Affirmative action/Race Questions

peppermint
Superfan
peppermint's picture
Posts: 539
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
Affirmative action/Race Questions

It's reverse racism to ask for someone's race on a questionnaire unless one is studying something relevant to "race".  College admissions use this bullshit to get more minorities into schools so they can brag about their "diversity". It's just pathetic. People are not defined by their origin, and it all reminds me of the polygenism and craniometry studies they used to conduct in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Outside of our minds, race doesn't exist. It's just genetic similarities of people from a certain location, but what does it have to do with working or going to school? The more we fuel this erroneous classification, the further we are accepting it in other aspects of our culture and lives.

*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*

"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Supposedly it's to make up

Supposedly it's to make up for the discrimination in the past. I would think affirmitive action based on "class" would be better. Do you really think in 10 years that Barrack Obama's daughters will need help to compete getting into college with the daughters (who for example purposes are equally intelligent) of some guy living in a trailer park? If someone still suffers due to past discrimination they are likely poor and would benefit this way at least as much, if not more.

Realistically, a poor white woman in the inner city has more in common with a poor black woman than she does with a wealthy white woman living in Beverly Hills. And a wealthy black executive has more in common with a wealthy white executive that he does with a poor inner-city black man.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


peppermint
Superfan
peppermint's picture
Posts: 539
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Supposedly

MattShizzle wrote:

Supposedly it's to make up for the discrimination in the past. I would think affirmitive action based on "class" would be better. Do you really think in 10 years that Barrack Obama's daughters will need help to compete getting into college with the daughters (who for example purposes are equally intelligent) of some guy living in a trailer park? If someone still suffers due to past discrimination they are likely poor and would benefit this way at least as much, if not more.

Realistically, a poor white woman in the inner city has more in common with a poor black woman than she does with a wealthy white woman living in Beverly Hills. And a wealthy black executive has more in common with a wealthy white executive that he does with a poor inner-city black man.

It's true. I support more financial aid as college costs in this country are ridiculous, but basing it purely on race makes no sense. If we're ever going to move forward living backwards isn't the way to do it.

*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*

"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Yep. I just finally paid of

Yep. I just finally paid of my student loans in February, about a month after turning 34 - and I went to a State college in the early-mid 1990s (of course Pennsylvania is one of the worst states in terms of student aid. ) Ammount of money one has/makes would be a much better way (and someone shouldn't need to be utterly destitute to get a grant. )

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
peppermint wrote:It's

peppermint wrote:

It's reverse racism to ask for someone's race on a questionnaire unless one is studying something relevant to "race".  College admissions use this bullshit to get more minorities into schools so they can brag about their "diversity". It's just pathetic.

Equally pathetic is the fact that you have to be treated as the race you declare AND you cannot be challenged no matter how obvious it is you are not. The US gov employs more Aleut Indians than there are Aleut Indians.

peppermint wrote:
People are not defined by their origin, and it all reminds me of the polygenism and craniometry studies they used to conduct in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Outside of our minds, race doesn't exist.

Despite the politically correct nonsense there are races, Oriental/Mongoloid, Caucasoid, six or seven or so we lump under Black, Amerind, Austaloid, Polynesian, Melanesian and Micronesian. For the most part they represent large groups with distinctive characteristics that developed from a small gene pool that have produded many times more inbreds than crossbreeds. Because of this the inbreds swamp the crossbreeds from where the two groups meet and interbreed. It is also a politically correct myth that races are disappearing in today's world. There is not nearly enough mixing for that to happen.

peppermint wrote:
It's just genetic similarities of people from a certain location, but what does it have to do with working or going to school? The more we fuel this erroneous classification, the further we are accepting it in other aspects of our culture and lives.

It has politics to do with working and going to school. It is the law. Change the law before fighting the system. However using the system is legal. So if being black will help you change your race. It is against the law to challenge what you put down.

There have been some documented differences such as in The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray. Despite all the flak "whites" gave him he, Murray, was well received on Oprah -- Herrnstein died around the time it was published. One of his suggestions based upon recognizing the IQ difference was to simplify the welfare rules. As it was then and still is, the IQ and not the need of the recipient determines the level of benefits.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Does higher IQ mean more or

Does higher IQ mean more or less benefits? I have recently tested as a higher IQ than 99% of men my age. Not that I want to go on welfare, but someone more emotionally stable of average or below intelligence has an easier time getting hired than me.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
peppermint wrote:It's

peppermint wrote:
It's reverse racism to ask for someone's race on a questionnaire unless one is studying something relevant to "race".

It's still "racism". I guess you mean the idea that white people are "racist" and everyone else (in the United States) is "reverse racist". That might not represent a global view. For instance, the Japanese are famously racist. They are not "reverse racist".

In the United States, a black person has fewer opportunities on average than a white person. The division is palpable to an outsider. Some people in the States want to deal with that problem, and in attempting to do so, realized there were some difficulties involved once they started their "affirmative action". Geography, history, and sociology are all filled with shiny ideals that get dragged through the mud when you displace millions of people and enslave them. Now, we're left with a problem that is unsolvable by any one generation, and the attempts to do so can seem pathetic. The alternative, however, is to just "let it go" and pretend like it's not a problem (which is obviously is). I don't know if attempts to deal with a problem that fail are worthy of so much abuse, but it's definitely a difficult problem.

peppermint wrote:
College admissions use this bullshit to get more minorities into schools so they can brag about their "diversity". It's just pathetic.

I know that in universities (when you say "college", you mean Harvard, Yale, Notre Dame, etc, too, right?), part of the idea is that you get as many different people together as possible. It's part of the university culture going back centuries. When it meets American demographics, the results can be laughable, but institutional administration is so often laughable that it's hardly surprising.

peppermint wrote:
Outside of our minds, race doesn't exist. It's just genetic similarities of people from a certain location, but what does it have to do with working or going to school? The more we fuel this erroneous classification, the further we are accepting it in other aspects of our culture and lives.

Except that the current citizens whose ancestors were kidnapped from Africa a few hundred years ago still look different than the citizens whose ancestors kidnapped them. I get what you're saying - that it shouldn't matter. But it does, and quite plainly. Ignoring that won't make it go away. But I honestly can't tell you what would, unless it's the natural blending of cultures (which could take several generations).

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Equally pathetic is

 

Quote:
Equally pathetic is the fact that you have to be treated as the race you declare AND you cannot be challenged no matter how obvious it is you are not. The US gov employs more Aleut Indians than there are Aleut Indians.

Um, what?

So does this mean that I can declare myself whatever I want and get minority scholarships, grants, and such, and they can't do anything to stop me?

I find that hard to believe.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
peppermint wrote:It's

peppermint wrote:

It's reverse racism to ask for someone's race on a questionnaire unless one is studying something relevant to "race".  College admissions use this bullshit to get more minorities into schools so they can brag about their "diversity". It's just pathetic. People are not defined by their origin, and it all reminds me of the polygenism and craniometry studies they used to conduct in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Outside of our minds, race doesn't exist. It's just genetic similarities of people from a certain location, but what does it have to do with working or going to school? The more we fuel this erroneous classification, the further we are accepting it in other aspects of our culture and lives.

 

Quoth Maddox: " 'Diversity' is another way of saying, 'We're willing to hire some black people.' "

 

There are several different forms of racism that most people don't consider racism or don't realize is racism.


 

1. Institutional racism: We hire/enroll black people (read: a black guy). See? We're very modern and cosmopolitan. We've been looking for a token asian as well, because we're just that progressive.

 

2. Racism in the Arts: Is it possible for a black person to write a novel without it being categorized as "African American Literature"? I mean, we don't exactly have a section for "Caucasian Literature" in the average bookstore, do we? There is also "black music" and "black comedy" and "black television". The only times we would talk about "white music" or "white comedy" or "white television" is if we were joking. Yet we can do it to other groups and it's perfectly fine. This behavior is most likely linked to the next category:

 

3. Masochistic Racism: This type of racism is exhibited by people who feel so terrible about the era of slavery that, even though they had nothing to do with it, the feel the need to wax apologetic very often. This is not exclusive to african americans either. Many people also have similar guilt about native american history. This racism shows itself in a variety of ways, but boils down to defending these groups with a guilty but self-righteous bleeding heart simply because you feel it's PC to do so. I remember right after the Jaina (sp?) incident, I was in an online discussion with some people who linked a blog by a black man who lived there. In it, he expressed how sad he was that nothing has changed. As would be expected, many white voices were lining up to agree. Yes, sir, Mr. Black Man, sir. So sorry, sir. It's a good thing I agree with you and am not racist.

I replied calling them idiots, since it's obviously not true that nothing has changed. It's no longer common for black men to get lynched, burned alived, hanged, and all the rest. Anyone with a thinking brain who is capable of looking at history in one hand and today in the other can see that racism, though not entirely gone, has very much declined. As sad as the Jaina incident may have been, there was no reason to agree with such an incorrect statement. For pointing this out, I was called "a racist dipshit" who "doesn't know fuckall about anything". See what I mean?

Treating other races as inferior doesn't necessarily entail that you're doing it maliciously. Treating them with kid gloves is treating them as inferiors, too. In my opinion, this is the strongest form of racism right now and it needs to be contested more often.

It's tricky, because this suggests to me that the solution to racism is just not to think about race. And yet, because there is racism, we have to. I sometimes worry that speaking out against racism is evolving into something akin to the "nobody think of an elephant" trick. I hope that's just my nervous, worry-about-everything-for-no-reason gene.

