the Pioneer Fund, an organization that advocates eugenics).
Not really. The New century Foundation has a history of cherry picking data to support the notion of racial separation and cast minorities on a bad light. It's The Color of Crime is a good example because it correctly reports the overwelming evidence for high black crime in the country but doesn't factor (perhaps deliberately) in or account for gross social economical differences which show up as just as strong signal in numerous other studies.
The fact that many people would debate whether Gingrich was demonstrating the existence of racial and ethnic prejudice, in those quotes, proves the existence of quite widespread racial and ethnic prejudice.
If you like, I can supply you with a running series of quotes from my own daily experiences as I go to work, etc. Here's an example, from my first fifteen minute break on a recent pickup job, from the boss I had just met, by way of introducing himself to me and launching a subject of lunchtime discussion:
"Why can't we get some psychopath to shoot that fucking nigger in the White House?"
Even when the people are not familiar with those quotes?
We probably live in different countries. In the country I live in, Nobel Laureate James Whatson lost his job for a far milder remark than the one you quote.
Note that the one whom you friend had mentioned (I am not going to use your friend's language) is indeed in the White House. And even got a Nobel Peace prize, and started a war.
He was the boss - owned the place. He wasn't going to get fired. Neither were any of the employees engaging in the subsequent good-humored banter about the proper ammunition etc.We probably live in different countries. In the country I live in, Nobel Laureate James Whatson lost his job for a far milder remark than the one you quote.
The point is that racial prejudices not only exist in the US, they are common and acceptable to the point of invisibility in many social venues. And not just the US - as you, for example, illustrate.
Perhaps, you should have speak up then, if it indeed happened as you are saying. Now you will have difficulty to prove that it at all did happen. Why did nobody say me such things, especially as an an introduction?
The conversation you describe (if it indeed happen) does not show any prejudice, just a hostile attitude. You undestand the difference?
Did not I write in my preceding post
"In the country I live in, Nobel Laureate James Whatson lost his job for a far milder remark than the one you quote."
?
In what country did James Whatson lose his job for a thought crime?
I am posting this before reading the whole article,
I think there (may) be another reason for these % figures,
People that live in small towns are much (socially closer) to each other than people who live in big cities.
in a small town you can leave your front door unlucked, and when you are sick, your nieghbors bring you food.
but in a big city this is 100% the opposite.
In the big city people fill their souls with movies, plays, art gallarys, and concerts. (and as they walk around every one around them is a stranger.)
but in a small town their souls are filled with high school football, and partys outside gas stations/ large piers. (and they know every one around them.)
when some one in a small town is approached to shake hands (they may be thinking, this person may be my nieghbors cousin, and if I refuse to shake their hand, every one in the whole town will be talking, how I dont shake hands with my nieghbors family, and so they shake hands.)
But in a big city if someone you dont know is trying to shake your hand (they may be thinking this, this person is going to try to pick pocket me, try to sell me drugs, or ask me for money.)
But I would like to know, who is actually nicer/ and more caring, those who live in big cities or smaller towns ???
I believe the culture of small towns is nicer, but what about the actual people ?
I have noticed how familys break apart fully in big cities, once the children reach 20 or so, they goto college , or move far away. and then family only see each other for holidays, and baby sitting drop offs.
but in small town culture, theres a better chance the 20 year old will buy a house 2 minutes away, and visit their parents every weekend, so the kids can see the grandparents, and they can all , pressure/can home grown vegitables together.
I think it is natural for our species to live in a (familly group) of 8-12.
And I think theres a solid chance, that people in small towns live closer to this 8-12 group, b/c their children stay close, and family sees each other more.
how did these possible more natural living arangements, effect the personallitys of small town vs. large town people ?
is their less stress ?
longer life spans ?
less depression ?
less crazy crimes ?
but we are a (highly) adaptable animal, these big city people may beat the small town people.
I just checked online "stress levels big cities vs. small towns"
and the data I saw (that I trusted as a fair source), showed how people in big cities outperform small towns and rural areas.
In (all) things like health, well being, and normal behavior.
the only thing this data said, small towns beat big cities in is "satisfaction of their jobs" I cant understand this, I thought the data would be 80% the opposite of what it is. I thought the small town people would have less stress, and be happyier, and I thought big city people would love their jobs more.
this is 80% the opposite that I felt the data would show.
and I felt as if big city people would rely on their jobs for social needs, I felt that the data would have been the opposite.
