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 dismissed what you said because "what you said" was a bizarre theory that only makes sense in your own mind, and maybe the minds of a few people who are desperately trying to rationalize away painful truths.
Like, if I blew hard for 5000 words trying to prove the existance of bigfoot citing nothing more than my own conjecture, that would be pretty easy to dismiss on face value without having to delve into statistics.
That's basically what you did (only your "theories" were absent any external citation or support of any kind)
It's usually a good sign that if someone can't be succinct in making their point, the point they're trying to make is poorly footed.
Total red herring- you're being intentionally distractionary again.
The Civil Rights Act mainly addressed institutional segregation in Southern States, however, forward motion for the "equality movement" (which was born a couple decades earlier, after world war II) is timed precisely with demonstrable corrosions in black culture.
Your basically saying that the Civil Rights Act was a spontaneous occurrence and that it's principles and ideals (and their attendant social and cultural impacts) cannot be considered as having existed prior to 1965... LOL. You're sure a sharp one.
LOL!
Wrong.
Do you want the "poor black versus poor white" statistics now, or should I let you hang yourself even further by making such totally incorrect statements- then bash you with them?
Your pain, your call.
God, you really are "something else".
Again, your predicating your broader social ideas on the existance of regional verbal accentuation and an assumption that people are unable to rise above (or sink beneath) the achievement benchmarks of their culture.
Gotta give that one a big FAIL, much like everything else you've written
When questioning someones intelligence, try to at least learn the difference between "write" and "right", or else, we'll have what we have here; you looking like an ass.
You make it way too easy. Look I cannot debate with a high-school student. Your level of understanding redementary debating skills rivals that of a 6 year old. It is really beyond lackluster, childish, and remotely peonic, so rather than debate someone who clearly has no foot in reality or inetlligence i'll leave you with the links to most of the work i cite. I highly doubt you will be able to comprehend either Thomas Sowell or Gary Becker, but nonetheless as they say maybe it will "learn you."
Sorry, i'm really not that big of an intellectual elitist, but your insults have given me no choice, but to seriously put you in your place. The first story i'll leave you with is from an article published in the Cornell American relating to Thomas Sowell's Book Black Rednecks and White Liberals.
"Next time you see a ghetto black man with his street identity on display, be sure to tell him that he’s acting white. Wait, no, I must have it backwards. Those who dress nicely, work hard at school, and prefer ladies to b*tches and ho’s are the ones acting white, right? The brilliant Thomas Sowell says the former is more accurate, and he’s got a lot of evidence to back it up.
In his most recent book, “Black Rednecks and White Liberals,” this particular “Uncle Tom” provides thorough evidence challenging the common truths of the left that suggest the ghetto culture made of Ebonics, aggressive pride, hostility towards authority, and idleness is the unique identity of many blacks in America.
In fact, this way of life is not at all unique to the blacks of today, Sowell says, “What is painfully ironic is that such attitudes and behavior are projected today as aspects of a distinctive ‘black identity,’ when in fact they are part of a centuries-old pattern among the whites in whose midst generations of blacks lived in the South.”
In his first essay of the book, Sowell takes us back in history to show us the astonishing similarities between the ghetto black culture of today and the white redneck culture of the South from which most urban blacks came.
Sowell begins by pointing out that this way of life, common to “crackers” and urban blacks, was always scorned no matter the color of the skin of those practicing it. To see this we can examine a few incomplete quotations from the book:
“A 1951 survey in Detroit found that [blank] living there were considered ‘undesirable’ by 21 percent of those surveyed, compared to 13 percent who ranked [blank] the same way.”
“In the late 1940’s, a Chicago employer said frankly, ‘I told the guard at the plant gate to tell the [blank] that there were no openings.’”
“When poor whites from the South moved into Northern cities to work in war plants during the Second World War, ‘occasionally a [blank] would find that a flat or furnished room had ‘just been rented’ when the landlord heard his [blank] accent.’”
If the point of this exercise weren’t already apparent, you would expect that the blanks getting the short end of the stick should be replaced with blacks. Well, surprise surprise, you’d be wrong. For (1), the first blank is white Southerners, and the second is blacks. Number 2’s blank is filled in with “hillbillies,” and the blanks of (3) are replaced with “white southerner” and “southern.”
If the culprit of these actions and attitudes toward white Southerners moving to cities can’t be racism, then what is it? Thomas Sowell has the answer, “More is involved here than a mere parallel between blacks and Southern whites. What is involved is a common subculture that goes back for centuries, which has encompassed everything from ways of talking to attitudes toward education, violence, and sex…”
This subculture did not originate in the ghettos or the American South, but in the parts of the United Kingdom that were home to the ancestors of white Southerners. Not long after many of these Brits left for the American South the culture died out in Britain, but it remained in the southern United States. Eventually it also died out in the South, and now only survives in those ghetto streets on which decent people are afraid to walk at night. Aspects of this detrimental redneck subculture such as pride and violence, economic activity, intellectual activity, religion, and speech are all undoubtedly similar, if not identical, to those same features in today’s black ghettos.