 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
peppermint wrote:It's

peppermint wrote:
It's reverse racism to ask for someone's race on a questionnaire unless one is studying something relevant to "race".  College admissions use this bullshit to get more minorities into schools so they can brag about their "diversity". It's just pathetic. People are not defined by their origin, and it all reminds me of the polygenism and craniometry studies they used to conduct in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Outside of our minds, race doesn't exist. It's just genetic similarities of people from a certain location, but what does it have to do with working or going to school? The more we fuel this erroneous classification, the further we are accepting it in other aspects of our culture and lives.


 

OK, I tend to agree with you in substance but not in detail. I don't see race as a relevant distinction today. A case in point will serve to illuminate where I stand:

A few years ago, I had a mixed race couple living next door to me. The father was a light skinned black man and the mother was a hot blond. The kids were about as black as Paula Abdul. Their kids went to the same school as my kids, they had the same teachers and curriculum as my kids.


 

When it comes time for college admissions, should my neighbor's kids be entitled to check a box on a form and move ahead of my kids in the queue?


 

If the answer is yes, then the next question should be why that is so. If the answer is that fifteen generations ago, some ancestor was kidnapped, taken to America and used as forced labor, then I think that something is seriously wrong.


 

MattShizzle wrote:
Does higher IQ mean more or less benefits? I have recently tested as a higher IQ than 99% of men my age. Not that I want to go on welfare, but someone more emotionally stable of average or below intelligence has an easier time getting hired than me.

Do you mean that they have a better chance of working as a high energy physicist? Or do you mean to say that your career goal is to say “Do you want fries with that?”. Really Matt, you can do better than that.

HisWillness wrote:
It's still "racism". I guess you mean the idea that white people are "racist" and everyone else (in the United States) is "reverse racist". That might not represent a global view. For instance, the Japanese are famously racist. They are not "reverse racist".way. But I honestly can't tell you what would, unless it's the natural blending of cultures (which could take several generations).

Racism is racism. Reverse or not.

HisWillness wrote:
In the United States, a black person has fewer opportunities on average than a white person. The division is palpable to an outsider. Some people in the States want to deal with that problem, and in attempting to do so, realized there were some difficulties involved once they started their "affirmative action". Geography, history, and sociology are all filled with shiny ideals that get dragged through the mud when you displace millions of people and enslave them. Now, we're left with a problem that is unsolvable by any one generation, and the attempts to do so can seem pathetic. The alternative, however, is to just "let it go" and pretend like it's not a problem (which is obviously is). I don't know if attempts to deal with a problem that fail are worthy of so much abuse, but it's definitely a difficult problem.

Forty years ago is one thing. Today is another. We must all live in the world as it presents itself to us. What is the problem right now is a question that begs an answer.

HisWillness wrote:
I know that in universities (when you say "college", you mean Harvard, Yale, Notre Dame, etc, too, right?), part of the idea is that you get as many different people together as possible. It's part of the university culture going back centuries. When it meets American demographics, the results can be laughable, but institutional administration is so often laughable that it's hardly surprising.

Well, If I had my druthers, secondary schools would be filled with smart people. Additional classifications may well serve a purpose but the primary one needs to be if one is smart. Not if one has a skin color that meets the federal government's definition of “diversity”.

HisWillness wrote:
Except that the current citizens whose ancestors were kidnapped from Africa a few hundred years ago still look different than the citizens whose ancestors kidnapped them. I get what you're saying - that it shouldn't matter. But it does, and quite plainly. Ignoring that won't make it go away. But I honestly can't tell you what would, unless it's the natural blending of cultures (which could take several generations).

I understand what you are saying. Your point has some validity. However, it can't be absolute, as race distinctions are absolute. At the top of this post, I made the case that check boxes on forms are inherently unjust. I submit that it is injustice that is the real issue. If someone is denied a fair chance at something because of a bogus classification, then something needs to be done to change the situation.

However, if someone is being moved ahead because they are part of some class that is granted a special privilege, then there is a problem. Holding people back for being black is really not that different from advancing people because they are white.

Don't get me wrong on this, there are ignorant fucks in the world. However, there are ignorant fuck on all sides of every issue. Where I stand on the matter of race is entirely with myself. I distance myself from the KKK every bit as much as I do from the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Except

HisWillness wrote:

Except that the current citizens whose ancestors were kidnapped from Africa a few hundred years ago still look different than the citizens whose ancestors kidnapped them.

No, they look very similar. Black people enslaved other blacks and then sold them to Europeans. So the kidnappers were black. The people who purchased slaves off of the kidnappers were white. Europeans tapped into an already thriving African slave system. The Europeans weren't the one making slaves (at least not directly).

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Racism is racism. Reverse or not.

That's my point. Except there's no "reverse" to racism. The phrase "reverse racism" has no meaning.

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Forty years ago is one thing. Today is another. We must all live in the world as it presents itself to us. What is the problem right now is a question that begs an answer.

Agreed that lynchings are no longer common. Economic and social divisions are palpable. Recent visits to Youngstown, Ohio and Nashville, Tennessee, reveal a startling solidarity among the white population as to what represents a "ghetto". Hint: it's a normal neighbourhood, except black people live there. That's what makes it a "ghetto". In Youngstown, when this was pointed out to me - among muffled shrieks that the women in the party were scared for their lives - I nearly gagged. The only black people I saw were women and children playing on the lawn, and these women were mock terrified because they were in a terrible place. That's not 40 years ago, that's last year.

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Well, If I had my druthers, secondary schools would be filled with smart people. Additional classifications may well serve a purpose but the primary one needs to be if one is smart. Not if one has a skin color that meets the federal government's definition of “diversity”.

You know as well as I do that the original purpose of trying to push diversity was that black people had a disadvantage getting into schools. Don't pretend like that's not the case. Criticism of the result is reasonable, considering policies like that are rarely successful. Try your best to help out, and you may find that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. But "smart people"? You're asking a lot of administrations if you think they can actually allocate the "smart". I believe Yale accepted George Bush.

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
I submit that it is injustice that is the real issue.

Of course!

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
If someone is denied a fair chance at something because of a bogus classification, then something needs to be done to change the situation.

Exactly. Just don't expect that solution to be perfect.

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
However, if someone is being moved ahead because they are part of some class that is granted a special privilege, then there is a problem. Holding people back for being black is really not that different from advancing people because they are white.

That's pretty much what happens. But I wouldn't consider it some kind of conspiracy or anything. People are comfortable around people with whom they can relate. It's easiest to relate to those with a common culture. So it's no surprise that white people would hire a culturally white person before a culturally black person, and the same can be said for culturally white universities.

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Don't get me wrong on this, there are ignorant fucks in the world. However, there are ignorant fuck on all sides of every issue. Where I stand on the matter of race is entirely with myself. I distance myself from the KKK every bit as much as I do from the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

 

Of course, but the minority remains at a disadvantage. If you honestly think it's a gigantic injustice that the occasional black kid might get into a school when her marks are lower than a white kid's, I'd say you're overreacting to a policy that isn't exactly handing over the keys to the vault.

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


peppermint
Superfan
peppermint's picture
Posts: 539
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Of course,

HisWillness wrote:

Of course, but the minority remains at a disadvantage. If you honestly think it's a gigantic injustice that the occasional black kid might get into a school when her marks are lower than a white kid's, I'd say you're overreacting to a policy that isn't exactly handing over the keys to the vault.

 

The problem is, the more we accept that there are minorities, the worse it gets. If we continue to classify a group of people based on genetic similarities and claim they are all, generally, at a disadvantage, we are fueling the racial fire.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we essentially treat African Americans as if they are poor, needy and disadvantaged, what kind of message does this send? Naturally, many people will fulfill the expectations because it is "expected" of them. It's the same reason people stereotype themselves and others, join cliques and classify in any way. It reminds me of high school: the popular kids are only as popular as they think of themselves and make themselves out to be, and everyone believes it despite the fact that most of the students think they're full of it.

The fact of the matter is, race plays as much of a role as we say it should.

Oh, and reverse racism is simple:

"You don't like me because I'm white, is that it? I bet that's it."

It's when you put the label on yourself and use it to further some agenda. Why don't you think that's valid? Do you not see it yourself? Because I definitely do.

 

*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*

"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
peppermint wrote:The problem

peppermint wrote:

The problem is, the more we accept that there are minorities, the worse it gets. If we continue to classify a group of people based on genetic similarities and claim they are all, generally, at a disadvantage, we are fueling the racial fire.

Right, further illustrating my point: it's an almost intractable problem, not just a matter of "if we do this, it's wrong, and if we do this, it's right." You can speak reasonably about ignoring race, but a great many people are, in fact, already treated worse because they are black (either culturally or because their skin is dark).

peppermint wrote:
The fact of the matter is, race plays as much of a role as we say it should.

And apparently, we say it should play a very large role. So how does one deal with that?

Listen, you're absolutely right about race: it doesn't exist in any rational or reasonable form. What has become the problem isn't race, it's the social dynamics surrounding a perception of race. You're also right that it's all in our heads. But the fact remains that for now, the problem still exists, and granting a pass to a small number of black people isn't going to put the white people at a disadvantage. 

peppermint wrote:
Oh, and reverse racism is simple:

"You don't like me because I'm white, is that it? I bet that's it."

It's when you put the label on yourself and use it to further some agenda. Why don't you think that's valid? Do you not see it yourself? Because I definitely do.

My point was that your example itself is simply racism. There is no "reverse" to that. Bringing race into an equation where it has no value is racism, so it doesn't have to be reverse. Your example hints also at a prejudice, but the prejudice is based on race.

Sure, I see it. I see people behaving in ridiculous ways all the time. The only reason I'm dwelling on the semantics is that it illustrates the disadvantage being played upon by the majority group. You see the acknowledgement of that power dynamic "definitely", so you must understand that it comes from an actual place of disadvantage being perceived.