So your friend had ignored the data (which is correct by your own admission) and did not demonstrate a prejudice? That The New century Foundation did not accompany statistical data with your favorite explanation is "cherry picking?" Do you understand the meaning of the expression that you used? Besides, your insistance that The Color of Crime should have included data on economical differences is a prejudice. Why that and not other available scientific data?Not really. The New century Foundation has a history of cherry picking data to support the notion of racial separation and cast minorities on a bad light. It's The Color of Crime is a good example because it correctly reports the overwelming evidence for high black crime in the country but doesn't factor (perhaps deliberately) in or account for gross social economical differences which show up as just as strong signal in numerous other studies.
I'm not sure who you're referring to as "friend." And when you ignore other evidence that's been show time and time again to have a relationship with the data your using, sometimes not even mention it, then yes you're cherry picking. Informed people are left to conclude his work is either incomplete, willfully ignorant or deliberately biased towards some alternative ends. Given Taylors history of making money through white supremacist payed speaking tours and supporting them with bad research and an thin varnish of legitimacy, it's obvious that Taylor is a racist...it's about that simple.
The people whom you call "white supremacists" are your countrymen who just happened to have a different opinion than yours. In a free society you should debate your opponents using logic and facts rather than call them names. Your statement is logic-free and fact-free and is appropriate for Two Minutes Hate and not for a scientific discussion. In addition you used an idiom the meaning of which you do not understand.
Perfectly reasonable not to shake hands for infection control reasons, "niceness" in that case defined as NOT wanting to get others sick. Are homicide rates relevant though? Many homicides do not involve stranger to stranger contact- in fact they can be "intimate", involving spouses, lovers, friends and family, etc., people we are generally accepted as being "nice" to.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Victim offender relationship
Is it now? That studies show the predominant social economic relationships on crime that disproportionate effect blacks, but is still seen in white populations?
http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/77/1/185.short
That Jarad Taylor is on the board of editors for the Council of conservative citizens who puts on their Newspaper Citizens Informer,: "God is the author of racism. God is the One who divided mankind into different types. ... Mixing the races is rebelliousness against God.""— Council of Conservative Citizens website, 2001 (...sooo tempted...but I'll let dogs lie)
Council of Conservative Citizens
Look at the stories they're running now. Look at their principles. They are racist, not interested in the least in objective view of the problems of our nation, nor following our principles.
Perhaps, you could summarise the data? Are crime levels of blacks and whites in the same income category identical? Is it so?
Which issue of Citizen informer are you referring to? Those that I've seen look far more reasonable than that
http://cofcc.org/newspaper/june10ci.pdf
Whose principles? Your personal principles, or those of Founding Fathers?
http://www.historytools.org/sources/Jefferson-Race.pdf
You call Jared Taylor a racist and white supremacist, but could as well call him a Jeffersonian.
Finally, I am not interested in the labels you could put on Jared Taylor. I used his publication as a source of information. And you admit that the information was accurate. However, forum members called this information false. Not because they studied it critically, but because they have prejudices agains the so called "racists" and "white supremacists."
Pretty much any of them. Take the one in your link. If the declaration of preserving the US as "European", or anti-Jewish book reports, or flagrant lies about desegregation didn't raise an eyebrow...Which issue of Citizen informer are you referring to?
To ping the last one again since low IQ, low school performance and high crime (see Study finds increased education lowers crime) tend to go hand-in-hand in the cities the article ignores quite a few studies showing race/ethnic background have very little predictive value. Here's a sprinkling....
On child academic performance.
"(d) ethnicity showed little unique prediction, and (e) the quality of the neighborhood showed small but unique prediction to externalizing problems."
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/35/2/403/
"No significant ethnic group differences between African American and Caucasian families were found in these relations. (school performance)"
Parent Involvement in School Conceptualizing Multiple Dimensions and Their Relations with Family and Demographic Risk Factors
You see Jefferson didn't' have such scientific numbers to look at and he experiences were limited to mostly anecdotal experiences with slaves who were prevented from learning to read; I think we can excuse the conflict between his ideals of "all men are created equal" and his believe that they were not intelligent enough to represent themselves. We have no such excuse.
I did ask from which issue you took the quote "God is the author of racism. God is the One who divided mankind into different types. ... Mixing the races is rebelliousness against God."
Why anecdotal? Did not Jefferson own black slaves?
Yeah. Wickid Jefferson pulled Alphabet books out of the hands of black children who were craving for knowledge.
Says Big Sister.
Look up the meaning of anecdotal.Why anecdotal? Did not Jefferson own black slaves?
Perhaps, you should do it if you call the knowledge derived by Jefferson from many years of dealing with many blacks an anecdote.
Besides you again did not answer my question about the source of the rasist God quote. Are you taking the fifth?
