My Wednesday Rant (holla back black people)

Noah,

To use your own arguments, who better to determine one's finances than the individual themself?

If the individual wants a racial leader to determine their finances that's fine with me. I and those who wish to do the same will determine our own.

Noah, the flaw in this argument you keep repeating is that just because we don't want to do it your way does not mean we don't want the social situation of blacks to improve.

No the flaw is that INACTION preserves the effect of past racism and most of you are NOT ACTING TO OFFSET the effects of a long history of racism aginst black, to the degree of creating equality. THus, it is not that you are not doing it MY WAY....its that your are SIMPLY NOT DOING IT ANYWAY!!!!!!!!

Noah,

Using all caps isn't going to make you more convincing, it just looks frenetic.

Anywho, you've just used another fallacious argument.

The choice is not your way or inaction. There are other less absurd ways.

Should I post the Civil Rights laws, anti-discrimination volumes....HR rules...

Plenty has been done.

Doesn't anyone like my anarchy idea? My year has sucked so far and I could use a good scrap to make me feel better.

The best ref in the NFL is black. Maybe we can get him in here to referee this thread.

I think that the problem with this thread is that people are attempting to use logic and reason with Noah. I am becoming convinced that Noah is so blinded by his own "Johnny One Note" interpretations and conclusions, that no matter what we say, no matter how reasonable, will convince him not a whit.

The proof is in the continued inequality of blacks, lest you promote the idea of black genetic inferiority, one would have to accept an external cause. If a cause is not internal then the only other option is external.

NUFF SAID, because that cannot be refuted.

Noah,

You again repeat that fallacious axiom.

It is not true that it must be either/or.

It is also not true that if it's not genetic it must be external.

Here's an example:

Person A shoots himself in the head.

Person A did not do this because of a genetic inheritance.

This does not mean it's the fault of whites that person A shot himself in the head.

You are ehibiting serious flaws in the logic you propose.

Let's explore some more of them.

You posit that continued inequality of status is evidence that we are racists that want to do nothing.

That is also demonstratably false. Continued inequality of status does not have to mean continued inequality of anything but status.

You ceded this yourself, saying much of it could be a hold-over from a pridian era.

Your "proof" that "cannot be refuted" is often just a brainfart stated confidently.

That is one of the most asinine analogies that I have heard on this forum, concerning the shot in the head. What I have said is that nature or nurture is the determinant of human behavior and condition. Being that you are ignorant of this fact, I guess you want VALIDATION, however, I am not a credible source for you so I suggest that you seek validation form a source that you feel is objective. Nature or nurture, internal or external, genetics or environment…it all boils down to the same thing.

If a person purposely shoots himself in the head, it is an action born either from a genetic condition or environmental stimuli that created a situation that the individuals mind could not cope with...or combination thereof. Your choice of genetics or white folks is simply an egregious embellishment of the true position that I am presenting. You have simply tried to sensationalize and make absurd my position by restating it in a way that makes is refutable. However, my position are clearly stated and you can go back and read them.

I agree. And since it is analogous to your logic I would say the same about the logic you posit.

In fact it was with only that (demonstrating the absurdity of your argument) that it was posited.



And as I illustrate that is an asinine argument you used that excludes the individual's choices from the equation and posits a convenient either/or that you use to fault whites for all the black's woes.



You miss the point entirely. Here's a nice simple summary:

You are wrong to dictate that there is an implicit choice between black genetic defect and white racism. You do this by neglecting, say, black choices in life and culture that are not genetic but also not external.

Here's an example.

Person A is a white poor guy.

According to your convoluted logic he is either genetically damaged or his poverty is external.


Now Person A simply happens to hate work. That is neither genetic nor external but is his choice.

This very simple analogy illusstrates that the choice you attempt to force (genetic defect or white devils) is a very stinky brainfart.




Sigh, not it is not. It's more likely a mixture of both. Genetic predisposition and circumstantial factors.

But ultimately he shot himself because of the choice he made. So you can't simple rule everything to be either genetic or external.



Nope, I just cut to the chase.

When you try to say that black poverty is either genetic or external your next step is to say that the external factors include white racism and whites whould pay blacks.

If you'd liek to take it step by step we can. I have no problem with this as you ahve the rare quality of getting it ass-backwards in each step of the way.

Let's take your direct argument:

That if the cause is not genetic it is external.

How do you reconcile that with the fact that a mixture is possible and there is not an either/or?

How do you reconcile that with the fact that an individual's choice is neither genetic nor "external".

I've made the first step easy in hopes that you'll actually try to defend the brainfart. It should be fun.

Someone needs to squash Noah between a book and preserve him for all eternity. Like a rare violet, he tries to thrive and grow will all his might in adversity, no matter what, against all odds. It's admirable in some ways, though insane. How did you happen, Noah? What ingredients came together to make you this stereotypical black panther socialist preacher who speaks of absolute truth in tongues? Where are you from? How old are you? It is probably safe for me to assume your skin color and racial backround and the fact that they have a large influence on your life and opinions.

Portal,

A few think he's a white supremacist trying to incite animosity against blacks.

The best analogy that I can give to the nature vs. nurture debate is that of a computer. There is the hardware, and then there is the software. If one computer performs inferior to another computer, it is thus the product of different current hardware realties or different current software realties or a combination there of.

If Computer A is input with a task and performs the task inferior to computer B, the reason is due to inferior hardware, software or a combination there of.

The human body is the equivalent of hardware and this hard ware is created genetically from the X and Y-chromosomes of the parents. The software or instruction set is programmed through the input of experience, if not the instincts that come genetically. It is the combination of human hardware and external input from outside the body, which is processed into the reaction of human behavior.