It's only that I take this problem seriously that I wouldn't want to address it in strictly contrasting terms.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander

Jormungander wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Except that the current citizens whose ancestors were kidnapped from Africa a few hundred years ago still look different than the citizens whose ancestors kidnapped them.

No, they look very similar. Black people enslaved other blacks and then sold them to Europeans. So the kidnappers were black. The people who purchased slaves off of the kidnappers were white. Europeans tapped into an already thriving African slave system. The Europeans weren't the one making slaves (at least not directly).

That's interesting - I didn't know that. But it's beside the point. The problem still exists for the descendants of the "importers" (rather than the "kidnappers" ) of said slaves, and the descendants of the kidnapped.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Does

MattShizzle wrote:

Does higher IQ mean more or less benefits? I have recently tested as a higher IQ than 99% of men my age. Not that I want to go on welfare, but someone more emotionally stable of average or below intelligence has an easier time getting hired than me.

About the time the book was published my girl friend was a social worker. She agreed with the idea. Those who were smart enough to get a job were those smart enough to avoid being thrown off welfare and who could "recite section and paragraph" of what they were entitled to.

So Mr. Three Sigma, if you want to go on welfare what would you rationally do? You would head to the closest library with your state laws and study them. You would construct your life to fit the requirements of law. The law does not say too dumb to hold a job. A guy who looks down on Mensa can certainly find a way to behave that prevents holding a job. You might even head over the medical section of the library for a set of symptoms and leave via the arts section for some books on drama and acting.

But the welfare class doesn't have it that hard. They have mother and grandmother and maybe great-grandmother as role models. They have neighbors to learn from. There is community wisdom on how to get on and stay on and get the most out of welfare. As with everything else, the smartest learn the best and implement what they have learned the best. And they have been in it all their lives.


And if there are any questions, just play the stereotype, I jes caint hep it.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
Equally pathetic is the fact that you have to be treated as the race you declare AND you cannot be challenged no matter how obvious it is you are not. The US gov employs more Aleut Indians than there are Aleut Indians.

Um, what?

So does this mean that I can declare myself whatever I want and get minority scholarships, grants, and such, and they can't do anything to stop me?

I find that hard to believe.

A few years ago there was a Philadelphia case that went national. A registered White lost a promotion to a registered Black because test score plus race bonus points made him the loser. He changed his registration and got the job. Law suits all around.

Who is going to challenge and how? Octaroon == 1/8th Black. "It's a dark family secret and they will all deny it but there was a black cat in the alley." Hally Barry? Kristen Kreuz/Lana Lang? She just had her eyelids fixed. People have suggested I am Pacific Islander and it is northern European so far back there is no chance of anything else. I could be a minority without an affirmative action benefit.

Many years ago with the gov I discovered the test for being Hispanic is surname EVEN IF by marriage.

(Correction, that was Inuit not Aleut Indian.)

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Here is a great quote on

Here is a great quote on people who group others by race, regardless if whether or not they mean to help others by doing it:

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.”

I have to agree with this. People who use racial classifications in what they think is a positive manner are only contributing to racism.

People cry wolf over racism so often that it has lost all meaning to me. So much as implying that another culture has problems can earn you the label of being a racist. People need to be less sensitive about racism and people need to stop banking on racist institutions that were abolished before their birth as a justification for being overly sensitive. Every time I hear someone say "but what about slavery" or "but what about Jim Crow laws" I am disgusted that someone would capitalize on past injustices as a justification for their actions. Unless someone lived under Jim Crow laws (these people exist, and I give them and them alone a free pass on this matter) or unless someone was enslaved in the nineteenth century, I will not accept past injustices as an excuse for their behavior.

Most of the students at my university are not white and are female, should the university use affirmative action to try to increase the number of whites and men that go there? Or perhaps all students deserve to be treaded equally by the admissions board, regardless of race or gender.

HisWillness: If affirmative action programs are so insignificant why do we even have them? If all they do is cause a few token minorities to get into schools that they normally wouldn't, then I think those programs have failed at their objective. Though since I am against affirmative action I suppose that is what I want to happen. If they are so ineffective as to be virtually harmless, then perhaps they are too minor of an injustice to fight against.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander

Jormungander wrote:
HisWillness:

You rang?

Jormungander wrote:
If affirmative action programs are so insignificant why do we even have them?

Guilt. At least, that's my best guess. And some attempt to level the playing field. Have you been to the US? There are different neighbourhoods for black people and white people. The black neighbourhoods are called "the ghetto". As Chris Rock recently pointed out, if you want to be black and live in a white upper-middle-class neighbourhood, you have to be a superstar.

Jormungander wrote:
If all they do is cause a few token minorities to get into schools that they normally wouldn't, then I think those programs have failed at their objective.

Why, because nobody got in who wouldn't have otherwise? I'm speculating, but I think the idea was to just let a few people from visible minorities get a foot in the door. The system is already stacked against them, so this isn't going to solve the problem, just give some people a chance.

Jormungander wrote:
Though since I am against affirmative action I suppose that is what I want to happen. If they are so ineffective as to be virtually harmless, then perhaps they are too minor of an injustice to fight against.

That's my opinion. I've heard white people rail against the injustice of black people getting A JOB (singular) that they "should have" gotten because of some perception of the way that affirmative action works. But really, in a system where a white person is culturally more similar to the majority than a black person, and visibly different in a country that has a well-known history of antagonism toward anyone with so much as a decent tan, the white person has many more options, and many more opportunities. Hearing a white guy whine that he once lost ONE JOB to a black woman because of affirmative action policies is a bit pathetic when racism plainly exists, and white people outnumber black people 10 to 1.

That said, I would love for the US to culturally accept the melanin-rich peoples of the world as brothers and sisters, so that this wouldn't be an issue at all. But while in Nashville a couple of years ago, I was told the following story by someone I worked with:

"Yeah, the office got broken into. Someone smashed the door window, grabbed a couple of computers, and left. But they cut themselves on the window and left a trail of blood. That's what I'd call one dumb nigger."

Now, as someone whose family was at the other end of the underground railroad, and was raised on Mahalia Jackson, I didn't know what I was hearing. There weren't any cameras in the office. Then I figured it out: the guy knew who would rob the place because the poor people in Nashville are easy to spot: they all happen to be black. The white guys get valet parking for their pick-up trucks, but two streets down, there's an entire neighbourhood filled with people who would love to be able to afford cars, and not one of them is white.

I would love for this to not be the case, and I agree with you that any policy that anyone tries to enact will be embarrassingly impotent. But the effect of such policies cannot possibly erode the clear advantage of the visible majority when it comes to opportunities in schools and the workforce.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:At least,

HisWillness wrote:

At least, that's my best guess. And some attempt to level the playing field. Have you been to the US? There are different neighbourhoods for black people and white people. The black neighbourhoods are called "the ghetto". As Chris Rock recently pointed out, if you want to be black and live in a white upper-middle-class neighbourhood, you have to be a superstar.

I'm from California, so perhaps my perspective on race in America is skewed towards that view. All my life blacks and Hispanics have lived in the same neighborhoods as I have. Whites are the majority, but I would say about 10% of homes in my neighborhood back in high school had non-white families in them. Since I now live in Orange county most of my class mates and most of my neighbors are Asian. My school literally has more than half of the student body being composed of Asians and another 10% or so composed of other non-whites. I don't get shows about the OC that have all white people in them. I see more Asians every day in Orange county than I did in all my life before I moved here. I don't feel like I am exaggerating when I say that. Having written that, I understand that this is likely a uniquely Southern Californian experience that will not translate to what life is like in the rest of the US.

I think that constantly being surrounded by members of other races makes it hard for me to view them as being some different and scary group. I go to classes filled with Asians and Arabs, I go to metal shows filled with Hispanics, I go to gun ranges filled with Hispanics, and about half of the roommates I have had in the past two years weren't white. I think it is just desensitization. If most Americans had minorities around them at most social activities they would eventually stop noticing it. You can't really see them as being all that strange or scary if you live with them and engage in most social activities in their presence. Perhaps if I lived my life isolated from other races I would see them differently.

In California ghettos are filled with illegal Mexicans. I know of black ghettos in LA and Oakland, but all of the ghettos I have seen personally are Mexican. If you ever want cheap workers go to a Home Depot and tell the illegals hanging around in front of it that you need help on some home project.

 

HisWillness wrote:

That said, I would love for the US to culturally accept the melanin-rich peoples of the world as brothers and sisters, so that this wouldn't be an issue at all.

The way I see things, all Americans are our brothers and sisters. The only legitimate form of collectivism in my opinion is nationalism (but not the bad kind of blind, submissive nationalism, I wish that word didn't carry such a negative connotation). I think the point is that pro-racial groups are as divisive and racist as some guy in Nashville commenting on the 'stupid nigger' that stole his computers or a white woman being frightened that she is in a safe middle-class black neighborhood.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Here is a

Jormungander wrote:

Here is a great quote on people who group others by race, regardless if whether or not they mean to help others by doing it:

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.”

I have to agree with this. People who use racial classifications in what they think is a positive manner are only contributing to racism.

Yes. That is why Zionism is racism and all them Ayyyrabs have to die because they are all terrorists. All group think, even in a noble cause, is damnable racism.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Jormungander wrote:

Here is a great quote on people who group others by race, regardless if whether or not they mean to help others by doing it:

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.”

I have to agree with this. People who use racial classifications in what they think is a positive manner are only contributing to racism.

Yes. That is why Zionism is racism and all them Ayyyrabs have to die because they are all terrorists. All group think, even in a noble cause, is damnable racism.

