Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think what you are engaging in is called deflection. This topic is not about Kwame....is it? You are employing an argument fallacy called "poisoning the well". In other words, you are trying to poison this discussion by bringing up another discussion, instead of dealing with the merits of this discussion.
I think when one resorts to the use of fallacies, to argue, that such is a general admission that "They got nothing", and hence take to a path of trickery.
I would expect a higher level of logical argument from someone who fancies himself as the "Mathguy".
1) I find it highly logical to point out that your proven track record makes any real debate with you on this type of topic an impossible proposition.
2) The fact that you blame all of Kwame's *problems* on racism means that Kwame is entirely germane to the discussion at hand....because it reveals that you see racism behind every rock and bush and would cry racism if your bread fell butter side down.
My comments here aren't even really intended for you as we both know that is a waste of breath. I consider them a warning to others as to the extremity of your position on this topic.
Oh, and the feds are after Kwame with more charges which must be because Obama is a racist or something.
One is all it takes. If the media can find one racist sign
at an event then everyone there is branded a racist.
Thus can one conclude that if there were no such signs that no one there is/was a racist?
I guess the question I ponder is do people believe that humans have a demonstrated propensity to hide things from people if they someone how feel there is a cost associated with exposure? What I am hearing is that one can only be a racist if they let other people know that they are a racist. Can one only be a pedophile if they let their friends and relationships know of their sick attraction? Why would'nt they let it be common knowledge? Hence, why would'nt a racist want it to be common knowledge, in these times, that they are racist?
1) I find it highly logical to point out that your proven track record makes any real debate with you on this type of topic an impossible proposition.
2) The fact that you blame all of Kwame's *problems* on racism means that Kwame is entirely germane to the discussion at hand....because it reveals that you see racism behind every rock and bush and would cry racism if your bread fell butter side down.
My comments here aren't even really intended for you as we both know that is a waste of breath. I consider them a warning to others as to the extremity of your position on this topic.
Oh, and the feds are after Kwame with more charges which must be because Obama is a racist or something.
I have made thousands of post. Note my post count. Thus, my track record is formed from THOUSANDS of post. You referenced ONE/UNO!!! That does not represent neither a pattern nor a track record, but rather, an INSTANCE. Hence, more trickery and fallacy on your part to mask the fact that "YOU GOT NOTHIN"....on topics such as this (other than emotions of insecurity....note your emotion icons..... and or anger).
Again.....I wait to see evidence of why you fancy yourself as the "Mathguy", when you are being so illogical.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 02-14-2012 at 02:44 PM..
I have this controversial question in terms of racism. What percent of whites need to be racist for blacks to legitimately argue that racism continues to play a major role in black inequality? Now ask yourself this question: "What percent of people engaging in criminal activity does it take to make living in a city or certain neighborhood unsafe?" A couple of criminals can terrorize and victimize an entire neighborhood, via the one-to-many relationship. No? Thus, what percent of whites need to be racist for black cries of racism to be legitimate?
I ask this question because I have noticed a propensity for people to try and discredit the impact of racism by attempting to argue that all white people are not racist or not even most. Detroit is considered to be a dangerous city even though only a very small percent of people are engaging in violent criminal activity. In other words, what percent of Detroiters need to be violent criminals for one to credibly argue that Detroit is dangerous to the degree that you would not want to live there because of crime? What percent of whites living in America need to be racist to create an oppressive existence for black in America, by the same token then?
Well, let me answer your question with another question.
How many African Americans have to be racists before blacks acknowledge they have a racist problem?
Its none of anyones business if a private individual is racist, or doesn't want to hire anyone because they are racist.
Do you really want to be an black man or woman working for a racist boss? I'd rather my boss tell me up front.
Well, let me answer your question with another question.
How many African Americans have to be racists before blacks acknowledge they have a racist problem?
Its none of anyones business if a private individual is racist, or doesn't want to hire anyone because they are racist.
Do you really want to be an black man or woman working for a racist boss? I'd rather my boss tell me up front.
I cannot answer that question because society keeps moving the goal post in regards to the definition of racism. Whites do not like the fact that racism is a term that, as originally defined, mapped to the collective impact of their behavior. Thus, they expanded the definition to include the reactions of distrust, fear, resentment or anger that is the reaction to the action of being racially oppressed. It can certainly be argued that distrust, fear, resentment and anger would not exist towards whites if not for the history of white oppression upon blacks. Thus, if I am pushed maliciously and I resent it.....my resentment is the moral equivalent of the malicious attack. Yeah......to hear the perp tell it.
I cannot answer that question because society keeps moving the goal post in regards to the definition of racism. Whites do not like the fact that racism is a term that, as originally defined, mapped to the collective impact of their behavior. Thus, they expanded the definition to include the reactions of distrust, fear, resentment or anger that is the reaction to the action of being racially oppressed. It can certainly be argued that distrust, fear, resentment and anger would not exist towards whites if not for the history of white oppression upon blacks. Thus, if I am pushed maliciously and I resent it.....my resentment is the moral equivalent of the malicious attack. Yeah......to hear the perp tell it.
Look, I know white racists, my Grandfather is one. Told me when I was a child that the curse or "scar" that God put on Cain was to make him black, and all of his descendants are all black, and they are all evil sinners.
I do not have these views myself, my best friend from age 10 was black and we were thick as thieves.
But when his cousins came over, they used to beat me up because I was "that white boy". Brad would try and help me, but he would usually end up getting told to sit down by his older cousins.
Racism runs both ways. I worked and lived in Detroit for 4 years. I was shot at, spit on, bricks thrown at me, etc. None of them had a very light complexion when they did it.
To acknowledge that racism is a natural human reaction to visible differences is to acknowledge the real problem. Even Europe before the slave trade had racist tendencies against the Moors, as they did against the whites.
Everyone has to change, and most people have. But there is racism, there will likely always be racism, and until we learn to just allow people to be open about it so that we can shun it as a society, things won't move forward.
Look, I know white racists, my Grandfather is one. Told me when I was a child that the curse or "scar" that God put on Cain was to make him black, and all of his descendants are all black, and they are all evil sinners.
I do not have these views myself, my best friend from age 10 was black and we were thick as thieves.
But when his cousins came over, they used to beat me up because I was "that white boy". Brad would try and help me, but he would usually end up getting told to sit down by his older cousins.
Racism runs both ways. I worked and lived in Detroit for 4 years. I was shot at, spit on, bricks thrown at me, etc. None of them had a very light complexion when they did it.
To acknowledge that racism is a natural human reaction to visible differences is to acknowledge the real problem. Even Europe before the slave trade had racist tendencies against the Moors, as they did against the whites.
Everyone has to change, and most people have. But there is racism, there will likely always be racism, and until we learn to just allow people to be open about it so that we can shun it as a society, things won't move forward.
I look at it like this. If racism really worked both ways......would'nt it work out to be a socioeconoimc wash? If racism worked both ways then the IMPACT of racism would work both ways and hence there would not be these socioeconomic statistical skews which show whites doing far better than blacks. If black people gave as much racism as we recieved.....then we would be all equal today.....unless one assumes that we are not equal because one race is naturally superior to the other and hence naturally rises above the other. If not the latter, then obviously racism has not really worked both ways....but worked for whites. I am looking for the statistical evidence of racism working both ways to the degree that it has stunted white advancement like it has stunted blacks. unless you can show me such evidence.....I am going to have to call BS!
I look at it like this. If racism really worked both ways......would'nt it work out to be a socioeconoimc wash? If racism worked both ways then the IMPACT of racism would work both ways and hence there would not be these socioeconomic statistical skews which show whites doing far better than blacks. If black people gave as much racism as we recieved.....then we would be all equal today.....unless one assumes that we are not equal because one race is naturally superior to the other and hence naturally rises above the other. If not the latter, then obviously racism has not really worked both ways....but worked for whites. I am looking for the statistical evidence of racism working both ways to the degree that it has stunted white advancement like it has stunted blacks. unless you can show me such evidence.....I am going to have to call BS!
I know a lot of rich black folks and white folks.
The socioeconomic problem has more to do with the poverty cycle then it does racism.
That works equally as much against poor whites as it does blacks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