…..I have to go now, but I will expand on this later.

Of course that's the best you can give. See a computer doesn't have free will, and you incessantly portray blacks as being victims of either genetics or "external" circumstances (your euphemism for "white devils").

Now where your comparison is dis-analogous is that people are not computers and we have free choice (which computers don't).

So it's very easy for you to argue that computers will either be hardware or external, because all their choices are fed to them in the form of software and input.

Now despite your characterization of blacks as sheepish and in need of an ideologue for a leader (to control their money no less) they are most certainly not sheep and they can think for themselves.

Hope that helps. :-)

Analogies should, ideally, not be dis-analogous.

Every action is a rection to something else. Every cause has an effect and every effect has a cause. Thus, what is free will an effect of or reation too and is its origin unrelated to genetics and environment? computers do not have free will because it is not part of the hardware of computers, but is it part of the hardware (genetics) of humans?

Well that's a hell of a philosophical question to answer Noah.

But to simplify I really do agree that circumstantial factors can make it reasonable to question the very existence of "free will".

And furthermore I have long argued against the antiquated and disproven notion that the poor are poor of their own making.

So in that sense you have my agreement.

What I do not agree with is the logical equation you formed.

The first step (genetic/external) is almost ok, but has small flaws.

One is that internal and genetic are not synonyms, so by ruling out genetics (which is obvious racism) you are ruling out internal. I could make a good case for that but doing so simply on rejection of genetics isn't a good way to do it.

Now like I've stated it seems to be a path to laying at least some blame at the feet of non-minorities.

And that is also not unreasonable either, despite the natural discomfort a non-minority feels at hearing it.

Where I think you go wrong is in the absolutism of "either/or" when it may well be both.

To give an example (purely hypothetical) even the external factors are related to the opposite you used (genetics). For even if the racism of mankind were solely to blame, without the genetics the simpletons would not be able to identify who they are supposed to hate.

So Noah, if your ultimate point is that racism of the majority has a hand in minority misfortune you will get a very hearty amen from me.

But in making your case you need to avoid the bias of shifting it all. Even oppressed minorities have areas in which they could improve.

And what I have long been saying to you is that I think you exhibit a bias here and are actively seeking for ways to exonerate blacks and condemn whites.

I'll be the first to say that whites have their multitude of historical (and present) sins. But you go and make that position look absurd by trying to assert some of the things you have tried.

For example you tried to say that black violence is based on an introduction to western culture. The support you used for this was simply false (you cited what are supposed to be the most peaceful nations and then the most violent, arguing that the most peaceful were in Africa and the most violent in nations where slaves were taken. And I showed you that your list was wrong in every single aspect of what it aimed to assert).

If your point is that racial discrimination has had devastating effects on mankind I, and nearly all here, will agree.

If you are saying that there's much progress to be made I, and most her, will agree.

But some of what you are saying goes beyond that. And some of what you are saying is, to put it mildly, not a sound argument.

The reason why JL said that this is the white supremacists dream is because through these arguments you help discredit the rational and logical arguments that argue for progress.

I tried to make that as diplomatic as I could in hopes you'd not reject it out of hand. But do consider that this board is full of people who hate racism and who simply disagree with your arguments, not the goal of the amelioration of society.

I hope you know that among the people here are those who have lived in concentration camps, they know damn well what racism is. When you started calling people who disagreed with you racist I think you dis yourself no boon.

Many of them simply disagreed with you. And not the ideals of ameliorating society.

The problem with your admission of BOTH is that it still points to inherent inferiority of black people. One cannot say that the disproportionate problems faced by blacks, relative to whites, are both internal and external and not be accused of promoting the doctrine of black genetic inferiority. One can say that the problems of black people are the result of internal and external circumstances and not be an advocate of racial supremacy theories or beliefs. The reason being is that ALL human entities have problems that are internal or external in origin or a combination. To suggest that on race of people have a greater propensity of internal problem causing is indeed the suggestion of that group’s genetic inferiority. White peoples have internal, external and a combination thereof of problems as well. The issue is, however, the origin or cause of the GAP between black problems and white problems. I dare say that to imply that this GAP is the product of a combination of internal (genetic) and external (environment) is to suggest that part or black people problem/GAP is born from genetics.

For instance, black poverty is 3 times the rate of whites in America. Thus, if this gap is partly internal and partly external, say 50/50, that means if all external factors were negated, black genetic propensity would still lead to black poverty being 1 ½ times the rate of whites.

No it does not. I do not believe in the "inherent inferiority of black people". I think you project this to have a foil.



Again, genetic internal. Like I said, there are "internal" factors beyond genetics. :wink:



Bullshit. Cultural and societal traits do not have to be inherent, they can merely be trends.

For example, oriental cultures place far greater value on education than American culture. This is not because of genetic differences but because of a cultural trend.

This is not "genetic superiority" it's just a damn cultural trend in which they face more educational pressure.



No it is not. It does not have to be genetics. You are obsessed with genetics.

Example: the "gap" can be caused by both external circumstantial factors like discrimination and internal (but not genetic) factors like one's choice or cultural tendency and influence.

Now I am not arguing that this is so, but merely illustrating that your argument that genetics is the only other choice is logically bankrupt.



No it doesn't!

The logical leap of faith was amazing Air Noah!

Look, you have a really big problem with simplification. The above statement does not make sense and if you'd like we can explore it in depth.

Thing is, I'm a bit bored of having you project onto me your ideal qualities in a foil so it might be a while before I engage you further.