I guess you are joking, maybe. Or do you think that I really advocate killing Jews and Arabs? If you could write a serious version of your comment that would be nice, because I don't think that the sarcasm is transmitted well over the internet. And I am pretty sure that quote was about American racial politics and not the middle east. I just can't tell which parts of that comment are sarcasm and which parts are literal.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Since I

Jormungander wrote:
Since I now live in Orange county most of my class mates and most of my neighbors are Asian. My school literally has more than half of the student body being composed of Asians and another 10% or so composed of other non-whites. I don't get shows about the OC that have all white people in them.

Yeah, well that's fantasy. It's not really important what ACTUALLY happens in Orange County. I went to a high school that was populated largely from Hong Kong, so I know what you mean.

Jormungander wrote:
I see more Asians every day in Orange county than I did in all my life before I moved here. I don't feel like I am exaggerating when I say that. Having written that, I understand that this is likely a uniquely Southern Californian experience that will not translate to what life is like in the rest of the US.

Yup.

[edit: misplaced paragraph]

Jormungander wrote:
In California ghettos are filled with illegal Mexicans. I know of black ghettos in LA and Oakland, but all of the ghettos I have seen personally are Mexican. If you ever want cheap workers go to a Home Depot and tell the illegals hanging around in front of it that you need help on some home project.

I'll keep that in mind. Of course, I don't think the US is where I'd move if I ever wanted to stop being Canadian - I love me some socialism.

Jormungander wrote:
The way I see things, all Americans are our brothers and sisters. The only legitimate form of collectivism in my opinion is nationalism (but not the bad kind of blind, submissive nationalism, I wish that word didn't carry such a negative connotation).

Then why do you say "Asians"? Surely you mean Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Indian, Pakistani, Afghani, Indonesian, Mongolian, Vietnamese, etc. Southern California, I'd imagine largely Cantonese-speaking Chinese and Japanese. Would I be right? I'm from Toronto, so I've met everybody. I don't think being a racist in Toronto would even be possible. Your head would explode!

Nationalism can get a negative connotation because EVERYBODY is now part of the family. We're all sharing the same diseases, we're all trying to solve the same problems, and we're all in the same trouble. Nationalism isn't helping. The foreign relations policy of France and the US have to be the perfect example of that. It also means to imply that I am NOT your brother when you say "all Americans". A bit tricky, that one. 

Jormungander wrote:
I think the point is that pro-racial groups are as divisive and racist as some guy in Nashville commenting on the 'stupid nigger' that stole his computers or a white woman being frightened that she is in a safe middle-class black neighborhood.

They're definitely racist, because any official acknowledgment of race is racist. But how to eliminate the division without acknowledging it is a really difficult question. And I'd say that nationalism is just as divisive.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
Equally pathetic is the fact that you have to be treated as the race you declare AND you cannot be challenged no matter how obvious it is you are not. The US gov employs more Aleut Indians than there are Aleut Indians.

Um, what?

So does this mean that I can declare myself whatever I want and get minority scholarships, grants, and such, and they can't do anything to stop me?

I find that hard to believe.

It terms of college, they do take you at your word for consideration but you do have to provide proof before receiving the check, so to speak.  I have no idea how this situation is handled in the workforce however.


neptewn
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
peppermint wrote:Outside of

peppermint wrote:

Outside of our minds, race doesn't exist. It's just genetic similarities of people from a certain location, but what does it have to do with working or going to school? The more we fuel this erroneous classification, the further we are accepting it in other aspects of our culture and lives.

So who's going to tell the blacks that them having four times the poverty rate of whites is only in their minds?

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
neptewn wrote:peppermint

neptewn wrote:

peppermint wrote:

Outside of our minds, race doesn't exist. It's just genetic similarities of people from a certain location, but what does it have to do with working or going to school? The more we fuel this erroneous classification, the further we are accepting it in other aspects of our culture and lives.

So who's going to tell the blacks that them having four times the poverty rate of whites is only in their minds?

Race is 100% culturally determined and 0% genetically determined. That is the fact of the matter. I can not stress that enough, race has nothing whatsoever to do with physiology. That being said, if everyone acts on the culturally determined racial classifications there will be real world consequences regardless of the lack of a physiological or genetic basis of race.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander

Jormungander wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Jormungander wrote:

Here is a great quote on people who group others by race, regardless if whether or not they mean to help others by doing it:

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.”

I have to agree with this. People who use racial classifications in what they think is a positive manner are only contributing to racism.

Yes. That is why Zionism is racism and all them Ayyyrabs have to die because they are all terrorists. All group think, even in a noble cause, is damnable racism.

I guess you are joking, maybe. Or do you think that I really advocate killing Jews and Arabs? If you could write a serious version of your comment that would be nice, because I don't think that the sarcasm is transmitted well over the internet. And I am pretty sure that quote was about American racial politics and not the middle east. I just can't tell which parts of that comment are sarcasm and which parts are literal.

I had nothing personal in mind regarding you. I was observing the two most popular forms of racism around today. Even though Jews and Arabs are Caucasians the idea of race as a group is alive and well. Zionism considers Jews to be a race in the old sense of common descent and is thus racism. It also considers Jews to be a superior race. And this despite Zionism being an atheist political movement. Zionism satisfies the group identification meaning of racism even if, as I noted, a cause that is claimed to be noble.

At the same time the Zionist hatred of Arabs is endemic among Zionists and has permeated US culture.

For a long time I have made it a point to read Haaretz.com and JPost.com regularly -- the former six days a week no matter how boring. Their senior politicians actually campaign on positions so racist they would make an antebellum plantation owner blush. Damn near every day there is some racist statement that in the US would require a politician to apologize and resign in disgrace or at best find an excuse to retire and not stand for re-election.

In the US imagine TV shows and movies where every criminal was Black. Even in the good old days that wasn't done of course if you go far enough back there were no Blacks at all. Now imagine a TV show or a movie where the terrorist is not a Muslim. What a far cry from Rudolf Valentino as the Sheik of Arabee.

It is easy to join the politically correct bandwagon and rail against the "racism" that everyone agrees is racism. It is more difficult to stand against the approved forms of racism, pro-Zionism and anti-Arab. Those too need be eliminated.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Megatron
Superfan
Posts: 35
Joined: 2008-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Agree.

 Yes, I agree with your statement.  It's pretty true, but don't go saying that around other people or you're in for a surprise mugging.  Personally I don't really think race is the issue, I think that culture is more invasive.    

Evolution cannot be debated. 'Tis real.


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
*sarcasm filter off*Oh,

*sarcasm filter off*

Oh, those zany, sneaky Jews! Despite being a fictional race, they have managed to manipulate genetics, creating inheritable genetic disorders such as Tay-Sachs Disease, Blooms Syndrome, and Canavan Disease among a huge host of others. Proof positive as to just how treacherous these people are! No other non-race has ever managed such a deceitful endeavor in the history of all mankind!

Why they have even infiltrated credible sciences, having had printed a blasphemous article in the American Journal of Human Genetics, best renamed the American Jewrnal of Human Genetics,  that convincingly pretends that they actually have DNA! And worse yet, the filthy Jewish bankers paid geneticists to say this about their finding:

  " It is worth mentioning that, on the basis of protein polymorphisms, most Jewish populations cluster very closely with Iraqis (Livshits et al. 1991) and that the latter, in turn, cluster very closely with Kurds (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). These findings are consistent with known cultural links that existed among populations in the Fertile Crescent in early history. "

Can you believe that nonsense? It is high time that we put an end to such madness! No longer can we Nazi Skinheads continue to allow such abuses. It is time that we make the Jews admit that they have no genetic disorders which would prove conclusively that they are a race. We need to revise genetic textbooks immediately to reflect the fact that Jews have no genes! I'm going to wake my woman up right this moment and inform her that she has no genes, right after I fly to Israel and destroy every shred of evidence for an indigenous race. History must be corrected, and I don't care how much reality I have do deny, how many rational counterarguments I have to ignore, or how many times I have to repeat absolutely refuted outright lies in order to do it! Write your local geneticist and tell them to quit printing such lies. Write your local doctors and tell them to quit making up diagnosis for Jews. Write your local archaeologists and tell them that you are going to shove a trowel up their ass if they keep digging up false evidence of a race of Jews. The time is now. Sig Heil!

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1274378

*Sarcasm Filter On*

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
neptewn wrote:So who's going

neptewn wrote:

So who's going to tell the blacks that them having four times the poverty rate of whites is only in their minds?

Thank you for mentioning this statistic.  One can certainly inject classism into the discussion, but I see Jim Crow having much more to do with the matter. 

Don't you think that having you parents' live under threat of death for the color of their skin would affect them psychologically enough to impact a large amount of their decisions in life - including economic and parenting decisions?  Although Jim Crow ended 40 years ago, that is not really a very long time.  Don't forget that Jim Crow was not just separate drinking fountains, but lynchings for daring claim the right to be considered human.  I think affirmative action (as imperfectly as it is sometimes implemented) is a pretty minor way to make up for this legacy.

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
anniet wrote:neptewn

anniet wrote:

neptewn wrote:

So who's going to tell the blacks that them having four times the poverty rate of whites is only in their minds?

Thank you for mentioning this statistic.  One can certainly inject classism into the discussion, but I see Jim Crow having much more to do with the matter. 

Don't you think that having you parents' live under threat of death for the color of their skin would affect them psychologically enough to impact a large amount of their decisions in life - including economic and parenting decisions?  Although Jim Crow ended 40 years ago, that is not really a very long time.  Don't forget that Jim Crow was not just separate drinking fountains, but lynchings for daring claim the right to be considered human.  I think affirmative action (as imperfectly as it is sometimes implemented) is a pretty minor way to make up for this legacy.