Take for instance the pride of the hillbilly and the violence that resulted from it. The pride spoken of is not the pride felt over any particular personal accomplishment or moral standard, but “instead a touchiness about anything that might be even remotely construed as a personal slight, much less an insult, combined with a willingness to erupt into violence over it.”
Sowell provides a number of examples of this ridiculous rage that arises over what we would now call a “dis.” In one particular example an Englishman decided to hire another man to work on his house when the Southerner he had initially hired some time ago still had not begun working. As a result this “dissed” Southerner threatens to show up at the Englishman’s house with a crowd of his redneck buddies with a guarantee that either he or the Englishman would die. These white Southerners exhibited “a reckless disregard for human life, including their own,” and we often see the same in the gang cultures of the ghettos where murder seemingly without motive is not uncommon.
Regarding pride, there are more parallels, “Among the definitions of a ‘cracker’ in the Oxford dictionary is a ‘braggart’—one who ‘talks trash’ in today’s vernacular—a wisecracker. More than mere wisecracks were involved, however. The pattern is one said…to go back to descriptions of ancient Celts as ‘boasters and threateners, and given to bombastic self-dramatization.” Sound familiar?
Sowell goes on to add, “Examples today come readily to mind, not only from ghetto life and gangsta rap, but also from militant black ‘leaders,’ spokesmen or activists.” Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and 50 Cent all exhibit these qualities. They are quickly on the defensive when their infallible opinions are questioned, or in 50 Cent and other gangsta rappers’ case they’ll rap about putting lead in your head if you eye their hoes. These conclusions about pride and violence are not drawn from a few isolated incidents, but from the general attitudes of these two nearly identical subcultures.
Removing time and skin color from the mix, one would be hard pressed to distinguish between our gangstas and yesterday’s crackers.
Moving on Mr. Sowell observes the speech of who he refers to as Black rednecks, “The very way of talking, later to be christened ‘black English,’ closely followed dialects brought over from those parts of Britain from which many white Southerners came…” Phrases like “I be” for “I am,” “She ain’t” for “She isn’t;” and words like “do’ “ for “door,” and “dis” for “this” come directly from the British ancestors of the white Southerners. They certainly did not come out of Africa.
The same can be said for other aspects of the Black redneck culture such as intellectual activity or education, “The neglect and disdain of education found among antebellum white Southerners has been echoed not only in low performance levels among ghetto blacks but perhaps most dramatically in a hostility toward those black students who are conscientious about their studies, who are accused of ‘acting white’…” These accusations can turn the prospective student into an outcast or subject him to violence; and they are certainly not conducive to intellectual success, something not often found in the redneck South nor the black ghetto. Children and teens of the ghetto that push for academic success are persecuted by their peers not because they are rejecting their African roots, but because they refuse to act like reckless hillbillies and would rather go to school than die defending Tyrone’s irrational pride.
While it is absurd to say anyone is “acting white” or “acting [insert race],” it is ironic that those blacks who accuse other blacks of “acting white” are—by the “acting [something]” logic—really acting white themselves; and their actions result in negative consequences not seen when someone is hard-working and moral.
The truth is that it’s not about race at all. Nobody should try to emulate another based on his skin color, but instead on how successful and good he has been. In this country, however, white liberals—as Sowell points out—have made it about race. They have defended, glorified, and even prolonged this destructive ghetto subculture through welfare, affirmative action, and soft criminal justice. All of the defense and glorification is in the name of the “unique African American identity,” which Thomas Sowell shows to be an outright fabrication.
As long as our fellow Americans trapped in the projects are encouraged to destroy their lives by continuing the damaging subculture that originated in the British Isles, and until they commit to hard work and morality; great black men like Thomas Sowell will continue to be called “Uncle Toms” and accused of “acting white” as they enjoy their successful lives. It’s time for the ghetto boys and girls to stop acting like rednecks and listen to Thomas Sowell.http://www.cornellamerican.com/images/articles/end_article_eagle.png (broken link) "
That post was one huge 'theory' (and not even a particularly good one) with about a half-dozen laughably flawed predicates...
Not to say a little bit of it here and there wasn't accurate, but your basic position that maintains we all just "ignore" the totally obvious racial component to gun crime is typical of a certain sort of person who doesn't address reality when it runs contrary to their delusional philosophies about life... and yes, those people are remarkably prone to stomping their feet and wailing "racist" whenever painful realities about race are spoken of.
