The President is speaking in a bit (WATCH IT!)

just a tad naughty of you, ci. Say hello to the Mrs, you done good in the choosing.

That you don't see anything to reconcile strengthens the charge of doublethink, Bill. Thoughts are cheap. It is actions that count. Your thoughts on Iraq, rationalizing your support of it by claiming compunction of humanitarianism, while having acted in instances in your life that were quite contrary to humaneness is a doublethink contradiction. At the very least, your sentiments concerning your support of the war ring hollow, and at worst betray a blatant hypocrisy. It would be cynical even, if you weren't truly so oblivious to it.

Also, the reason I key into the things you've written is because I think you and your mentality are rather indicative of a certain mindset of the war supporters in the US, rationalizing a war of invasion and occupation of Iraq as vengeance for 9/11, and rationalizing a war of invasion and occupation of Iraq in the name of humanitarian love for the Iraqis simultaneously. I think most war supporters couldn't give a flying f**k about the Iraqis.

Discriminating against Blacks, ugly people, women or anyone in the name of profit is not humanitarian, Bill.

If statistics showed that you'd make less profit with a newly liberated Iraqi salesman than with some other salesman, would you hire him?

(edit: corrected "I think most of these people couldn't give a flying f**k about the Iraqis." to "I think most war supporters couldn't give a flying f**k about the Iraqis.")

This is getting so old. When you do this it has become less a call to civility than your own brand of incivility.

A way to both sidestep arguments and disparage the interlocutor under the convenient pretext of donning the mantle of civility.

It's just your pet way of insulting others and begging off.

Well, excuse me Craven. I didn't mean to pull your chain. But I won't agree with you on this one. I prefer to debate/discuss/explore issues with people who are informed and/or intelligent enough to do it without being insulting. I don't enjoy insulting oneupmanship and I don't find debate that is based on 'he's a liar/stupid etc.' and/or 'you're a liar/stupid etc.' to be helpful, entertaining, or fun. I can appreciate those who do enjoy that and would not presume to attempt to try to shout them down or shut them up.

Since my participation here is voluntary (and is offered to me by the generosity of whomever provides this site) I do this because I enjoy it. I have found several here from the left, right, and center who seem to share my preference in how a civil discussion is conducted and I prefer to spend my time going toe to toe with those people in a lively and substantive debate. (Substantive in my opinion of course where a few good natured insults can be overlooked.)

Then again, if I don't respond with something, the hoots and catcalls start that I have nothing to say or I'm a coward or something to that effect. Sort of a Catch 22 isn't it?

Maybe I'll start a thread on debate style. Oh well. That's it. I'm done.

You won't find that here in 99% of the threads Foxfyre. You can start a well meaning thread and even get one or teo reasonable responses, but once the monkeys find it, they just start throwing their feces all over and the original intent gets lost.

Interesting how in your attempt to demonize me; you left beautiful people and men out of your (my) examples. As clarified in the original thread, I do not discriminate against anyone at the hiring table. I do recognize observed data and will place people accordingly. Show me a manager who doesn't, and I'll show you a liar or at least a less productive person than myself. If you are still having trouble getting this, I'll draw you a couple of examples:
1) Calista Flockhart would not be the best choice to sell ladies +sizes.
2) Nell Carter would not be the best choice to sell fitness equipment.
3) Ray Lewis would not be the best choice to sell high-end pianos.
4) Elton John would not be the best choice to sell "Phat farm" clothing.
5) I hope you get the point by now.

Of course. But not to sell Bibles.

InfraBlue: My world is not as black and white as yours. During the course of a day I sometimes have to wear many different hats. Sometimes there are conflicts of interest. For instance: In my personal life; if someone is upset about their personal life; I do care and will take time out to read their problems and if I think I have some advice to offer, or can put a smile on their face, I do. You can see this by looking at my previous posts (just in case you missed it while searching for damning hypocrisy). NOW if I happen to be wearing my manager hat at the time; I consider personal misery a poison pill in a sales environment, and not only will I not listen, but will remove the offending person from said environment... sometimes even permanently, for repeat offenses. While I do feel bad for the person on a personal level, said bad feelings are trumped by my professional insistence of maintaining a professional atmosphere. I could pretend that my rationale (and sometimes even do) is that I enforce this rule for the good of all of the employees, since a somber mood will invariably reduce the production of others, thereby reducing their ability to earn a living. I feel no need to play politician here on A2K. The fact is; the deciding factor in resolving that "conflict of interest" is my own wallet.

Now lets examine a similar situation (that has occurred), and the rationale behind my decisions. Employee comes to work with a black eye and a frightened look on her face. I take her aside to find out what's going on. Ex-monster is stalking her and she doesn't know what to do. In this situation; the introduction of violence is all that is required for my personal feelings to trump the importance of earning a living. Office becomes safe haven, coworkers disregard their duties while consoling her and I make it abundantly clear no violence will take place in my office and it will remain open until a reasonable solution to her "personal problems" can be found.

Now as you can see, despite the obvious similarities in these two situations, the remedies I choose are quite different. While wearing various hats, I'm sometimes forced to make seemingly hypocritical decisions depending what I consider most important to me. Interesting note: my personal friends and long-time employees alike would easily, accurately predict my reactions in both situations. Am I a hypocrite? Perhaps.

Your inability to recognize that priorities come in degrees, not absolutes, is: At the very least, indicative of an extremely idealistic mind set, and at most indicative of blatant ignorance of the real world.

Your assumption that War Supporters all share some ideology with me is absurd on its face. Your stereotyping of our' rationale, coupled with your Ad Hominem attack on my credibility; serves only to underline your prejudice against those with opposing views. Rather hypocritical of you, wouldn't you say?

If you'd care to take a holiday from your pre-defined judgment of my rationale, I invite you to respond to my offer to share the audio file referred to in my signature line. Perhaps this mitigating factor will help you understand my overall position. Please realize; you don't have to agree with me to understand my position. I am growing weary of your attempts to discredit my position by discrediting me. That strategy is as lazy as it is ineffective and out of place for one of your idealistically high moral fiber.

I understand where you are coming from, Bill. Humanitarianism is something to be measured on a greyscale who's bottom line is money. Humanitarianism towards potential Black employees is somewhere very low on the greyscale. Conversely, humanitarianism towards that woman in distress is very high on the greyscale. Got it.

Not hiring Calista Flockhart to sell plus sizes is one thing, Bill. Basing employment decisions on assumptions about the racism of your customers is another. You claim to be a victim of racism insofar as your quest for maximum profits is concerned, and you can only but perpetuate it.

So, why would you hire an Iraqi but not a Black if either one was potentially detrimental to your bottom line? Or was that merely a statement of convenience?

In my statement, I should have added the word "most":



My judgement of your rational is defined by comparing the things you yourself have written about things you yourself THINK and things you yourself have DONE. Yes it's ad hominem, and you are declaring your position from those grounds. I am merely pointing out the contradictions between your lofty thoughts and your base actions and believe it is paradigmatic of most war supporters.

I think the US invaded Iraq based on a rationalization of priorities that is very close to yours. Money somewhere very high on the greyscale, humanitarianism somewhere beneath it, and doublethink is employed to rationalize it. That is my very lucid appraisal of the "real world," Bill.

Yeah, your contradictions are your own wallet, Bill, and since you thought your wallet merited posting, I thought your wallet merited comment.

boo hoo

boo hoo

Who do we send the sympathy card to?

No, I don't think you do. In your race to condemn me for considering profit in business related decisions, you've simply ignored the point of my explanation.
POINT: I don't claim to be ruled by humanitarianism. My morality is my own. I consider civil rights issues trivial when compared to human rights issues. Even if I were guilty of the civil rights violations you accuse me of; it would in no way make me a hypocrite to take issue with HUMAN RIGHTS abuses.

Your selective reading here is getting to be as aggravating as it is misleading. I've hired dozens of black people (and BTW; don't believe any of them would consider me the least bit racist). My comment on the other thread was in relation to anticipated performance. Your inability to discern the difference between the admission of observed facts and racist ideology is your problem. It is only my problem insofar as you are assassinating my character with your idealistic simplicity. You are either being deliberately obtuse or you think I am lying and therefore refuse to accept my explanation. Please re-read my POINT above.

Again you illustrate your inability to separate disgust of human rights abuses with your "lofty" stance on civil rights. They are not the same thing.

Your assumption of the US's motivation may very well be correct. Your assumption as to why I support the action, despite my numerous, lengthy explanations to the contrary are as insulting as they are false. Just how do you think I stand to profit from this war?

I will not apologize for being a capitalist. Yes I value money over some other issues. Since violence is not one of them; your entire explanation of my supposed hypocrisy is completely false. Just in case you've already forgotten the point, here it is again: Even if I were guilty of the civil rights violations you accuse me of; it would in no way make me a hypocrite to take issue with HUMAN RIGHTS abuses. Get it?

Ps I've noticed that I have not yet received your PM for the aforementioned audio file, which tells me you prefer to continue judging me out of ignorance. So be it.

Ok, before I go on let me get something straight. Have you or have you not denied employment to Black people because of their race?

Uh oh, I have a feeling there's gonna be a long post coming up here any second.

LOL Kicky, stay tuned, I'm about to slam you New Yorkers. :wink:

Are you learning impaired? The answer is no. I usually won't hire people who don't speak clear and proper English, however. For instance; if an applicant pronounces the word ask as axe, that is a strike against them, for an inside job in national sales work. If they sound gangsterish to me, that too is a strike against them. Now I know that a higher percentage of black people learn to speak that way, through no fault of their own, but that is not my problem. A decent percentage of people of every color, especially from the upper east coast, speak the same way. All of who get the same strike. Not veto mind you, just a strike. Every person can learn to speak English properly, if they try, regardless of their upbringing (or color), so I do not consider this blatant racism. I really don't care if you do. That too, is not my problem.

My problem is your off-topic, admitted Ad Hominem attack, that even if proven; still would not support your charge of hypocrisy (a charge that erks me to my core). Your attempt to illustrate unfair hiring practices on my part; has absolutely no bearing on whether I'm appalled on HUMAN RIGHTS issues. What the hell is so hard to understand about that? You have made a connection that doesn't exist, even if your false premise did. I really don't know how I can make this any clearer for you and am rapidly losing interest in trying.

Edit= Added very important Emoticons.

Hey Bill, go for it. I'm just enjoying the show. This is good stuff.

Glad your having fun kicky. What do you think; should I change the title of the thread to: "OCCOMBILL tries in vain to clear his name from relentless, groundless charges of hypocrisy."?

You know, for a racist bastard, you're allright.

I'm only kidding. I'm not gettin' in the middle of this one!

I am judging you by what you have written, Bill, and using that as a paradigm for much of the mentality of the war supporters. You are attempting to obfuscate your contradictory positions by drawing a distinction between "civil rights" and "human rights," but by your own definitions, you are guilty of violating your own human rights ideals.

This is what you have written:


You are making assumptions based on racial prejudices. That is detrimental to an individual's dignity, which by your statement:



is a human rights issue.

You also write that you believe in giving "a human being an honest shot at a decent lot in life" (lest they "strap bombs to their chests" or rebel due to poverty and hunger), which to you is also a human rights issue, but at the same time economic responsibility sometimes overrides your desire to be racially[emphasis mine] blind, denying a human being an honest shot at a decent lot in life.

Ok, so you don't engage in wholesale discrimination of Blacks when it comes to employment, only sometimes, and you take their race and racism thereof as a factor in you decisions. Understood.

I doubt that you stand to profit from the war. I think you support it for vengeance for 9/11, and as you say, humanitarianism, which is why I say your humanitarianism rings hollow, especially in light of your own human rights shortcomings. You also support violence in the name of humanitarianism, and are prepared to accept sacrificial collateral carnage in the name thereof. That is contradictory. I think this is paradigmatic of most supporters of the war.

Bill, you have yet to answer my questions, Is YOUR racism a problem only of the Blacks unfortunate enough to have suffered you? Is YOUR racism SOMEONE ELSE'S problem only? Are YOU accountable for YOUR racism?

Again? Do you bother to read my responses… Or just pick through to find points to attack? The reason I ask is; I've now clarified that same paragraph a half a dozen times on several different threads, yet you continue to ignore the clarifications. Did you read them? Last try. In a perfect world, I would be racially blind. I would never have noticed a drop off in performance by any particular group, let alone figured out why. In the real world I did; a higher percentage of black people weren't meeting quota than anyone else. I examined the different attributes of each, spotted the probable reason (speech), separated the data of those who shared this attribute with those that didn't and bingo! I then cross-referenced my findings with non-black employees who shared this attribute and this confirmed the accuracy of my data. (I highly recommend "Act" Database Software to anyone who has a database :wink: ) Any discriminating done by me; was based on criteria other than race, whether you like it or not.

If you've ever purchased advertising; you would know that a closing ratio variation of 1% is huge. I'll give you an exceedingly simple, though probably wordy, example in hopes we can put this matter to rest once and for all:

Joe spends $20,000 per week advertising his widgets, which he profits $150 each for selling. In return he receives approximately 2000 leads. This means Joe needs to sell 133 widgets before Joe breaks even. Keep in mind, Joe still needs to pay the other bills too. For the purpose of this example let's assume this figure will remain consistent (suicide in the real world). Joe likes to keep his average close ration under 1 in 10, which results in positive cash flow of $10,000 per week to go towards expenses and yes, Joe does like to make a profit. Don't forget that on bad weeks, closing 1 in 15 barely covers ad costs and none of the expenses. Now if Joe has an employee who is closing 1 in 11, that employee is returning $150 less per week on Joe's investment. No biggie, his best people do 1 in 8. Now, what if Joe notices that a particular group of people who come to his office to discuss their sub-par performance have something in common… other than 1 in 13 closing ratios that collectively are costing the company $8,000 per month in profits? Does he pretend he didn't notice? Is that what you would do? Now, Joe has a real problem here; he wants to be mister nice guy but how? He figures he can set a minimum bar and anyone who can't maintain it will be dismissed for poor performance. That's a fair solution right? Hmmm Wait a minute… It costs Joe a couple thousand dollars to get a new employee up to speed. Now this is a problem. Joe doesn't want to use his observed data to rationalize racist policies, does he? Nor does he want to hire employees who effectively take more money from his pocket than they earn. So he goes back to the numbers, which have always been his friend, and searches for another factor. Suddenly he's axed a question by one of the offending employees. Hmmm…
Sorry that took so long, but you've wasted far more of my time with your petty unfounded accusations.

You're reaching badly to try to draw a similarity between filling sensitive positions with specifically qualified applicants and the acts of a brutal murderous dictator. Do you realize how stupid that sounds? This assessment is as naïve as it is ridiculous. The real world isn't black and white. Until you accept that money is a justifiable… hell practically the sole mitigating factor in having a business, you will continue to wade through some fairytale world where idealistic notions should trump reality. I've patiently given you a good deal of the benefit of the doubt, so you'll have to forgive my returning some of your Ad Hominem. Well… wait a minute… outside of your Ad Hominem assault, did you raise a single topic related issue?

That lame half hearted effort is as close as you can get to understanding plain English?

I see. Despite reading page after page to the contrary you still think I am stupid enough to blame Saddam for 9-11? Your insults are getting more childish by the minute in your futile attempt to cling to an unsubstantiated view. If you think it through; you might figure out you owe me an apology.

Paradigmatic of what? Paradigmatic of someone who recognizes and accepts that not every choice in the world can result in a happy ending for all involved? It is my opinion that our actions will prevent more deaths than it will cause. Statistics of Saddam's past behavior supports this theory. You may disagree, as others have, on the grounds that past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results and then we could agree to disagree. The only contradiction I see; is you, attempting to use logic in an argument when you have already illustrated so clearly your inability to do so.

Surely you jest. I've exhausted my patience answering your questions. But here you go again.

Produce one Black who's suffered me. Just one........ That question is a thinly veiled insult that is absurd on its face; an Ad Hominem that couldn't be answered without first admitting to a false accusation. Let me draw you a parallel:

"Does your hopelessly naïve point of view and ignorance of how things work in the real world make it difficult to find work?" Not a very friendly question, is it?
Again; you are asking me to first accept your insulting accusation and then come up with an answer to an imaginary problem that exists only in your mind. As near as you've come to substantiating your faulty premise is repeatedly quoting one poorly worded paragraph. Said paragraph, I've clarified at least half a dozen times on at least 3 or 4 different threads now. YOUR choosing to remain deliberately obtuse is YOUR problem. So, within that parameter the answer is yes. YOURS!
Of course I would be if any racism existed. That's my picture you see to the left of every one of my posts. My name is Bill and I would be instantly recognized by most every employee I've ever hired. Sooner or later, I'm sure one of them will stumble across A2K. Next time your stalking my posts looking for some unrelated nonsense to launch another Ad Hominem attack with; take note of the fact that I've deleted nothing.... Not even the stupid stuff I wrote... and typically I even note what the rare edit consisted of. How much more accountable could I be?

You know, the more I think about it, the more I wonder why I am still responding to you.
Your posts, all of them, could be summed up by: YOU: you're a racist, a liar, a hypocrite and therefore couldn't possibly care about the Iraqi people. Then ME: no, no, no and that is simply not true.

Now if you haven't figured it out yet, I doubt your going to. If you do figure it out; I'll happily accept your apology. Good day. :wink:

Joe is a racist acting on the racism intrinsic in his market which discriminates based on the speech patterns of a particular racial group--his customers really don't like "axe"--and Joe rationalizes it with his good friends, numbers, and measures it against his bottom line, his wallet. Joe is merely a cog in the racist system of his world. Poor, poor Joe. But Joe ain't a bad guy! He's got highfalutin ideals, and a great big bleeding heart for the victims of the big, bad ugly dictator half way around the globe, and as far from his imperfect, greyscale racist world. And he sobs at the thought of the human beings sacrificed in the name of ridding those poor, poor victims of that really, really bad guy. But hey, it's not directly affecting his wallet. Heck, he's even gotten a break on his taxes that are paying for the war he loves! Joe is a happy camper in his greyscale world.

Watch Joe doublethink.