Weren't around one fourth of all people lynched white? Lynching was a tool of oppression used against blacks and whites (but mainly blacks). Also blacks living in states such as California and New York didn't fear lynching, yet California prison statistics show that black males disproportionately commit (or are at least caught committing) crimes. Also Mexican males commit most of our violent crime in California, yet they don't compose most of the population.

I would say that poverty is all the matters for this. Illegal and legal Mexican immigrants are poor and blacks are more likely to be poor and their poor US children are more likely to seek out illegal ways of making money (drugs mainly, but gangs rob and engage in prostitution also). The fact is poverty=crime, not 'my dad was afraid of Jim Crow even though I live in LA or New York, so I think I'll rob someone or deal heroin.' I really think that this is a class problem and not at all a racial problem. Just because white trash likes to cook up crystal meth, that doesn't mean that whites are or were oppressed. It just means that poor people more easily turn to illegal means of making money (such as Hispanic cocaine smugglers, trailer park meth labs or black heroin dealers). Every race's poor people are far more likely to commit crimes for money.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Poverty is important, but is

Poverty is important, but is not all that matters.  The 1st black family to successfully be able to live in my town moved in around 1990.  Previously when a black family had tried to settle in that area of Northern California their homes were burnt down and/or they were told to leave or die.  The rednecks in town were serious and no black family stayed very long.  They could live in large cities like L.A. or San Francisco (with their own forms of racism), but not being in the South did not mean that blacks escaped Jim Crow entirely.  The legacy that this type of obstruction to basic living leaves in a family does not disappear overnight.  Affirmative action tries to deal with this legacy that our society created and is therefore responsible for cleaning up. 

I don't really buy into the diversity for diversity's sake argument.  This is where affirmative action seems to run into trouble.  I do see the importance of integrating more fringe elements of a society (including poor whites) into something closer to the mainstream.  You definitely have a point in stating that the poor of any ethnicity turn more often to crime than their wealthier peers and that this issue needs to be addressed.  Affirmative action seeks to help more Latinos educate themselves and better integrate into society so that they are not filling California's penal system.  Do poor whites need more opportunities too?  Yes, as I see an integration issue there too.   However, it does seem to be easier to move yourself into a different situation if you are white.  From what I've seen, skin color helps - even in California (and Oregon and Arizona) - as racism is not dead. 

The people I hear complaining about affirmative action more often than not are middle class and white.  These people do not complain when their parents' connections or the extras they were able to participate in at their schools get them an internship, scholarship, or any kind of foot in the door that the minority kid simply does not have access to.  They don't complain about being able to play instead of work extra to help support family.  They don't complain about never having had a parent incarcerated.  These privileged folks get pissed off when someone else gets what they think is their own birthright.  It doesn't help that the someone else in question looks and/or acts different from them and can easily be labeled the "other". 

I think we would do better to look at where affirmative action works and what problems it causes and see if we can't change some of the implementation due to the results of this analysis as it is certainly not a perfect system.  We probably do need to look at slowly transferring to a more class-based system for the future, but we are not at that point yet.  There are still large numbers of people in this country that suffer from the legacy of Jim Crow because Jim Crow is not ancient history but in living memory.  Those who suffered and those who created the suffering are still with us and will be for many more years.

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
I agree with HisWillingness

I agree with HisWillingness on this one. I think the idea of affirmative action is racist. It's an awful institution that we shouldn't need. But it is a necessary evil if we are ever going to uplift the oppressed. Make no mistake about it, the current workings of the world make it very hard for a member of a minority to succeed. The fact of the matter is that most people are racist weather they realize it or not, and many people perpetuate racism without even knowing it. Just by writing in this forum all of us have helped to keep racism alive. It exist only in our minds, and so long as we remind ourselves of it we will never be rid of it.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Unrequited sarcasm

Desdenova wrote:

*sarcasm filter off*

Oh, those zany, sneaky Jews! Despite being a fictional race, they have managed to manipulate genetics, creating inheritable genetic disorders such as Tay-Sachs Disease, Blooms Syndrome, and Canavan Disease among a huge host of others. Proof positive as to just how treacherous these people are! No other non-race has ever managed such a deceitful endeavor in the history of all mankind!

It is always amusing to see the extent to which believers will go to create their own, limited reality.

If you had bothered to read what I posted on the matter of races and in the process named most of them you would know the word race does not apply even if you were correct.

In this case you are describing the most common Jew in the US, the Ashkenazim, the eastern European or Khazar described as the 13th Tribe by Kaufman in a book damned never every Jew I knew was trying to get me to read until the subject was dropped upon realization it undercut all the claims having ancestral connections to bibleland. (Trivia: the Shield of David was a Khazar symbol.)

Genetics shows the Sephardic Jews and the Palestinians are the same people while the Ashkenazim are unrelated to either. The modest exception is the Kohenim gene which is the same in both Sephardim and Ashkenazim. Oddly that shows the priests are unrelated to either group which supports the priests and thus the religion was imported to both groups.

You should be careful not to jump into subjects you do not understand.

Desdenova wrote:
Why they have even infiltrated credible sciences, having had printed a blasphemous article in the American Journal of Human Genetics, best renamed the American Jewrnal of Human Genetics,  that convincingly pretends that they actually have DNA! And worse yet, the filthy Jewish bankers paid geneticists to say this about their finding:

  " It is worth mentioning that, on the basis of protein polymorphisms, most Jewish populations cluster very closely with Iraqis (Livshits et al. 1991) and that the latter, in turn, cluster very closely with Kurds (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). These findings are consistent with known cultural links that existed among populations in the Fertile Crescent in early history. "

Can you believe that nonsense?

I find it more interesting you are unaware that is a reference to the Ashkenazi only. Of course if you like the idea of Abraham being an Iraqi Kurd don't let me rain on your parade unless you march in public.

Desdenova wrote:
It is high time that we put an end to such madness! No longer can we Nazi Skinheads continue to allow such abuses. It is time that we make the Jews admit that they have no genetic disorders which would prove conclusively that they are a race. We need to revise genetic textbooks immediately to reflect the fact that Jews have no genes! I'm going to wake my woman up right this moment and inform her that she has no genes, right after I fly to Israel and destroy every shred of evidence for an indigenous race. History must be corrected, and I don't care how much reality I have do deny, how many rational counterarguments I have to ignore, or how many times I have to repeat absolutely refuted outright lies in order to do it! Write your local geneticist and tell them to quit printing such lies. Write your local doctors and tell them to quit making up diagnosis for Jews. Write your local archaeologists and tell them that you are going to shove a trowel up their ass if they keep digging up false evidence of a race of Jews. The time is now. Sig Heil!

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1274378

*Sarcasm Filter On*

You are a rank amateur on this and related matters. You are in error to think you know something simply because you quote what some simpleton told you to repeat.

As I said early on, you are defending the zionist invention of a jewish "people." By definition all Zionists are murderers and thieves as their earliest objective was to take over Palestine and drive out the native population. You can read it in Herzl's diary about "spiriting away" the native population. You can also read Jabotinsky's openly stated intention to, what we would call today, ethnically cleanse Palestine. You can read haaretz.com and jpost.com today and see that objective is still the most common assumption of the self-declared Jews in Israel and the criminals who live in east Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Syrian, aka Golan, Heights and the Shaaba Farms. They are in criminal violation of the 4th Geneva Convention and people were hanging for doing that at Nuremberg.

=====

n.b. It is Sieg not Sig, Victory as in Hail Victory. Also see, Siegfried.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


patcleaver
patcleaver's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-11-07
User is offlineOffline
There are no races - its just propaganda

People are people. The only thing that universally differentiates black people from white people is three genes that result in their skin being black. Otherwise East Africans are genetically indistinguishable from Europeans. 

These three genes have nothing to do with crime or poverty or intelligence or social position. If you want to give breaks to people for impoverished background or low IQ or the social status of their parents, then you should present an intellectual justification and criteria for doing that. It is patently ridiculous to allocate advantages based on three insignificant genes that have no effect except for skin color.

I deny that there are any races. There is no biological basis for races. The existence of races is based on Nazi propaganda from the 1930’s. People who advocate the existence of races are racists.

I have never joined any races, and therefore am not a member of any race. Whenever I choose to join any race then that is the race that I will be a member of.

There is no such thing as being ethnically Jewish. Jews are not a separate ethnic group. You’re considered Jewish if you are a convert to Judaism or your mother is Jewish even she was a convert. Jewishness is not determined at all by what you look like or what genes you have. If you convert to Judaism, then you do not get some Jewish genes.

If the rate of intermarriage (conversion/deconversion) was even 5%, the Jews would be mostly genetically assimilated in whatever population they lived in within about 200 years. After over 1000 years of intermarriage, Jews from Germany are ethnically German, and the Jews from England are ethnically English, and the Jews from Spain are ethnically Spanish, and the Jews from Russia are ethnically Russian, and the Jews who were originally in Palestine were ethnically Palestinian.

Tay-Sachs Disease, Blooms Syndrome, and Canavan Disease are not diseases of the native Palestinian Jews. These are genetic diseases that are common in some Eastern European regions from which many Jews immigrated to the US. The only reason that these diseases are more common among Jews then non-Jews in the US, is that there are a higher percentage of Jews then non-Jews descended from people of those Eastern European regions.


 

when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I would submit, if it hasn't

I would submit, if it hasn't already been, that accepting a position or consideration based solely on sex or race and not merit only helps to reinforce and solidify the very stereotypes and predjudices such "affirmative" action programs are designed to overcome.

What we need to do as a society is get back to a meritocracy - from the highest echelons of government to the lowliest fry cook. Excellence and drive is too often ignored in favor of status (and yes, these days your race and sex can mean higher status), which is why mediocraty reigns. Honestly, if as an engineer I made as many mistakes per task as the people who serve me lunch every day, I'd be in prison, because I would have killed somebody by now.