Let us cut to the chase simus. Are you arguing that African Americans are intellectually and socially inferior to those of white European stock? If not, what is your assertion?
I second John Galt's request. You are walking a very fine line here and I must say it looks like you are coming from the bad side. Please state your position and intention with these threads of yours now.
I third that request, lets stop dancing around the subject.
Among the things he learned was that a black woman would make a good lover, a suitable lifelong companion, and an excellent mother for his children.
Jefferson had an extensive library and ample resources for schooling, yet his child slaves did not attend school. Why not?
OK. What is your point?
I have little interest in blacks. The point is that there is a group of dissidents in America who have a different view on human biodeversity. These dissidents are called all sorts of names and sometimes even put to jail for their views. Meanwhile their arguments are not even discussed being outright dismissed as irrational. I am investigating the treatment of the American dissidents by the establishment using the principles put forward by Solzhenitsyn.
are you suggesting that if one group has slightly lower intelligence that that would make them 'inferior' human beings???!!!
Obfuscation without actually answering the question posed.I have little interest in blacks. The point is that there is a group of dissidents in America who have a different view on human biodeversity. These dissidents are called all sorts of names and sometimes even put to jail for their views. Meanwhile their arguments are not even discussed being outright dismissed as irrational. I am investigating the treatment of the American dissidents by the establishment using the principles put forward by Solzhenitsyn.
Answer the question simus. What group? What do they believe? Are you a part of this group?I have little interest in blacks. The point is that there is a group of dissidents in America who have a different view on human biodeversity. These dissidents are called all sorts of names and sometimes even put to jail for their views. Meanwhile their arguments are not even discussed being outright dismissed as irrational. I am investigating the treatment of the American dissidents by the establishment using the principles put forward by Solzhenitsyn.
If a guy has an inferior intellect to mine, then I am superior to him as far as intellect goes. If he has less strength than me, then I am stronger. If a guy has less money than me, then I have more than him. In all of these scenarios, I am superior to this individual in those areas. Does that mean I am supposed to have any more rights than this guy or that my happiness is more important than his? No it doesn't.are you suggesting that if one group has slightly lower intelligence that that would make them 'inferior' human beings???!!!
Some racial groups have on average lower IQ scores. This is a fact, but IQ is not a very good indicator of the broad spectrum of human mental faculties. Tribes in Nepal can survive much more comfortably at altitude than most other humans. They are superior to most other humans in this regard as a matter of fact. We are all different.
Are you troubled by not being Korean?are you suggesting that if one group has slightly lower intelligence that that would make them 'inferior' human beings???!!!
my point is that
different ≠ inferior
I think people (and americans in particular) sometimes forget that.
Agreed, though in this context one has to define inferiority imo, or use a different word altogether for instances where a person clearly is inferior to another in a specific area.
Difference is not a measure of worth (maybe)? And simply better at and worse at, instead of inferior and superior? Racists and the like have made it necessary for normal, rational people to have to pussyfoot around certain terms in order to maintain political correctness.
And you were too wrapped up in your own indignation to see I was making an even stronger point?
This is a diverse group of people (to which I also belong). Some of us believe in the Greek Pantheon. Yet other woship Norse gods and are getting ready for the upcoming Ragnarok. Other of us believe in the divinity of Christ, The Holy Ghost, and the Communion of Saints. And yet other are Vishnu worshipers, who anticipate the coming of the Tenth Avatar. This is a highly an incomplete list, as the group as I said is very diverse. For example, some of us are actually Anarcho-Stalinists.
[QUOTE=simus;315689]You just gotta love those Anarcho-Stanlinists. Always up for a party and a nice dose of delusional thinking.
This is even less to the point requested then your last post.This is a diverse group of people (to which I also belong). Some of us believe in the Greek Pantheon. Yet other woship Norse gods and are getting ready for the upcoming Ragnarok. Other of us believe in the divinity of Christ, The Holy Ghost, and the Communion of Saints. And yet other are Vishnu worshipers, who anticipate the coming of the Tenth Avatar. This is a highly an incomplete list, as the group as I said is very diverse. For example, some of us are actually Anarcho-Stalinists.
Try again,
Are you arguing that African Americans are intellectually and socially inferior to those of white European stock? If not, what is your assertion?
Also the contrapositive: similar = superior seems as common and as damaging (among Americans in particular).my point is that
different ≠ inferior
I think people (and americans in particular) sometimes forget that.
There's nothing "different" about ignorance and bigotry. It's as common as dirt, and always has been.
Last edited by iceaura; March 24th, 2012 at 07:15 PM.