There's a world of difference between seeking legitimate causation and using the existence of prospect causation as a distraction away from an otherwise painful reality. Or concocting bizarre and often times off-base theories in order to explain away something you would rather not face.
On the issue of race, people have taken the "causation" distraction to a high art form. All unflattering cultural precepts about present-day blacks are whirled around in a blender of theories and abstract causation hypothesis in an effort to negate the truth that exists plainly, in front of everyones eyes.
Are there socioeconomic issues in play?
Obviously!
Does that give anyone a "pass" on their behavior, especially considering that blacks have existed in terrible economic conditions since they were brought here yet only recently has a segment of their population began to commit crimes of this nature at the levels we're presently seeing?
Hell no.
LM1, this is probably going to be extremely tough for you to understand, but I'll leave you a link to a few articles published by Noble Economist Gary Becker. My first theory cited a large portion of his work in attempting to explain in laymans terms of how drug trades operate.
You make it way too easy. Look I cannot debate with a high-school student. Your level of understanding redementary debating skills rivals that of a 6 year old. It is really beyond lackluster, childish, and remotely peonic, so rather than debate someone who clearly has no foot in reality or inetlligence i'll leave you with the links to most of the work i cite. I highly doubt you will be able to comprehend either Thomas Sowell or Gary Becker, but nonetheless as they say maybe it will "learn you."
You aren't an intellectual "anything".
You don't know the difference between "write" and "right".
Your posts consist of challanenging other peoples intellect ("I doubt you'd even understand..." , "you lack rudimentary skills...." , "I don't even know why I bother debating someone so stupid..."), then not even a sentence later, you show that your own command of the English language is sub-par to any given 4th Grader.
Furthermore, reciting hypothesis doesn't "prove" anything.
For someone who likes to preemptively bring up academia and college, it's amazing to me that you don't seem to operate using criteria that are standard and accepted in any academic institution, instead, choosing to blather other peoples theories, make idiotic insults and then for the cherry on top, humiliate yourself by questioning someones intelligence in the same sentence as betraying your own lack of formal education (and/or intelligence) by making an ignorant language error- like, not a simple spelling or typographical error- an error of stupidity.
Seriously. Don't just copy and paste the articles of others.
You're the internet equivalent of the person who takes a position and then links to a Wikipedia article to prove your point, as if the existence of Wikipedia (or an article written by someone) is a legitimate surrogate for your own lack of critical thinking skills.
There's no apostrophe in "IQ's" unless it's a contraction for "IQ is".
Yes, there is. The plural of all acronyms is formed by adding apostrophe-s. PC's...AG's...RBI's. In modern print usage it is permissible to drop the apostrophe where no ambiguity results, but the rule is still the rule. You will never be able to remind someone in writing to dot all his is and cross all his ts...
Go look again who is on top of the state list? Full gun contol there.
Then look where VT is; gun control is a right not messed with at all!
If you could drop out drug and criminals, imagine how low it would go.... Many of the countries w/lower fates do not have the amount of drugs or crime.
LMII a fool by any other name is still just a fool
Quote:
Originally Posted by LM1
There's no apostrophe in "IQ's" unless it's a contraction for "IQ is".
Thus, your sentence as written says "Bigots tend to have lower IQ is than the rest of society at large".
LOL
God, PLEASE keep going. This is so perfect...
LM1, you are clearly a child or at best a young teen. I cannot imagine you are a full grown adult with your level of reasoning. Here’s what I’ll do. I’ll refute every last statement you made on the basis of fact and substantial scholarly work. I’ll stand by my initial post bigots are not as intelligent as the rest of society at large. You my friend have done a great job proving me right.
You stated that my first post was
“one huge 'theory' (and not even a particularly good one) with about a half-dozen laughably flawed predicates… we all just "ignore" the totally obvious racial component to gun crime is typical of a certain sort of person who doesn't address reality when it runs contrary to their delusional philosophies about life... and yes, those people are remarkably prone to stomping their feet and wailing "racist" whenever painful realities about race are spoken of. Or concocting bizarre and often times off-base theories in order to explain away something you would rather not face.”
My first post cited a number of proven theories that were first introduced by noble prize economist Gary Becker in terms of why crime rates go up when illegal drugs are present.
Let me again use some of your phrases in reference to this illuminating work “Laughable flaws,” “delusional philosophies about life, “off base theories,” “and “painful realities about race” eh? That’s funny, because a lot of his work is now used and cited to dictate public policy by both Republican and Democratic administrations.