Part of the problem is as a society, we seem to have agreed somewhere along the line that subpar service is acceptable. That's why you don't turn around when they forget your fries. That's why we sit there on hold for 30+ minutes to talk to a person 4,000 miles away when a servive we likely pay far too much for isn't working.

And we also seem to have agreed somewhere along the way that everyone deserves a chance. But that's bullshit. Everyone DOESN'T deserve a chance. You should get opportunities based on your abilities. If you don't have a basic grasp of algebra and calculus upon high school graduation, you don't deserve to go to a highly ranked technology school. Period.

I don't give a fuck if you're smart and didn't have the proper opportunities. The fact remains, you are NOT equipped for a curriculum like that, and you entering it will likely see you fail miserably, or worse, slowly drag that program down to your substandard level. Sure, a small percentage of charity cases MAY have the talent to pick up years of neglected education in a few weeks, but not many.

I graduated from one of the top engineering programs in the country, and it didn't get to be one of the top programs by letting hardluck cases in unless they had the chops to handle the curriculum.

Standards should NEVER be lowered or compromised. I fully support giving scholarships to bright kids, but only the best of the best. IMO, at least 50% of the people in college today shouldn't be there. College is now necessary for a white collar job, when apprenticeship used to suffice.

If you are not going into medicine, engineering, academia, or the sciences, I contend you'd be better served by an a apprenticship rather than wasting your parents or the taxpayer's money.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
A_Nazi_Mouse wrote:It is

A_Nazi_Mouse wrote:

It is always amusing to see the extent to which believers will go to create their own, limited reality.

If you had bothered to read what I posted on the matter of races and in the process named most of them you would know the word race does not apply even if you were correct.

In this case you are describing the most common Jew in the US, the Ashkenazim, the eastern European or Khazar described as the 13th Tribe by Kaufman in a book damned never every Jew I knew was trying to get me to read until the subject was dropped upon realization it undercut all the claims having ancestral connections to bibleland. (Trivia: the Shield of David was a Khazar symbol.)

Genetics shows the Sephardic Jews and the Palestinians are the same people while the Ashkenazim are unrelated to either. The modest exception is the Kohenim gene which is the same in both Sephardim and Ashkenazim. Oddly that shows the priests are unrelated to either group which supports the priests and thus the religion was imported to both groups.

You should be careful not to jump into subjects you do not understand.

I find it more interesting you are unaware that is a reference to the Ashkenazi only. Of course if you like the idea of Abraham being an Iraqi Kurd don't let me rain on your parade unless you march in public.

!

Oh no! You've got me all wrong. Your incredible scholarly insights have opened my eyes. I have thrown away my childish grasp of Near Eastern history, and have come to realize that all those huts and potsherds found in the Near East fail to prove a single thing. It has become obvious to me that there were absolutely no indigenous people there until the Greeks visited. And Oh, my White Aryan Jesus, but your hyper-genius revelations of linguistics will revolutionize our understanding of language! No longer can we read the Enuma Elish or the Epic of Baal, because their lacking vowels renders them unintelligible! Genius, sheer genius! I totally get it now! Why, just to prove your point, I challenge everyone to try reading the following. See? It totally proves your illuminating point!

Nbdy n th wrld cn vr pssbly rd ths sntnc bcs t cntns n vwls! Thrfr th Jws d nt xst!
 

A_Nazi_Mouse wrote:

You are a rank amateur on this and related matters. You are in error to think you know something simply because you quote what some simpleton told you to repeat.

I try to be careful of what I don't understand. This is why I quote sources. I defer to your vastly superior wisdom to discredit the lies of not only linguistics, but of genetics as well. Which is why I humbly present you with the following source cited lies that the wicked Jews have concocted to befuddle us with. I am sure that you in your infinite wisdom can understand the necessity of citing sources to back your claims, and will not make the mistake of neglecting to include sources again as you did with your brilliant refutation of Jewish genetics above. After all, we can't have those sneaky bastards jumping up and claiming that we are pulling things out of our asses, can we?

Those damn dirty Jews have paid geneticists to create the following false study as well, this one based on mitochondrial DNA. Using both Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Jews, they determined, lyingly of course, that they could trace markers of eight million Ashkenazi Jews back to no more than 4 maternal sources in the Near East some 15,000-16,000 years ago.

http://www.cell.com/AJHG/retrieve/pii/S0002929707623878

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title%20Word&term=Behar[author]%20AND%20The%20matrilineal%20ancestry%20of%20Ashkenazi%20Jewry%3A%20portrait%20of%20a%20recent%20founder%20event.

And to make matters worse, they bribed scientists to do another study based on male ancestry which concluded that " Despite Ashkenazi Jews representing a recently founded population in Europe, they are probably derived from a large and diverse ancestral source population in the Near East, a population that may have been larger than the source population from which European non-Jews derived. ".

http://www.springerlink.com/content/xvj2jwclptvrvmer/fulltext.html


Oh, you and I both know that Jew is a religion, but those damned lying geneticists keep insisting that it is also a race. Because the Ashkenazi represent an overwhelming majority of Jews, if this vile Zionist fabrication is not shot down, they will continue to hold claim to Israel.  How can I, a rank amateur, possibly stand before their overwhelming but non Aryan evil knowledge? I know that those silly geneticists are but simpletons, but these are the claims they make. What with my obviously poor grasp of history and  archaeology, and only passing knowledge of genetics, I can do not but bask in your Pure Aryan Glory whilst you whittle their vacuous fables to naught.
 

A_Nazi_Mouse wrote:

n.b. It is Sieg not Sig, Victory as in Hail Victory. Also see, Siegfried.


Oh, damn! So that is why I failed to earn my Pfadfinderbund merit badge. And I always thought it was from not goose-stepping sharp enough!

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova wrote:A_Nazi_Mouse

Desdenova wrote:

A_Nazi_Mouse wrote:

It usually requires cornering an idiot more than once before it starts screaming nazi. It is such a clever thing to do. It is such a grown up word it has to work.


 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Desdenova

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Desdenova wrote:

A_Nazi_Mouse wrote:

It usually requires cornering an idiot more than once before it starts screaming nazi. It is such a clever thing to do. It is such a grown up word it has to work.

 

 

Ahh, but I've cornered a certain idiot more than once, and he has displayed his Nazi outlook even more often with his blind to fact attempts to dismiss the Jews as a people indigenous to a specific region. The A_dolfy_Mouse makes its agenda transparent. I was foolish to think that I could reason with the little vermin, for mere fact does not the zealot sway. And since you can only match fact with insult, I need not waste more time on you. Your inability to meet credible sources with credible sources proves to anyone reading our exchanges who the real idiot is here.

And has nobody ever called what you are before? A lying racist douchebag? Geez, man, sorry to be the first to point it out! Now if you wish to even attempt to back your repeatedly refuted crap with citations, I will be happy to adopt a new strategy. Your current ' evidence ' consisting of nothing but ridicule, hatred, and absent source credit deserves nothing more than ridicule.

But since you have no facts to back up your hatred, once again, go back to school so we may talk years later as peers.  Or, as you seem to be too mentally inept to continue your education, keep right on making a fool of yourself by regurgitating the same much debunked hate filled bile.

So, what shall it be, rational discourse backed by solid evidence, or a frothing at the mouth Neo-Nazi dolt showing the world just how stupid racists are? Your choice, imbecile. Smiling

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
There are races but ...

patcleaver wrote:

People are people. The only thing that universally differentiates black people from white people is three genes that result in their skin being black. Otherwise East Africans are genetically indistinguishable from Europeans.

Not quite true. There are caucasians with black skin like Gandhi. And there is the very old observation that two Wongs don't make a White. And when you get to Africa two Bantus do not make a Zulu. These are simply groups that started as a small group and marry within the group much more commonly than outside the group. Certain characteristics become dominant and stay that way.

These characteristics are nothing special. They just happen to be those of a group that migrated to a place that was remote way back when, like Europe or China or the Americas and multiplied. If you and your closest fifty to one hundred relatives were moved to your own continent someplace in ten thousand years or so you would have your own race. But it would be the same with any related group.

If it were a family a people good at some specialty like sports or music or science or some other heritable talent then we would expect in ten thousand years to a have  a new "race" which is good at that talent. But any trait across an entire family (tribe, clan) is rare. So if a different mix of three clans had populated Europe the people would look somewhat different, there would likely be a slightly different mix of things Europeans are good at but not much more.

The old idea of "survival of the fittest" humans might work but anthropology does not support that it happened. None of these clans appears to have ever had a  war to extermination with another so the survival of the fittest never applied. The Basques are in a small geographic area. They were as warlike as any other group but avoided getting into an extermination fight with anyone from the Gauls to Romans to Moors.

patcleaver wrote:
These three genes have nothing to do with crime or poverty or intelligence or social position. If you want to give breaks to people for impoverished background or low IQ or the social status of their parents, then you should present an intellectual justification and criteria for doing that. It is patently ridiculous to allocate advantages based on three insignificant genes that have no effect except for skin color.

What one makes of the differences is something else entirely. What people make of themselves is something else. The French ideal comes from Caesar's writings about his war in Gaul. That's fine but ... There were three major groups of Gauls. Caesar was writing only about the smallest group -- he may or may not have known that. Yet today the French ideal is based upon that smallest group. Similarly the Greeks based their idea of the ideal Greek upon the good guys in Homer's Iliad. While one can say the French needed nothing but an excuse to indulge in the women, wine and bread image of the Gauls the Greek virtues were not as easy nor as rewarding.