I did not get an answer to my question about the source of the quote. The link you gave does not contain it. However internet search for the quote leads to SPLC website
Council of Conservative Citizens | Southern Poverty Law Center
Apparently this is were you took the quote from. Apparently this is also the source of your prejudiced opinion about CoCC. Can you rationally and logically explain why I should trust the opinion of SPLC of CoCC more than I should trust the opinion of CoCC of SPLC?
I think this is the fourth time you've been asked:
"Are you arguing that African Americans are intellectually and socially inferior to those of white European stock? If not, what is your assertion?"
Do you have any intention of answering this question? It's not difficult surely. Be aware that in the absence of an answer most people will provide one for you. Is that what you want? (You can ignore these last questions if you just answer the ones we've been asking for a while.)
OK. I admit the guilt. I am a born Klansman. An this is not just a figure of speach: before I was born my daddy enlisted me with the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. And my mommy while pregnant with me made the attire for me from a white sheet using that old pedal-powered Singer sewing machine. The first sound I recall is that of the Horst Wessel Lied. It came from the old 78rpm disk my family used to play every week. My mommy told me that she felt me marching in her belly. Kameraden die Rot Front und Reaktion erchsossen marchiern im Geist in unser Reichen mit. The fallen comrades are marching in Spirit and the unborn Kamerad is marching in his mothers womb. This is the moral strength, the power, the potency of our movement which will make you shudder. This is what makes me believe that one day our U-boat will sink your Nagelfahr. My first visual recollection is that of the tetragammadion, the good-luck charm, the revelation of eternal return. I am talking about the Holy Swastika.
The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan? Ahahahaha!Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
What makes me shudder is the kind of ignorant, morally bankrupted, racist, supremacist crap that is able to ensnare the minds of so many people. We humans sure can be a foul species sometimes.This is the moral strength, the power, the potency of our movement which will make you shudder
This bit makes me suspect that this bloke is winding us up.And my mommy while pregnant with me made the attire for me from a white sheet using that old pedal-powered Singer sewing machine.
But that still doesn't change much. Anyone who thinks that this notion is amusing or something is seriously warped. Or has a tin ear for how such 'jokes' come across when written rather than spoken in jest (still not very funny but you can backtrack or change the subject in conversation).
I think it is wonderful you have such a powerful contact with your roots. It must be a source of great comfort in times of trouble. However, you still haven't actually answered the question. Perhaps you mistook me for a simpleton who would be distracted by your colourful personal history. So, for the fifth time (and answer directly, without obfuscation). "Are you arguing that African Americans are intellectually and socially inferior to those of white European stock? If not, what is your assertion?"
I am surprised that such a wise and distinguished atlas, like yourself, asks such a naive question. What could have happened when the Horst Wessel Lied was taken in subliminaly, absorbed by embrio's gills? Could the baby become anything but an ichthyological racist? Now would you answer my question: who is John Galt?
Again obfuscation without answering the question please answer:
"Are you arguing that African Americans are intellectually and socially inferior to those of white European stock? If not, what is your assertion?"
I don't know. Now please answer the question directly. If you choose not to do so I shall report your posts for infringement of forum rules and move to have you banned. This is a discussion forum - so answer the question.
Your childhood background may be that of a brown shit, excuse me - brown shirt, but I would like specific confirmation.
Time to lock this crap.
If no answer is forthcoming, there's really no point.
Agreed, he has been asked over 10 times in two threads no, and all that has happened is obfuscation and deflection.
Good argumentation! I must say that the article doesn't prove anything at all, imo. It's over simplifyed and the princples presented, are not well compareable.Not a nasty, but a mean one. Ingenious objection.
Perhaps you could give the source of this knowledge?
Looks more like an interrogation forum to me. It confirms what James Edwards wrote in the CoCC newspaper I linked before. When the egalitarians encounter an argument which they cannot debate they call the person, who put forward the argument, a racist-schmacist. The rest of the conversation the accused is proving that he is not a racist-schmacist. The argument that upset the egalitarians is thus no longer debated.
What assertion are you talking about?
Assertion | Define Assertion at Dictionary.comas·ser·tion noun
1. a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason: a mere assertion; an unwarranted assertion.
I do not have any assertions. I am interested in facts and reason. Why did you decide that I have an assertion? Your prejudice advised you so?
In reality the people who say that they lack prejudice are full of those. And what they fight against is the reality.
Reported, and suggested banning.
Locked and simus' future is being discussed. It doesn't look good.
| « Obesity/Psychology. | Melbourne's Ravens. » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
