Yes, you are absolutely correct in that I am not qualified to comment on white attitudes. However, what I am qualifies to comment on is the EFFECT of white attitudes upon the wound on black peoples.
So when you claimed whites do not wish for black societal improvement you should have included a disclaimer that you were not qualified to make that comment.
And how do you address the argument that black experience is as legitimate an exclusion as the ones you proposed for whites because of the bias the experience might cause?
I'll give an example:
Person A is Person B's mother. While person A might know person B very well the relationship might constitute a bias.
See, you can successfully argue that the experiece is paramount but that can as easily be a negative as a positive.
So,....you think that check would improve race relations...or balance the playing field?
Who should get it? What would their qualifications be? Would reparations end racial unfairness?
I am speaking in terms of causes and effects and actions and reactions, which I am defiantly qualified to do.
By your own criteria you can be argued not to be qualified to do so Noah.
After all, without knowing the experience of the opposite side your position might be biased as well.
My suggestion is to quit telling participants here that they are not qualified to comment, but that if you insist on doing so use criteria that can't just as easily work against you.
Nope, I am sticking by my comments. Whites are not qualified to feel what it is to be black in America and thus are not qualified to comment on this metaphorical wound that Sofia analogized. You can say that I am not qualified to comment on things that I cannot feel or am not an object in the class of participant…. if you wish. Fair is Fair.
Her comments about the legally established equality were spot on. Her scab analogy is your red herring and your way to discredit her.
Furthermore you do not even know if Sofia is black or not. ;-)
It's getting deeper.
IS Bill Cosby qualified? Colin Powell? Micheal Jackson? Micheal Jordan? Jesse Jackson? Halle Barry? 50 cent? Snoop dog? Colin Ferguson? Musco Milner?
Are any of these people qualified to speak about what it's like to be black in America? Why? None have had the same experiences.
Crime is illegal, yet crime remains pervasive. Thus, legal equality does not imply actuality equality or an even playing field, due to the fact that many people act illegally and often without detection.
It certainly does not imply a level playing field. But it does mean equality in law. And beyond equality in law what remedial measures (from the US government) do you propose?
I do not make proposals of specific measures to people unless they accept the validity or need for the abstract concept. Anyone who is against the concept in theory will be against any detailed and specific application. Thus, I do not debate specifics before reconciling or concluding the virtues of the theory.
The "virtue" of what you advance as theories on race relations, their origins, and the consequent contemporary conditions in which black Americans live are very much in dispute here. I would opine on that basis, that it will be a very long time before you are in a position to offer specific measures.
Noah The African wrote:I do not make proposals of specific measures to people unless they accept the validity or need for the abstract concept. Anyone who is against the concept in theory will be against any detailed and specific application. Thus, I do not debate specifics before reconciling or concluding the virtues of the theory.
Let's try a direct question.
Do you propose reparations be paid to blacks? And if so, who pays and go gets paid.
Of course they are in dispute here. Duhhhhhh. The reason that they are in dispute is because of a competition between self-interest and ideologies, primarily between white peoples and black peoples, which goes back centuries. My original thesis touched on the fact of how it is not only NOT in your self-interest, to see black people reach equality, but how it is to your relative detriment. Most white people are various objectors to taxes and even more so when the taxes go toward social causes. However, no equal hostility about spending on space exploration or wars of imperialism that brings back goodies for the majority being represented in this representative republic. Thus, most whites are not volunteering resources from their own good will, to help eradicate racial inequality. They do not want government to forcibly tax them to promote social equality. Thus, it is obvious that this is something that is not in white peoples interest.
As I said in the composition, the primary goal is not TRUTH, but rather, self interest. Thus, when self interest are at the apex of hierarchy and truth conflicts with the manifestation of self interest, then truth becomes a disinterest.
The issue is not whether or not I support reparations, the issue is whether or not in theory, that it is logical to attempt to repair what was broken. is it a logical means of restoring equality.
How facile, and false, of you.
Noah The African wrote:My original thesis touched on the fact of how it is not only NOT in your self-interest, to see black people reach equality, but how it is to your relative detriment.
This much ballyhooed "fact" has yet to see a shred of substantiation.
I believe this will be the 3rd or 4th time I specifically request of you said validation.
So, again;
upon what do you base this claim?
Craven de Kere wrote:Noah The African wrote:My original thesis touched on the fact of how it is not only NOT in your self-interest, to see black people reach equality, but how it is to your relative detriment.
This much ballyhooed "fact" has yet to see a shred of substantiation.
I believe this will be the 3rd or 4th time I specifically request of you said validation.
So, again;
upon what do you base this claim?
Again, I pointed out this logical fallacy in my thesis as well. It is not what is known, but rather, what can be proved. However
, the absence of evidence (truth) is not evidence of absence (truth). The only way that my statement can be validated is by getting the opinion of every single American, which you know is not probable, if at all possible. I think most intellectually honest people, who are seekers of truth, will agree with that statement, because the evidence of human behavior points to it as true.
If someone took a poll of honest white Americans and asked them if they would be willing to pay higher taxes to promote social and economic equality between the races, I can guarantee that most whites would object. They would do a mental calculus of benefit/cost. Since they have the higher standard of living, they would lose more than they would gain. Blacks, with a lower standard of living, would thus gain more than they lose, on average. Thus if it is TRUE that equality is better morally than inequality, between races, then the reason whites object is not born from the desire to seek TRUTH but rather, to preserve their monetary and social status interest. That’s the best proof that I can give you, however, you can bring a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink it.
Noah The African wrote:
Again, I pointed out this logical fallacy in my thesis as well. It is not what is known, but rather, what can be proved. However, the absence of evidence (truth) is not evidence of absence (truth).
I never claimed it was. ;-)
Quote:The only way that my statement can be validated is by getting the opinion of every single American, which you know is not probable, if at all possible.
Here you are saying that the "truth" you tout can't be verified.
Quote:I think most intellectually honest people, who are seekers of truth, will agree with that statement, because the evidence of human behavior points to it as true.
Beyond the "emperor's new clothes" argument I would like to hear your "evidence".
Could you cite the evidence you refer to here?
Noah The African wrote:If someone took a poll of honest white Americans and asked them if they would be willing to pay higher taxes to promote social and economic equality between the races, I can guarantee that most whites would object.
Depends, are you proposing that whites be taxed and the money given to blacks?
Or are you proposing graduated tax scales in which the most financially disadvantaged benefit regardless of race?