I would say we have seen people are so willing to shape themselves socially it does not matter what their ancestors were really like.

patcleaver wrote:
I deny that there are any races. There is no biological basis for races. The existence of races is based on Nazi propaganda from the 1930’s. People who advocate the existence of races are racists.

That connection is one the very wrong reasons to take a position on race. The Germans were late-comers to the idea. On the British Isles there were centuries of talk about the English, Scot, Welsh and Irish races. As to the Germans ruling the world, the English had been openly talking about their natural fitness to rule the world since the mid 19th century. The Brits were way ahead of the Nazis. The Nazis only talked about ruling the world. The Brits did rule the world.

Nazi euthanasia? They sold it to the German people by correctly pointing out it was practiced in all civilized countries and naming England, France and even the US as practitioners of it. And it is still practiced in US hospitals to this day. It is simply not talked about. Unless there is a lot of pain morphine is contra-indicated.

patcleaver wrote:
I have never joined any races, and therefore am not a member of any race. Whenever I choose to join any race then that is the race that I will be a member of.

There is no such thing as being ethnically Jewish. Jews are not a separate ethnic group. You’re considered Jewish if you are a convert to Judaism or your mother is Jewish even she was a convert. Jewishness is not determined at all by what you look like or what genes you have. If you convert to Judaism, then you do not get some Jewish genes.

Well said and so very obvious. When people claim Jews are an ethnic group I simply ask for something which connects all Jews which is separate from the religion. Usually I get a response with the liberal use of the word nazi.

Even the idea that one can be a Jew by virtue of the religion of one's mother is a religious idea not an ethnic one.

patcleaver wrote:
If the rate of intermarriage (conversion/deconversion) was even 5%, the Jews would be mostly genetically assimilated in whatever population they lived in within about 200 years. After over 1000 years of intermarriage, Jews from Germany are ethnically German, and the Jews from England are ethnically English, and the Jews from Spain are ethnically Spanish, and the Jews from Russia are ethnically Russian, and the Jews who were originally in Palestine were ethnically Palestinian.

And if the intermarriage is 1% per generation they are mixed in 1000 years. And if sex for love and/or money is only 1% there is something very different about Jews. Propinquity alone has more than a 1% success rate.

patcleaver wrote:
Tay-Sachs Disease, Blooms Syndrome, and Canavan Disease are not diseases of the native Palestinian Jews. These are genetic diseases that are common in some Eastern European regions from which many Jews immigrated to the US. The only reason that these diseases are more common among Jews then non-Jews in the US, is that there are a higher percentage of Jews then non-Jews descended from people of those Eastern European regions.

I just had a nerfbrain call me a nazi for not believing the religious traditions of Jews. Obviously there is an entire class of atheist which refuses to give up the religious superstition of membership by birth.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Obviously

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Obviously there is an entire class of atheist which refuses to give up the religious superstition of membership by birth.

And there is an entire class of idiot that can't distinguish between a religion ( Judaism ) and genetics, and is so indictrinated that they can't even tell when someone is not arguing religion, but genetic makeup. Not all practioners of Judaism are of Jewish origin, and not all people of Jewish origin practice Judaism. If only racist morons could grasp this simple fact! But then they would have to redesign their messages of hate, now, wouldn't they?

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova wrote:A_Nony_Mouse

Desdenova wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Desdenova wrote:

A_Nazi_Mouse wrote:

It usually requires cornering an idiot more than once before it starts screaming nazi. It is such a clever thing to do. It is such a grown up word it has to work.

 

 

Ahh, but I've cornered a certain idiot more than once, and he has displayed his Nazi outlook even more often with his blind to fact attempts to dismiss the Jews as a people indigenous to a specific region. The A_dolfy_Mouse makes its agenda transparent. I was foolish to think that I could reason with the little vermin, for mere fact does not the zealot sway. And since you can only match fact with insult, I need not waste more time on you. Your inability to meet credible sources with credible sources proves to anyone reading our exchanges who the real idiot is here.

And has nobody ever called what you are before? A lying racist douchebag? Geez, man, sorry to be the first to point it out! Now if you wish to even attempt to back your repeatedly refuted crap with citations, I will be happy to adopt a new strategy. Your current ' evidence ' consisting of nothing but ridicule, hatred, and absent source credit deserves nothing more than ridicule.

But since you have no facts to back up your hatred, once again, go back to school so we may talk years later as peers.  Or, as you seem to be too mentally inept to continue your education, keep right on making a fool of yourself by regurgitating the same much debunked hate filled bile.

So, what shall it be, rational discourse backed by solid evidence, or a frothing at the mouth Neo-Nazi dolt showing the world just how stupid racists are? Your choice, imbecile. Smiling

Jews are not a race. Get over it and move on.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova, there is no

Desdenova, there is no physical basis for the existence of races. It is not anti-Semitism to claim that there is no such thing as the Jewish race and that European Jews are closely related to their fellow Europeans (and for that matter Jewish and non-Jewish Europeans are very closely related to Middle Easterners and North Africans). All Europeans can trace their roots back to the Middle East and earlier than that their roots go back to Africa. So yes, of course European Jews can trace their roots back to the Middle East. In the same sense that I could or virtually any other European or descendant of a European could. Calling Europeans Jews a race makes about as much sense as calling Irish Catholics and Protestant different races. Due to religious differences they tend to intermarry rarely, just like European Jews tended not to intermarry with other Europeans. But that does not make Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants new races, they are still quite closely related to one another even if an Irish Catholic is more likely to be closely related to other Irish Catholics than to Irish Protestants.

I would say that the Jews are a great example of the fact that race is culturally determined and not determined by physiology. Despite the Ashkenazi Jew's genetic similarity to their neighbors they are arbitrarily deemed to be a distinct race because of cultural differences. Just like the way the English considered themselves to be a distict race from the Irish despite the fact that they are extremely genetically similar. I find it hard to beleive that people still defend obviously culturally determined racial catagories as being genetic or physiological in nature.

Also, why are you Godwinning A-Nony-Mouse over this issue? Couldn't we argue this without lying and claiming our opponents are Nazi sympathisers?

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander, I think it

Jormungander,

 I think it would be best to define race before calling me a liar, especially when you neglect to comment on the numerous lies someone has stated about me regarding my supposed defense of a religion.

By using the clinal model of genetically inherited traits, Jews fall into a specific race of human variation. The links to various genetic studies I have presented in other threads outline this nicely. By localizing of population, as defined by E.O. Wilson, we can even break the Jews down to a subspecies which would be Dinaric-Armenid, Dinaric mountains being the Balkans and Armenid pertaining to the predominant clines found in Armenia, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. From here we can even whittle it down to the fact that they were in this area first by using European population cluster studies on the genetic heritage of Europe found in the link below. The various clusters can be broken down into Northern and Southern European habitation, and we find that the particular haplotype of Ashkenazi Jews in my earlier links to be demonstrated as having early association with the region they now claim as Israel.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020143

I agree that there is a genetic similarity between the Israeli Jews and their neighbors. In fact I all but screamed this in an earlier debate when I stated quite clearly that the Jews were Canaanites. My argument all along has been based on this conclusion. My less than honest opponent on the other hand is so racist as to deny that there was ever a race in the Levant other than the Phonecians/Philistines. Both archaeology and genetics prove him wrong, but he adamantly denies both, insanely insisting, despite obvious evidence otherwise, that I am making a claim for a religious group.

If we ask a forensic anthropologist, we will be given 5 races, but only after a politically correct lecture. By this definition the Jews would fall under the Caucasian race, and would once again claim equal habitation grounds to Israel.

On the flip side, should we agree that there is only one race, the Jews have exactly the same right to Israel as any group of humans have to any plot of land. They occupy it now, therefore it is theirs.

I do not refer to my less than worthy adversary as a Nazi sympathiser, but rather as a neo-nazi. I do this because of his insistence that I am supporting Zionism, because of his claim that I am making a religious argument on behalf of the Jews, and because of his much repeated claim that I was using the Bible for reference.  Anyone reading my arguments would find these claims to be outrageous lies. Due to these reasons, coupled with his fanatical obsession with assaulting the Jews on multiple threads, I conclude that he is a neo-nazi racist, and too much of a zealot to respond either to reason, or reasonably. Barring the possibility that he is a raving lunatic, I can see no other reason for his rabid crowing.  Were he a peer capable of rational exchange, he would likely learn that my views fail to support a nation of Israel. I see the authors of the Bible as a tiny minority amongst their Canaanite brethren that never possessed anything resembling a kingdom, and suspect that Israel was a fictional kingdom invented by revolutionaries, a Jewish Camelot, to rouse their ignorant followers into action. As it stands, the man is far too rabid to even accept the existence of a Canaanite population from which the Jews stemmed. How can I not suspect fervid racism as his motivation in light of this?

 

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova wrote:If we ask a

Desdenova wrote:


If we ask a forensic anthropologist, we will be given 5 races, but only after a politically correct lecture. By this definition the Jews would fall under the Caucasian race, and would once again claim equal habitation grounds to Israel.
 

No, you won't. You will not be given five races. There are not five genetically distinct human groups. There just aren't. This is a good example of how arbitrary races are since some people claim with certainty that there are three human races. If we were to break up humans into a small number of groups based on genetic similarity we would end up with multiple African races and the rest of the world would be perhaps one or two races. Almost all human genetic variation is in Africa. All non-Africans are very genetically similar. Races simply are not genetically determined. If you spoke to a cultural anthropologist you would be told that races are arbitrarily defined by a culture. These racial classifications have nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with percieved cultural differences.