You also stated in a follow up post when I persisted and asked you to explain why this theory was wrong
“I dismissed what you said because "what you said" was a bizarre theory that only makes sense in your own mind, and maybe the minds of a few people who are desperately trying to rationalize away painful truths. Like, if I blew hard for 5000 words trying to prove the existance of bigfoot citing nothing more than my own conjecture, that would be pretty easy to dismiss on face value without having to delve into statistics.”
Well, I’ll take that as a complement that Gary Becker and I tend to agree on such a “bizarre noble prize winning proven theory.” I guess you’re right only Gary, myself, members of congress, white house administrations, economics and public policy officials, and various other republican think tanks are as you would say “trying to rationalize away painful truths.”
Here’s where it gets a bit comical and you clearly loose all credibility not that you had a shred of intelligence or credibility to begin with. Once I cited the work here’s what you said showing your a real as you would say “smart one.” You not only avoided as you would say the “painfully realities of the truth” you then decided it would be fair to name call and attempt to discredit my theories on the basis of spelling or grammatical error. You may have won that small battle, but you clearly lost the war on your racist illogical theories. However, I will give you credit, because at every stage you avoided answering simple question, that related to what we were initially debating. Um, someday you’ll make a good unintelligent corrupt political official. You have the question avoidance thing down pact. Just for fun I’ll quote a few of your “distractionary” insults.
You said
“you show that your own command of the English language is sub-par to any given 4th Grader.”
“it's amazing to me that you don't seem to operate using criteria that are standard and accepted in any academic institution, instead, choosing to blather other peoples theories, make idiotic insults and then for the cherry on top, humiliate yourself by questioning someones intelligence in the same sentence as betraying your own lack of formal education (and/or intelligence) by making an ignorant language error- like, not a simple spelling or typographical error- an error of stupidity.”
“You aren't an intellectual "anything".
You don't know the difference between "write" and "right
“you're either being intentionally distractionary again, or you're dumb.”
You then stated
“There's a world of difference between seeking legitimate causation and using the existence of prospect causation as a distraction away from an otherwise painful reality.”
Again stop attempting to use bigger words than you’re clearly comfortable with using. Can you clearly explain this bunch of jumble? Who’s the reality painful for? You seem to be very presumptuous that this information is painful for people.
In reference to black culture you stated
“All of this happened right around the same time we decided to make blacks "equal" but left them to their own devices to define who they were, as a people. We never truly integrated them- we simply made them 'theoretically equal' in the eyes of the law while keeping them on the periphery of our society. It's no shock that they created a society of their own, and for a number of reasons, its no real shock that their culture has become what it has, given what they came from to begin with (starting in Africa and going up through slavery, into segregation) “
I responded to this and cited work done by Thomas Sowell in which he explains how black culture due to slavery is/was heavily reliant upon white culture. I then asked you to answer a very simple question, which you avoided at all cost. Remember if I take a Russian girl out of Russia at birth and place her in the rural south in a trailer park is she going to speak Russian? Or is she going to sound like a “redneck southern hick.” Are her values going to be distinctly different if she was left in Russia and raised by a middle class educated Russian family as opposed to an uneducated American Hillbilly family?
In reference to poor black culture vs poor white culture you stated moronically I might add
“Do you want the "poor black versus poor white" statistics now, or should I let you hang yourself even further by making such totally incorrect statements- then bash you with them?”
Please present them, so I can tear you a new you know what when you do. Ready and waiting.
Okay in closing you clearly are all the insults you called me. Not once did you argue a point to a decisive conclusion or cite any work. You avoided answering simple questions during this debate and thus made yourself the laughing stock of the board. I stand strong behind my theory racist are on average less intelligent than the general public at large. Thanks for helping me to prove my original point! LM1 you are the weakest link. Good bye
Last edited by truthhurts; 12-22-2007 at 11:59 AM..
Gun control is an urban/rural issue. What works in the woods and the fields and the meadows does not necessarily apply when it comes to the concrete jungle, and vice versa. So here's the deal, gun people: Have your individual right to keep and bear arms. Hunt, shoot cans off the back fence, protect yourself out there in the middle of nowhere...if I lived there, that's what I'd do, too. But I don't live there. I live here. So, I have this question: What sort of responsibility are you going to undertake (and yes, all rights do come with responsibilities) to keep your own guns under proper control, and what responsibility are you country mice going to take in terms of helping your city mouse cousins deal with what for them is a very big problem?
Bravo! I so totally agree with you on this! In the city, your right to own bullets stops right at my wall. If you can keep your bullets out of my walls, then go ahead and own bullets. If you can't keep your bullets out of my walls -- then you don't have a right to own them. (This goes for vicious dogs too!)
To blame drug trafficking on racial issues really shows a lack of knowledge on the matter.
Yeah, there's a lot of that going around...
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.
LMII a fool by any other name is still just a fool