There are multiple contradictory systems of racial classifications. It is simply wrong to select one of these systems (let us say for example picking five races) and claim that it is the real one that has a basis in physiology or genetics. Let me just say it one last time: there is no genetic basis for racial classifications whatsoever. If we did make races based off of genetic differences we would end up with a lot of African races and few or possibly only one race for the rest of the world.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote: No, you

Jormungander wrote:

 

No, you won't. You will not be given five races. There are not five genetically distinct human groups. There just aren't. This is a good example of how arbitrary races are since some people claim with certainty that there are three human races. If we were to break up humans into a small number of groups based on genetic similarity we would end up with multiple African races and the rest of the world would be perhaps one or two races. Almost all human genetic variation is in Africa. All non-Africans are very genetically similar. Races simply are not genetically determined. If you spoke to a cultural anthropologist you would be told that races are arbitrarily defined by a culture. These racial classifications have nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with perceived cultural differences.

There are multiple contradictory systems of racial classifications. It is simply wrong to select one of these systems (let us say for example picking five races) and claim that it is the real one that has a basis in physiology or genetics. Let me just say it one last time: there is no genetic basis for racial classifications whatsoever. If we did make races based off of genetic differences we would end up with a lot of African races and few or possibly only one race for the rest of the world.

Somebody is going to have to write the FBI and tell them to quit making identifications based on skeletons, then. But seriously now, they are able, after determining gender, to determine race, though the accuracy of this varies based on the skill of the examiner. Many Forensic anthropologists will insist on three races while others will separate native American from Asian and Australian aborigine from African, giving the 5 race description. The basis for these ' races ' is osteometry, not cultural perception.

You seem to be confusing race with species, which would of course validate your claim. I make no such distinction however, and base race on genetics. If you wish to claim that we humans are too genetically similar to differentiate genetically, you must take into account that there is an 8% genetic difference between races. We find at most a 30% discrepancy in gene differentiation between humans and chimpanzees. Do you then reject the idea that chimpanzees are a separate species? If not, you must base speciation on some genetic numeration value discrepancy. May I ask what that number is, and what criteria do you use to arrive at a speciation number?

Medically speaking, I place little value on distinguishing between race. It does have limited value for certain diagnostics, but otherwise serves no purpose. It has become meaningful here only because the examination of clines allows us to settle an argument regarding who can claim older ancestral rights to a specific region. In effect, I am countering a racists accusations by using the loosely defined term race to demonstrate that a people possessing a haplotype indigenous through antiquity of a particular region are in fact the current inhabitants of that region. I am using race to counter, not promote, racism. Your criticism is confusing species with race and fails to address either cline or haplotype. I honestly cannot see the point in this argument, and worry that it might be the result of that nasty disease called political correctness.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:No, you won't. You

Quote:

No, you won't. You will not be given five races. There are not five genetically distinct human groups. There just aren't. This is a good example of how arbitrary races are since some people claim with certainty that there are three human races. If we were to break up humans into a small number of groups based on genetic similarity we would end up with multiple African races and the rest of the world would be perhaps one or two races. Almost all human genetic variation is in Africa. All non-Africans are very genetically similar. Races simply are not genetically determined. If you spoke to a cultural anthropologist you would be told that races are arbitrarily defined by a culture. These racial classifications have nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with percieved cultural differences.

There are multiple contradictory systems of racial classifications. It is simply wrong to select one of these systems (let us say for example picking five races) and claim that it is the real one that has a basis in physiology or genetics. Let me just say it one last time: there is no genetic basis for racial classifications whatsoever. If we did make races based off of genetic differences we would end up with a lot of African races and few or possibly only one race for the rest of the world.

In order for your claim to be true, Jorg, you'd have to essentially deny the notion of geographical evolution.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Reply in near neutral territory

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:

No, you won't. You will not be given five races. There are not five genetically distinct human groups. There just aren't. This is a good example of how arbitrary races are since some people claim with certainty that there are three human races. If we were to break up humans into a small number of groups based on genetic similarity we would end up with multiple African races and the rest of the world would be perhaps one or two races. Almost all human genetic variation is in Africa. All non-Africans are very genetically similar. Races simply are not genetically determined. If you spoke to a cultural anthropologist you would be told that races are arbitrarily defined by a culture. These racial classifications have nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with percieved cultural differences.

There are multiple contradictory systems of racial classifications. It is simply wrong to select one of these systems (let us say for example picking five races) and claim that it is the real one that has a basis in physiology or genetics. Let me just say it one last time: there is no genetic basis for racial classifications whatsoever. If we did make races based off of genetic differences we would end up with a lot of African races and few or possibly only one race for the rest of the world.

In order for your claim to be true, Jorg, you'd have to essentially deny the notion of geographical evolution.

To discuss race it is first necessary to consider species. Different species are those which can not or [b]do[/n] not interbreed. The latter is imporant. Speciation events among the class of fish called Chiclids have been observed. For no obvious reason a different set of mating rituals arises and the groups thereafter do not interbreed. After a few generations of interbreeding different markings appear in the new species.

Humans have many local varieties but have not speciated. All humans can interbreed. Similarly there are many varieties of dogs in the world and they can all interbreed. In both species they do interbreed if propinquity strikes at the right time which is once a year for dogs and once an hour for humans.

For the US wolves and coyotes can and do interbreed yet they have maintained their distinctive characteristics due to living in different environments with little overlap. The differences between the two phenotypes is caused by natural selection in their environments. Wolves, big dogs with shaggy fur have less chance to survive in hot, arid conditions than coyotes and vice versa. We can look to a third phenotype for dogs in temperate, non-arid climates, that of the feral dog, the domesticated gone wild. Given enough generations these come to look like small, short haired wolves which is like large coyotes.

Humans have done one thing the same over the last 100,000 years. They went to different climates. In both hemispheres the lighter skins are near the poles and the darker towards the equator. This is thought to be related to the need for sunlight to produce vitamin D. People do not travel thousands of miles north or south to find mating partners so the shading is maintained. The fact that humans use fire and make clothes has largely prevented the morphological differentiation that occurs in dogs. Having evolved in Africa humans were already at one climate extreme.

The other difference in humans was that groups on the order of a hundred or two left Africa at vastly different times. These groups had the Arabian savannah and forests and lower sea levels to spread from Africa to Austalia walking on dry land almost all the way.

Other groups traveled north and west along the shore of the Med and north into Siberia. At some point members of one or both these different paths entered northern Europe which is separated by the geographic barrier of mountains almost its entire length. There are two likely paths, the shoreline of Iberia-France and the Fulda Gap in Germany. The time from these guesses to historical times is still a blur. Another thing complicates it. Skulls found in Europe from the likely times of these migrations are of Heidelberg man which was Homo Sapien but distinctly different from all skulls of today.

What we do know is once these groups were established there was little breeding among them save where two areas overlapped. Because of mountains, oceans and large, open areas with little human population these original groups bred in relative isolation. This has lead to phenotype differences which for lack of a better term is called race.

These do exist. It is foolish to argue they do not. However it means no more than that.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova wrote:If you wish

Desdenova wrote:

If you wish to claim that we humans are too genetically similar to differentiate genetically, you must take into account that there is an 8% genetic difference between races. We find at most a 30% discrepancy in gene differentiation between humans and chimpanzees.

Both of those statements are false. You are way off on both accounts. I wonder where you got those numbers from. Both are around an order of magnitude off of the real values. When we talk about different humans we are talking about fractions of a percent of difference in DNA, we would never have a human that is 8% off from other humans. And 30% difference between people and chimps? Where did you get that number? I usually read that it is around 1 to 5%.

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

In order for your claim to be true, Jorg, you'd have to essentially deny the notion of geographical evolution.

The genetic bottlenecks that resulted from a tiny population leaving Africa and populating the rest of the world means that all of us outside of Africa are near identical. Has there been geographical evolution since humans left Africa? Of course. It is just that the genetic diversity produced by that geographical evolution has been minute. The fact of the matter remains that almost all human genetic diversity is is Africa. If we wanted to make races based off of genetic differences there would be a few African races and one other race for all non-Africans. No part of that statement denies that there has be localized evolution after people left Africa. The point is that geographical evolution has given non-African groups of humans a slight amount of genetic variation that in no way compares to the larger amount of genetic variation that you find within Africa.

Are there genetic differences between me and some random Chinese or Australian native person? Yes, of course there are. Are the total amount of genetic differences between me and those people minute compared to the genetic differences between randomly selected members of different ethinic groups of Africans? Again, yes. The fact that we see Africans as one race despite the fact that almost all human genetic variation exists within Africa means that we don't use genetics as the basis of race.

And I understand that regardless of whether or not races are 'real' in some non-arbitrary sense, it has nothing to do with modern Middle Easter politics or whether or not Jews or blacks or whites see themselves as a race. Even if the classifactions have no genetic basis (and they don't), the classifications still exist and people will still act on them.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If you wish to claim

Quote:

If you wish to claim that we humans are too genetically similar to differentiate genetically, you must take into account that there is an 8% genetic difference between races. We find at most a 30% discrepancy in gene differentiation between humans and chimpanzees.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If you took two humans at random, you would find they differed in approximately 2 nucleotides in every thousand. The generally accepted value for the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees is 98%.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:If

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

If you wish to claim that we humans are too genetically similar to differentiate genetically, you must take into account that there is an 8% genetic difference between races. We find at most a 30% discrepancy in gene differentiation between humans and chimpanzees.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If you took two humans at random, you would find they differed in approximately 2 nucleotides in every thousand. The generally accepted value for the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees is 98%.

It also depends upon how you do the math. You can show there is more difference between Blacks and Whites than between Whites and Chimps. To do that you add all the differences found among Blacks instead of from the individual races of Blacks and you get a larger number.

Always look into how a number was derived. Never take any number without question.

And then of course you have to ignore which genes you are talking about. The heritable diseases rarely involve more than three genes yet siblings differ from each other by more than that.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml