Home | Community | Message Board

MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Edibles   Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Poid]
    #13530502 - 11/23/10 05:25 PM (10 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism]Racism - Wikipedia[/url]
Quote:

Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.


Sure, I would agree that that sort of "paternalism" fits the definition of racism, but that is nothing like affirmative action. At all.




Oh no?  I beg to differ.  Affirmative Action is exactly that kind of paternalism.


I disagree. :shrug:

Why?


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
"Theories of white priviledge posit such and such"  No kidding.  I reject them.


Of course you reject them, you're White and you haven't experienced prejudice by other Whites. I recommend that you watch this guy's videos on the subject (it's OK, you can trust him, he's White :smirk:):





Not watching, don't care.

I didn't reject the notion of white privilege in the sixties.  I do now.  Those days are over.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
They are historical anachronisms.


That's bullshit, racism is still alive and well.

Non sequitur.  Of course racism is still alive.  Just look at the White House


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

And who gives a shit if they are under suspicion? What does that matter? :undecided:




Really?  If you know that Negroes are given a lesser standard to become a doctor or an airplane pilot would you feel the same about going to a Negro doctor or flying on a plane with a Negro pilot?


As long as they past the all the tests just like everyone else, what does it matter? It doesn't; they're not given a lesser standard, they're given help to enter college institutions. Affirmative Action does not give colored people a lesser standard to pass their classes, they have to do the work just like everyone else.

False.  They get shuffled through.

But they didn't pass all the tests and they are given a lesser standard.  See firemen in New Haven and New York.  Racial quotas.




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Even the Negroes who got in totally on their own merit are suspect.  I bet they love that.


Why are they suspect? Because racism is still alive and well, right? :strokebeard:

Because everybody knows that the group they are in is given preferential treatment


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Like I said, I posted that shit repeatedly over 2 years ago.  You missed class.  Look it up yourself.  It isn't that fucking hard.  Googleclue for you
Wright white man's greed.  Then you can just google rev. wright racism.





It isn't that fucking hard to post the relevant quotes..well, maybe it is for you...

It isn't that fucking hard for you to LOOK IT UP YOURSELF.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Is this Wright fellow part of an openly anti-white group?



Yes.


Which group?

Look it up


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

If you hate one person merely because they have a certain color of skin, then it is implied that you hate all people with that same color of skin--this is similar to how, if you hate one sour apple because it is green, then you hate all other green sour apples for the same reason.




Hate is not an essential element of racism.


I know.

Then you apparently have learned something.  Thank me.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

That is an idiotic criteria for being racist. :rofl2:

What if I make the judgment "Some white people have slightly lighter skin than others."--is that racist, IYO? :flowstone:




No.  Your question has no relevance.


Yes it does, you said that making a judgment based on race is racist, and you didn't mention any exceptions.

Your example said "some white people".  That is what makes it irrelevant.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I had a Negro friend whose skin was lighter than mine (in the summer).  High yellow, they call them.


Cool story, brah. :thumbup:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

I'm not a racist, at all--having the opinion that there are typical people of a certain race/ethnicity/culture does not imply that one also thinks that the said people are inherently inferior due to their race/ethnicity/culture.




Yes you are.  You think there is a typical white person.  There is not.


Yes, there is; one trait that is typical for White people is that they have light skin. Another is that they have hair on their heads. Still one more is that they shit out the food they eat.

Dumb

Oh, I'm sorry, was that racist of me? :blush:

No, just dumb


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
And it is equally racist to believe one race is superior as it is to believe that one race is inferior.


Derr.

I see you're catching on


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

No, he isn't--if he thinks that these "typical white people" are inferior simply because they are white, and if he hates them for that, then yes, he would be racist. But this, obviously, is not the case, is it?






If he thinks that they are superior because of their race he is a racist.


Yeah, so what made you determine based on him saying "typical white people" that he thinks they are superior because of their race? :confused:

Non sequitur.  Can you follow a point?


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

What do you mean what do I have to say about it, and why do you assume that I have nothing to say? I have a lot of opinions regarding the Black Panthers--I don't believe they were 100% malevolent or benevolent, I feel like they were trying to combat the effects of white privilege "by any means necessary". :macdre:




I said the Black Panther case and gave a link, which you didn't bother to click.


I never saw any link. :justdontknow::cuckoo:

Why don't you go back and look?


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

The hilarious thing about all this is you often times talk shit about the politically correct, but that's exactly how you're coming off on this issue--hypocrisy at its finest. :smirk:




Bullshit. 

There are many forms of racism

1.  Hatred  (KKK and Malcolm X)
2.  Paternalism (Affirmative Action)
3.  Self censorship (Most journalists)


What do you mean by self-censorship? May you explain how that is racist.

Avoiding the reportage of the grotesque failure of the Negro family, for one, and generally excusing bad behavior because someone comes from a deprived culture.  What crap.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
There is nothing politically correct about my position.  My position is that here is no genetic or legal systemic cause of racial differences in achievement.


So, what, IYO, is the cause? This should be good...:smirk:

Excess babies


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Phred]
    #13530857 - 11/23/10 06:29 PM (10 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

So what you're telling me is that you believe cooperative federalism is unconstitutional? Can you please provide the clause in the Constitution which you believe forbids it, and your own interpretation of how it forbids it?




This request indicates why it was necessary for me to ask you to provide an example.


No it doesn't--from what I read in the Wikipedia article on the Tenth Amendment, there is nothing unconstitutional about cooperative federalism.


Quote:

Phred said:
You don't understand how the Constitution works.


So because I don't completely understand one particular clause, and/or disagree with your interpretation of it, you conclude that I don't understand how the entire Constitution works? :wow:


Quote:

Phred said:
You have it exactly backwards.


No, I don't.


Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

We're not only talking about those three politicians--do you really think this thread is only about those three politicians? What on Earth gave you that idea?




What on earth gave you the idea that we were talking about any constitution other than the US Constitution?


I dunno, possibly the thread title? :justdontknow:


Quote:

Phred said:
Especially since at least 99.9% of the posts in this forum from the day it came into existence containing the phrases "the constitution" or "unconstitutional" or "constitutionality" are not referring to the Albanian constitution or the constitution of the Lion's Club Local Chapter 3442 in Bugscuffle Bottoms, Arkansas, but the US Constitution.


You're the one who initially provided constitutionality as a point of discussion, and when you did so, you never explicitly mentioned that you're speaking about the US Constitution, rather, you vaguely implied that you were by mentioning three federal politicians. You provided constitutionality as a point of discussion in response to my question "Would you vote for an openly racist politician?", saying that you would vote for an openly racist politician if s/he exercised his/her power constitutionally; you then contrasted such hypothetical politicians to three current federal politicians who, according to you, are not exercising their powers constitutionally. Just because you did so does not mean that this entire discussion is limited to constitutionality, or federal politicians.


Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

It could be that the state politicians decided to cut back on state-run programs that benefited certain races instead of cutting back on other such programs that benefited other races.




Are you saying that is the case with the example you provided?


No, can you answer my question, though?


It could be that the state politicians decided to cut back on state-run programs that benefited certain races instead of cutting back on other such programs that benefited other races.

Or do you believe that this isn't possible?





Poid


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Edited by Poid (09/22/12 04:53 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13531024 - 11/23/10 06:55 PM (10 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Why?


I told you why, I believe that AA's main purpose is to combat the effects of White privilege.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Not watching, don't care.

I didn't reject the notion of white privilege in the sixties.  I do now.  Those days are over.






Sure, the manifestations of White privilege are qualitatively different today than they were back then, but this doesn't mean that they're non-existent.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Non sequitur.  Of course racism is still alive.  Just look at the White House





How is that a non-sequitur? My point that racism is alive and well follows from my denial of your claim that the notion of White privilege is merely an historical anachronism.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

False.  They get shuffled through.





Can you be any less vague? :shake:

What the hell is that even supposed to mean?


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
But they didn't pass all the tests and they are given a lesser standard.


Proof?


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
See firemen in New Haven and New York.  Racial quotas.


I see you're not very familiar with how debate works--the burden of proof is on the claimant.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Because everybody knows that the group they are in is given preferential treatment


So, what are you saying people suspect them of being?


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
It isn't that fucking hard for you to LOOK IT UP YOURSELF.



It's not my job to--again, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Maybe you should take Philosophy 101, you'll learn a lot from that class. :thumbup:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Look it up


If you don't tell me, you cop-out and I win. :shrug:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Then you apparently have learned something.  Thank me.


I already knew that, it's implied that, if the belief that a person is inferior because of their race is racist, then so is the belief that a person is superior because of their race.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Your example said "some white people".  That is what makes it irrelevant.


You said that a judgment based on race is racist, and you didn't make any exceptions.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Oh, I'm sorry, was that racist of me? :blush:




No, just dumb


Well, according to your definition of racist, that was racist--I agree, though, that your definition of racist is pretty fucking dumb. :smirk:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

If he thinks that they are superior because of their race he is a racist.


Quote:

Yeah, so what made you determine based on him saying "typical white people" that he thinks they are superior because of their race? :confused:




Non sequitur.  Can you follow a point?



How is that a non sequitur, I was asking a question, not making a point which follows from another. :imslow:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Why don't you go back and look?


I did, and I didn't see shit--I'll go look again, though.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Avoiding the reportage of the grotesque failure of the Negro family, for one...





According to your (retarded) definition of racism, the emboldened section there is racist.

Who is avoiding such reportage? Don't you understand that you're essentially saying here that the typical Black family is a grotesque failure? :flowstone::lol:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
...and generally excusing bad behavior because someone comes from a deprived culture.  What crap.



Who is excusing bad behavior? :undecided:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

So, what, IYO, is the cause? This should be good...:smirk:




Excess babies


And the cause of that is...


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 6 months
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Poid]
    #13531469 - 11/23/10 08:03 PM (10 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

No it doesn't--from, what I read in the Wikipedia article on the Tenth Amendment, there is nothing unconstitutional about cooperative federalism.




We're not talking here about "co-operative federalism", we are talking about the US Constitution. And - as I predicted - you have the way the Constitution works exactly one hundred and eighty degrees backwards, which is why I insisted you provide an example.

You have somehow managed to convince yourself that the federal government can do anything the Constitution doesn't forbid it to do, when in reality, the Constitution was deliberately set up to allow the federal government to do only that which the Constitution says it may do. This is what "enumerated powers" means. If the Constitution does not specify a particular task which the people allow the federal government to do, the government may not do it. And if it does that task anyway, then it is acting unconstitutionally.

So when you say -

Quote:

Can you please provide the clause in the Constitution which you believe forbids it, and your own interpretation of how it forbids it?




- you are displaying your appalling misunderstanding of the core issue being discussed. Now can you see why I insisted you provide an example?

Quote:

It could be that the state politicians decided to cut back on state-run programs that benefited certain races instead of cutting back on other such programs that benefited other races.




Clearly, any such state-run programs would be racist, which makes them unconstitutional on the face of it, since said programs would obviously be in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States (as well as sundry federal Civil Rights Acts) which - as you correctly pointed out - overrides state constitutions.






Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Poid]
    #13531668 - 11/23/10 08:35 PM (10 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Why?


I told you why, I believe that AA's main purpose is to combat the effects of White privilege.

There is no white privilege.  Hasn't been for decades


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Not watching, don't care.

I didn't reject the notion of white privilege in the sixties.  I do now.  Those days are over.






Sure, the manifestations of White privilege are qualitatively different today than they were back then, but this doesn't mean that they're non-existent.

Please provide us all with examples.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Non sequitur.  Of course racism is still alive.  Just look at the White House





How is that a non-sequitur? My point that racism is alive and well follows from my denial of your claim that the notion of White privilege is merely an historical anachronism.

Negroes are by and large more racist than Caucasians.  Or did you think only whites could be racist?


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

False.  They get shuffled through.





Can you be any less vague? :shake:

What the hell is that even supposed to mean?

It means that their failures get glossed over.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
But they didn't pass all the tests and they are given a lesser standard.


Proof?

See below


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
See firemen in New Haven and New York.  Racial quotas.


I see you're not very familiar with how debate works--the burden of proof is on the claimant.

I don't expect to have to educate you about every little thing but you have proven yourself to be incurious and dogmatic.  These were prominent in the news not that long ago.  How about you try to educate yourself instead of being spoon fed?


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Because everybody knows that the group they are in is given preferential treatment


So, what are you saying people suspect them of being?

Incompetent.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
It isn't that fucking hard for you to LOOK IT UP YOURSELF.



It's not my job to--again, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Maybe you should take Philosophy 101, you'll learn a lot from that class. :thumbup:

LOOK IT UP YOURSELF.  We aren't debating anything, Poid.  I'm trying to educate you.  Don't be such a lazy sack.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Look it up


If you don't tell me, you cop-out and I win. :shrug:

Nope.  Actually, you lose because you are deliberately choosing to remain ignorant in spite of the fact that I have shown you the path to knowledge.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Then you apparently have learned something.  Thank me.


I already knew that, it's implied that, if the belief that a person is inferior because of their race is racist, then so is the belief that a person is superior because of their race.

I said that before, Poid.  You were focused on hatred.  Do you want me to link that, too?


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Your example said "some white people".  That is what makes it irrelevant.


You said that a judgment based on race is racist, and you didn't make any exceptions.

Is that a judgment?

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Oh, I'm sorry, was that racist of me? :blush:




No, just dumb


Well, according to your definition of racist, that was racist--I agree, though, that your definition of racist is pretty fucking dumb. :smirk:

Nope


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

If he thinks that they are superior because of their race he is a racist.


Quote:

Yeah, so what made you determine based on him saying "typical white people" that he thinks they are superior because of their race? :confused:






Non sequitur.  Can you follow a point?



How is that a non sequitur, I was asking a question, not making a point which follows from another. :imslow:

Your questions don't have a point?  Mine do.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Why don't you go back and look?


I did, and I didn't see shit--I'll go look again, though.
I doubt it.  You are quite the La-Z-Boy.

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Avoiding the reportage of the grotesque failure of the Negro family, for one...





According to your (retarded) definition of racism, the emboldened section there is racist.

Nope.  Pointing out that the Negro family is in decline is not racist.  NOT pointing it out because of a desire not to offend is racist.

Who is avoiding such reportage? Don't you understand that you're essentially saying here that the typical Black family is a grotesque failure? :flowstone::lol:
Do you deny that the Negro family has been disappearing for decades?


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
...and generally excusing bad behavior because someone comes from a deprived culture.  What crap.



Who is excusing bad behavior? :undecided:

The press has.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

So, what, IYO, is the cause? This should be good...:smirk:




Excess babies


And the cause of that is...




Welfare and enablers such as Affirmative Action.  Thank me


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Phred]
    #13531676 - 11/23/10 08:36 PM (10 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

No it doesn't--from, what I read in the Wikipedia article on the Tenth Amendment, there is nothing unconstitutional about cooperative federalism.




We're not talking here about "co-operative federalism", we are talking about the US Constitution.


I know; apparently (according to the Wikipedia article on the Tenth Amendment) cooperative federalism is not unconstitutional.


Quote:

Phred said:
And - as I predicted - you have the way the Constitution works exactly one hundred and eighty degrees backwards...


No I don't--even if my understanding of one of the clauses of the Constitution is "180 degrees backwards" (how, redundant, something that is turned 180 degrees is turned backwards), this doesn't mean that my understanding of the entire Constitution is also 180 degrees.


Quote:

Phred said:
...which is why I insisted you provide an example.


A real-world example is unnecessary for you to answer a hypothetical question (Would you vote for an openly racist politician?).


Quote:

Phred said:
You have somehow managed to convince yourself that the federal government can do anything the Constitution doesn't forbid it to do, when in reality, the Constitution was deliberately set up to allow the federal government to do only that which the Constitution says it may do. This is what "enumerated powers" means. If the Constitution does not specify a particular task which the people allow the federal government to do, the government may not do it. And if it does that task anyway, then it is acting unconstitutionally.


I know this, but I am under the impression that there are exceptions, such as cooperative federalism, which was mentioned in the Tenth Amendment Wikipedia article.


Quote:

Phred said:
So when you say -

Quote:

Can you please provide the clause in the Constitution which you believe forbids it, and your own interpretation of how it forbids it?




- you are displaying your appalling misunderstanding of the core issue being discussed.


No I'm not, I just want to see what you think. :shrug:


Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

It could be that the state politicians decided to cut back on state-run programs that benefited certain races instead of cutting back on other such programs that benefited other races.




Clearly, any such state-run programs would be racist...


Not necessarily.




Poid


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Edited by Poid (11/24/10 07:16 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Poid]
    #13531689 - 11/23/10 08:37 PM (10 years, 8 months ago)

Poid has an amazing fondness for wikipedia and, apparently, nothing else.  Look up New Haven firefighters in wiki.


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblelinkamathingy
Aspiring Mycologist


Registered: 10/27/10
Posts: 1,235
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Poid] * 1
    #13533862 - 11/24/10 06:52 AM (10 years, 8 months ago)

racism is illogical seeing as differences in height mean more genetic variation between humans than differences in skin color.

i wouldn't vote for an ill informed candidate, which they would appear to be if they were racist


--------------------
SCIENCE!!!
If NIST didn't even investigate whether explosives were used, how can we trust their investigation? It's a rule whenever explosions are heard.
Though I Laugh
EyegasmArt.com
anonymous: without name
Anonymous: a group with a name
don't be fooled, have a revolution on your own terms.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 6 months
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Poid]
    #13535049 - 11/24/10 02:09 PM (10 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

I know; apparently (according to the Wikipedia article on the Tenth Amendment) cooperative federalism is not unconstitutional.




To repeat, we are not talking about "co-operative federalism", we are talking about the federal government involving itself in the funding of education, which is unconstitutional, since the funding of education is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, duh.

Quote:

No I don't--even if my understanding of one of the clauses of the Constitution is "180 degrees backwards" (how, redundant, something that is turned 180 degrees is turned backwards), this doesn't mean that my understanding of the entire Constitution is also 180 degrees/




Yes, that is exactly what it means, and it is not a case of you misunderstanding just one clause, but of you misunderstanding the fundamental principle of the US system of limited government as laid out in the Constitution.

When you disputed my accurate characterization of federal government involvement in education as unconstitutional, you didn't try to refute my point by supplying a clause of the Constitution which showed the federal government could involve itself in that area, you instead asked me to "provide the clause in the Constitution which you believe forbids it". Your request clearly demonstrates you have the fundamental concept of limited government (and thus the Constitution) exactly backwards - you believe government may do anything unless the Constitution says it may not. In actual fact, the reverse is true - the federal government may do nothing except what is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. If the Constitution does not specifically say the federal government can do a thing, then it cannot. There is no need to provide a (quite literally) endless list of things government may not do, it is much simpler to provide the very short list of the few things the federal government may do. And just in case anyone was still too thick to understand this very easy-to-grasp concept, the Tenth Amendment was added to make it impossible to misinterpret by any honest reader of nominal intelligence with a working knowledge of the English language.

Quote:

A real-world example is unnecessary for you to answer a hypothetical question




In a world where the questioner understands what "Constitutional" actually means, this would be true. Sadly, it has been amply demonstrated we are not operating in such a world.

Quote:

I know this, but I am under the impression that there are exceptions...




You operate under many false impressions. This is precisely why I insisted you provide an example.

Quote:

Not necessarily.




Yes, necessarily.






Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePatlal
You ask too many questions
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/09/10
Posts: 43,819
Loc: Ottawa Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 18 minutes
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Phred]
    #13535088 - 11/24/10 02:19 PM (10 years, 8 months ago)

What, you mean a black politician that hates white people?


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Patlal]
    #13535126 - 11/24/10 02:26 PM (10 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Patlal said:
What, you mean a black politician that hates white people?




A black that hates whites? Does such a mythical person even exist?


:obama:


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13562661 - 11/30/10 02:22 PM (10 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
There is no white privilege.  Hasn't been for decades


Yes there is, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

White Privilege Shapes USA
Quote:

Here's what white privilege sounds like:

I am sitting in my University of Texas office, talking to a very bright and very conservative white student about affirmative action in college admissions, which he opposes and I support.

The student says he wants a level playing field with no unearned advantages for anyone. I ask him whether he thinks that in the United States being white has advantages. Have either of us, I ask, ever benefited from being white in a world run mostly by white people? Yes, he concedes, there is something real and tangible we could call white privilege.

So, if we live in a world of white privilege--unearned white privilege--how does that affect your notion of a level playing field? I ask.

He paused for a moment and said, "That really doesn't matter."

That statement, I suggested to him, reveals the ultimate white privilege: the privilege to acknowledge you have unearned privilege but ignore what it means.

That exchange led me to rethink the way I talk about race and racism with students. It drove home to me the importance of confronting the dirty secret that we white people carry around with us everyday: In a world of white privilege, some of what we have is unearned. I think much of both the fear and anger that comes up around discussions of affirmative action has its roots in that secret. So these days, my goal is to talk openly and honestly about white supremacy and white privilege.

White privilege, like any social phenomenon, is complex. In a white supremacist culture, all white people have privilege, whether or not they are overtly racist themselves. There are general patterns, but such privilege plays out differently depending on context and other aspects of one's identity (in my case, being male gives me other kinds of privilege). Rather than try to tell others how white privilege has played out in their lives, I talk about how it has affected me.

I am as white as white gets in this country. I am of northern European heritage and I was raised in North Dakota, one of the whitest states in the country. I grew up in a virtually all-white world surrounded by racism, both personal and institutional. Because I didn't live near a reservation, I didn't even have exposure to the state's only numerically significant non-white population, American Indians.

I have struggled to resist that racist training and the ongoing racism of my culture. I like to think I have changed, even though I routinely trip over the lingering effects of that internalized racism and the institutional racism around me. But no matter how much I "fix" myself, one thing never changes--I walk through the world with white privilege.

What does that mean? Perhaps most importantly, when I seek admission to a university, apply for a job, or hunt for an apartment, I don't look threatening. Almost all of the people evaluating me for those things look like me--they are white. They see in me a reflection of themselves, and in a racist world that is an advantage. I smile. I am white. I am one of them. I am not dangerous. Even when I voice critical opinions, I am cut some slack. After all, I'm white.

My flaws also are more easily forgiven because I am white. Some complain that affirmative action has meant the university is saddled with mediocre minority professors. I have no doubt there are minority faculty who are mediocre, though I don't know very many. As Henry Louis Gates Jr. once pointed out, if affirmative action policies were in place for the next hundred years, it's possible that at the end of that time the university could have as many mediocre minority professors as it has mediocre white professors. That isn't meant as an insult to anyone, but is a simple observation that white privilege has meant that scores of second-rate white professors have slid through the system because their flaws were overlooked out of solidarity based on race, as well as on gender, class and ideology.

Some people resist the assertions that the United States is still a bitterly racist society and that the racism has real effects on real people. But white folks have long cut other white folks a break. I know, because I am one of them.

I am not a genius--as I like to say, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I have been teaching full-time for six years, and I've published a reasonable amount of scholarship. Some of it is the unexceptional stuff one churns out to get tenure, and some of it, I would argue, actually is worth reading. I work hard, and I like to think that I'm a fairly decent teacher. Every once in awhile, I leave my office at the end of the day feeling like I really accomplished something. When I cash my paycheck, I don't feel guilty.

But, all that said, I know I did not get where I am by merit alone. I benefited from, among other things, white privilege. That doesn't mean that I don't deserve my job, or that if I weren't white I would never have gotten the job. It means simply that all through my life, I have soaked up benefits for being white. I grew up in fertile farm country taken by force from non-white indigenous people. I was educated in a well-funded, virtually all-white public school system in which I learned that white people like me made this country great. There I also was taught a variety of skills, including how to take standardized tests written by and for white people.

All my life I have been hired for jobs by white people. I was accepted for graduate school by white people. And I was hired for a teaching position at the predominantly white University of Texas, which had a white president, in a college headed by a white dean and in a department with a white chairman that at the time had one non-white tenured professor.

There certainly is individual variation in experience. Some white people have had it easier than me, probably because they came from wealthy families that gave them even more privilege. Some white people have had it tougher than me because they came from poorer families. White women face discrimination I will never know. But, in the end, white people all have drawn on white privilege somewhere in their lives.

Like anyone, I have overcome certain hardships in my life. I have worked hard to get where I am, and I work hard to stay there. But to feel good about myself and my work, I do not have to believe that "merit," as defined by white people in a white country, alone got me here. I can acknowledge that in addition to all that hard work, I got a significant boost from white privilege, which continues to protect me every day of my life from certain hardships.

At one time in my life, I would not have been able to say that, because I needed to believe that my success in life was due solely to my individual talent and effort. I saw myself as the heroic American, the rugged individualist. I was so deeply seduced by the culture's mythology that I couldn't see the fear that was binding me to those myths. Like all white Americans, I was living with the fear that maybe I didn't really deserve my success, that maybe luck and privilege had more to do with it than brains and hard work. I was afraid I wasn't heroic or rugged, that I wasn't special.

I let go of some of that fear when I realized that, indeed, I wasn't special, but that I was still me. What I do well, I still can take pride in, even when I know that the rules under which I work in are stacked in my benefit. I believe that until we let go of the fiction that people have complete control over their fate--that we can will ourselves to be anything we choose--then we will live with that fear. Yes, we should all dream big and pursue our dreams and not let anyone or anything stop us. But we all are the product both of what we will ourselves to be and what the society in which we live lets us be.

White privilege is not something I get to decide whether or not I want to keep. Every time I walk into a store at the same time as a black man and the security guard follows him and leaves me alone to shop, I am benefiting from white privilege. There is not space here to list all the ways in which white privilege plays out in our daily lives, but it is clear that I will carry this privilege with me until the day white supremacy is erased from this society.

Frankly, I don't think I will live to see that day; I am realistic about the scope of the task. However, I continue to have hope, to believe in the creative power of human beings to engage the world honestly and act morally. A first step for white people, I think, is to not be afraid to admit that we have benefited from white privilege. It doesn't mean we are frauds who have no claim to our success. It means we face a choice about what we do with our success.

Jensen is a professor in the School of Journalism in the University of Texas at Austin. He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Negroes are by and large more racist than Caucasians.  Or did you think only whites could be racist?


"There is a such thing as a typical white person." = racist
"Negroes are by and large more racist than Caucasians." = not racist


:tard::wow:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
It means that their failures get glossed over.


Do you even know what affirmative action is? All it does is give colored people priority registration, it does not "gloss over their failures". :flowstone:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I don't expect to have to educate you about every little thing but you have proven yourself to be incurious and dogmatic.  These were prominent in the news not that long ago.  How about you try to educate yourself instead of being spoon fed?


It's not about me wanting to be spoon fed, it's about the concept of burden of proof, which you are apparently incapable of comprehending.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
LOOK IT UP YOURSELF.  We aren't debating anything, Poid.  I'm trying to educate you.  Don't be such a lazy sack.


We are debating; if you're trying to educate me, then show me your sources, I'm not just going to take your word for anything. :nerd:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Is that a judgment?


Of course it is.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Your questions don't have a point?  Mine do.


I didn't say that; reading comprehension much?


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Nope.  Pointing out that the Negro family is in decline is not racist.  NOT pointing it out because of a desire not to offend is racist.


According to your definition of racism, it is racist because it's a judgment based on race.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Do you deny that the Negro family has been disappearing for decades?


First you said that the Negro family is a grotesque failure, now you're saying that it has been "disappearing"? What do you mean by that? :undecided:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Welfare and enablers such as Affirmative Action.  Thank me


So why do you think black people generally have more babies than Whites?


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Phred]
    #13562722 - 11/30/10 02:37 PM (10 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

I know; apparently (according to the Wikipedia article on the Tenth Amendment) cooperative federalism is not unconstitutional.




To repeat, we are not talking about "co-operative federalism", we are talking about the federal government involving itself in the funding of education, which is unconstitutional, since the funding of education is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, duh.


According to the Wikipedia article on the Tenth Amendment, the Supreme court made an exception to the enumerated powers clause; this exception is called "cooperative federalism".

If you actually took the time to read it, then you would understand.


Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

No I don't--even if my understanding of one of the clauses of the Constitution is "180 degrees backwards" (how, redundant, something that is turned 180 degrees is turned backwards), this doesn't mean that my understanding of the entire Constitution is also 180 degrees/




Yes, that is exactly what it means, and it is not a case of you misunderstanding just one clause, but of you misunderstanding the fundamental principle of the US system of limited government as laid out in the Constitution.


The fundamental principle of the US system of limited government is not the entire Constitution. :tard:


Quote:

Phred said:
When you disputed my accurate characterization of federal government involvement in education as unconstitutional, you didn't try to refute my point by supplying a clause of the Constitution which showed the federal government could involve itself in that area, you instead asked me to "provide the clause in the Constitution which you believe forbids it".


No, I mentioned cooperative federalism, and you were unable comprehend what that is.

I asked you to provide your interpretation of the clause in the Constitution which you believe forbids it, because I wanted to know your understanding of the said clause.


Quote:

Phred said:
Your request clearly demonstrates you have the fundamental concept of limited government (and thus the Constitution) exactly backwards - you believe government may do anything unless the Constitution says it may not.


Except that that isn't what I requested, you left out the fact that I asked you for your interpretation of the clause; I didn't ask for the clause itself.


Quote:

Phred said:
In actual fact, the reverse is true - the federal government may do nothing except what is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. If the Constitution does not specifically say the federal government can do a thing, then it cannot. There is no need to provide a (quite literally) endless list of things government may not do, it is much simpler to provide the very short list of the few things the federal government may do. And just in case anyone was still too thick to understand this very easy-to-grasp concept, the Tenth Amendment was added to make it impossible to misinterpret by any honest reader of nominal intelligence with a working knowledge of the English language.


How do you know that, did you just guess, or did you actually read somewhere that that was the intention of the person/people who drafted/ratified that amendment?


Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

A real-world example is unnecessary for you to answer a hypothetical question




In a world where the questioner understands what "Constitutional" actually means, this would be true. Sadly, it has been amply demonstrated we are not operating in such a world.


In a world where the answerer actually can read and understand the thread title (which clearly shows that this discussion isn't limited to federal politicians), this would be true.






Poid


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Poid]
    #13562817 - 11/30/10 02:58 PM (10 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
There is no white privilege.  Hasn't been for decades


Yes there is, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

White Privilege Shapes USA
Quote:

Here's what white privilege sounds like:

I am sitting in my University of Texas office, talking to a very bright and very conservative white student about affirmative action in college admissions, which he opposes and I support.

The student says he wants a level playing field with no unearned advantages for anyone. I ask him whether he thinks that in the United States being white has advantages. Have either of us, I ask, ever benefited from being white in a world run mostly by white people? Yes, he concedes, there is something real and tangible we could call white privilege.

So, if we live in a world of white privilege--unearned white privilege--how does that affect your notion of a level playing field? I ask.

He paused for a moment and said, "That really doesn't matter."

That statement, I suggested to him, reveals the ultimate white privilege: the privilege to acknowledge you have unearned privilege but ignore what it means.

That exchange led me to rethink the way I talk about race and racism with students. It drove home to me the importance of confronting the dirty secret that we white people carry around with us everyday: In a world of white privilege, some of what we have is unearned. I think much of both the fear and anger that comes up around discussions of affirmative action has its roots in that secret. So these days, my goal is to talk openly and honestly about white supremacy and white privilege.

White privilege, like any social phenomenon, is complex. In a white supremacist culture, all white people have privilege, whether or not they are overtly racist themselves. There are general patterns, but such privilege plays out differently depending on context and other aspects of one's identity (in my case, being male gives me other kinds of privilege). Rather than try to tell others how white privilege has played out in their lives, I talk about how it has affected me.

I am as white as white gets in this country. I am of northern European heritage and I was raised in North Dakota, one of the whitest states in the country. I grew up in a virtually all-white world surrounded by racism, both personal and institutional. Because I didn't live near a reservation, I didn't even have exposure to the state's only numerically significant non-white population, American Indians.

I have struggled to resist that racist training and the ongoing racism of my culture. I like to think I have changed, even though I routinely trip over the lingering effects of that internalized racism and the institutional racism around me. But no matter how much I "fix" myself, one thing never changes--I walk through the world with white privilege.

What does that mean? Perhaps most importantly, when I seek admission to a university, apply for a job, or hunt for an apartment, I don't look threatening. Almost all of the people evaluating me for those things look like me--they are white. They see in me a reflection of themselves, and in a racist world that is an advantage. I smile. I am white. I am one of them. I am not dangerous. Even when I voice critical opinions, I am cut some slack. After all, I'm white.

My flaws also are more easily forgiven because I am white. Some complain that affirmative action has meant the university is saddled with mediocre minority professors. I have no doubt there are minority faculty who are mediocre, though I don't know very many. As Henry Louis Gates Jr. once pointed out, if affirmative action policies were in place for the next hundred years, it's possible that at the end of that time the university could have as many mediocre minority professors as it has mediocre white professors. That isn't meant as an insult to anyone, but is a simple observation that white privilege has meant that scores of second-rate white professors have slid through the system because their flaws were overlooked out of solidarity based on race, as well as on gender, class and ideology.

Some people resist the assertions that the United States is still a bitterly racist society and that the racism has real effects on real people. But white folks have long cut other white folks a break. I know, because I am one of them.

I am not a genius--as I like to say, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I have been teaching full-time for six years, and I've published a reasonable amount of scholarship. Some of it is the unexceptional stuff one churns out to get tenure, and some of it, I would argue, actually is worth reading. I work hard, and I like to think that I'm a fairly decent teacher. Every once in awhile, I leave my office at the end of the day feeling like I really accomplished something. When I cash my paycheck, I don't feel guilty.

But, all that said, I know I did not get where I am by merit alone. I benefited from, among other things, white privilege. That doesn't mean that I don't deserve my job, or that if I weren't white I would never have gotten the job. It means simply that all through my life, I have soaked up benefits for being white. I grew up in fertile farm country taken by force from non-white indigenous people. I was educated in a well-funded, virtually all-white public school system in which I learned that white people like me made this country great. There I also was taught a variety of skills, including how to take standardized tests written by and for white people.

All my life I have been hired for jobs by white people. I was accepted for graduate school by white people. And I was hired for a teaching position at the predominantly white University of Texas, which had a white president, in a college headed by a white dean and in a department with a white chairman that at the time had one non-white tenured professor.

There certainly is individual variation in experience. Some white people have had it easier than me, probably because they came from wealthy families that gave them even more privilege. Some white people have had it tougher than me because they came from poorer families. White women face discrimination I will never know. But, in the end, white people all have drawn on white privilege somewhere in their lives.

Like anyone, I have overcome certain hardships in my life. I have worked hard to get where I am, and I work hard to stay there. But to feel good about myself and my work, I do not have to believe that "merit," as defined by white people in a white country, alone got me here. I can acknowledge that in addition to all that hard work, I got a significant boost from white privilege, which continues to protect me every day of my life from certain hardships.

At one time in my life, I would not have been able to say that, because I needed to believe that my success in life was due solely to my individual talent and effort. I saw myself as the heroic American, the rugged individualist. I was so deeply seduced by the culture's mythology that I couldn't see the fear that was binding me to those myths. Like all white Americans, I was living with the fear that maybe I didn't really deserve my success, that maybe luck and privilege had more to do with it than brains and hard work. I was afraid I wasn't heroic or rugged, that I wasn't special.

I let go of some of that fear when I realized that, indeed, I wasn't special, but that I was still me. What I do well, I still can take pride in, even when I know that the rules under which I work in are stacked in my benefit. I believe that until we let go of the fiction that people have complete control over their fate--that we can will ourselves to be anything we choose--then we will live with that fear. Yes, we should all dream big and pursue our dreams and not let anyone or anything stop us. But we all are the product both of what we will ourselves to be and what the society in which we live lets us be.

White privilege is not something I get to decide whether or not I want to keep. Every time I walk into a store at the same time as a black man and the security guard follows him and leaves me alone to shop, I am benefiting from white privilege. There is not space here to list all the ways in which white privilege plays out in our daily lives, but it is clear that I will carry this privilege with me until the day white supremacy is erased from this society.

Frankly, I don't think I will live to see that day; I am realistic about the scope of the task. However, I continue to have hope, to believe in the creative power of human beings to engage the world honestly and act morally. A first step for white people, I think, is to not be afraid to admit that we have benefited from white privilege. It doesn't mean we are frauds who have no claim to our success. It means we face a choice about what we do with our success.

Jensen is a professor in the School of Journalism in the University of Texas at Austin. He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.







You present that as evidence of white privilege?  Sorry, no thank you.  I don't give two shits what some white liberal jackass feels guilty about.
Quote:



Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Negroes are by and large more racist than Caucasians.  Or did you think only whites could be racist?


"There is a such thing as a typical white person." = racist
"Negroes are by and large more racist than Caucasians." = not racist




How does describing a measurable feature of a whole class of people correspond to ascribing the class characteristic to any individual member?  You are thickening.
Quote:







Quote:

zappaisgod said:
It means that their failures get glossed over.


Do you even know what affirmative action is? All it does is give colored people priority registration, it does not "gloss over their failures". :flowstone:




Same thing.  They failed to live up to the standard that others are held to.  Thickening.
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I don't expect to have to educate you about every little thing but you have proven yourself to be incurious and dogmatic.  These were prominent in the news not that long ago.  How about you try to educate yourself instead of being spoon fed?


It's not about me wanting to be spoon fed, it's about the concept of burden of proof, which you are apparently incapable of comprehending.




I told you where to look.  Look.  I led you to the water, boy, now drink.
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
LOOK IT UP YOURSELF.  We aren't debating anything, Poid.  I'm trying to educate you.  Don't be such a lazy sack.


We are debating; if you're trying to educate me, then show me your sources, I'm not just going to take your word for anything. :nerd:




Why should I bother with such an incurious and lazy pupil?  get thee to the well-spring, my son.  It is called Google and it is sweet clear water.
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Is that a judgment?


Of course it is.




ORLY?  "Some" of anything is meaningless.  It could be one out of a million.
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Your questions don't have a point?  Mine do.


I didn't say that; reading comprehension much?




I comprehend marvelously.
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Nope.  Pointing out that the Negro family is in decline is not racist.  NOT pointing it out because of a desire not to offend is racist.


According to your definition of racism, it is racist because it's a judgment based on race.




Nope.  Did I say the typical black family is something?  Nope.  Just citing raw numbers.
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Do you deny that the Negro family has been disappearing for decades?


First you said that the Negro family is a grotesque failure, now you're saying that it has been "disappearing"? What do you mean by that? :undecided:




Most Negro children are born out of wedlock.  Numerical fact.  It has deteriorated greatly since the mid sixties welfare explosion.  Daniel Patrick Moynihan, liberal lion, warned of it and was vilified.
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Welfare and enablers such as Affirmative Action.  Thank me


So why do you think black people generally have more babies than Whites?




I didn't specifically say they had more babies. Their problem is that they more often have babies before they have the wherewithall to support them.  Very different.


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 6 months
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Poid]
    #13563970 - 11/30/10 07:33 PM (10 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

According to the Wikipedia article on the Tenth Amendment, the Supreme court made an exception to the enumerated powers clause; this exception is called "cooperative federalism".




And again, we need not even get as far into the Constitution as the Tenth Amendment to discover that the US federal government may not involve itself in education. The Tenth Amendment merely reiterates what was already made abundantly clear earlier in the Constitution - the federal government may involve itself in nothing other than those areas listed. Since education is not listed (enumerated), the feds may not get involved, "co-operative federalism" or no "co-operative federalism".

Quote:

The fundamental principle of the US system of limited government is not the entire Constitution.




This statement only makes more plain to the audience that you haven't the faintest idea how Constitutional government works, and what role the Constitution plays in that government. The uniqueness of the United States as a nation was that its government was designed to be handcuffed hand and foot to the concept of limited government. The Constitution is nothing more than the owner's manual which describes the precise mechanism by which that limited government is permitted to operate.

Quote:

No, I mentioned cooperative federalism, and you were unable comprehend what that is.




I comprehend full well what Wikipedia purports it to be. I merely correctly point out that it has exactly zero relevance to whether or not federal government involvement in education is constitutional. Clearly, said involvement is unconstitutional, since involvement in education is not one of the enumerated powers.

Quote:

I asked you to provide your interpretation of the clause in the Constitution which you believe forbids it, because I wanted to know your understanding of the said clause.




And here is where I correctly pointed out that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "unconstitutional" - which misunderstanding you continue to demonstrate with each succeeding post. There is no clause which specifically forbids government involvement in education, because there doesn't have to be such a clause, because that is not how the Constitution works. Again, the Constitution only allows the federal government to do stuff specifically enumerated in its very short list of stuff the feds may do. If it ain't on the list, the feds may not do it. Game over. Case closed. Since "messing around with education" is not on that list, the feds may not mess around with education.

Why are you having such a hard time grasping this exceedingly simple concept?

Quote:

How do you know that, did you just guess, or did you actually read somewhere that that was the intention of the person/people who drafted/ratified that amendment?




Madison and Jefferson went at this for years. Even though an objective reading of the Constitution made it crystal clear that what came to be known as the Bill of Rights was redundant (as some of the Founding Fathers argued in opposition to adding the first ten amendments), the eventual consensus hammered out was that since the concept of limited government was so unprecedented and revolutionary, it couldn't hurt to re-emphasize the overarching fundamental concept as it applied to more particular and concrete examples of areas government could not intrude upon, such as freedom of speech, press, religion, freedom of self-defense, etc. etc.





Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13574624 - 12/02/10 07:43 PM (10 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
You present that as evidence of white privilege?  Sorry, no thank you.  I don't give two shits what some white liberal jackass feels guilty about.


Yes I do; whether or not he's a liberal is irrelevant, you're making an ad hominem.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
How does describing a measurable feature of a whole class of people correspond to ascribing the class characteristic to any individual member?  You are thickening.


Why do you think that describing a measurable feature of a whole class of people is not racist, while ascribing the class characteristic to any individual member is not?


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Same thing.  They failed to live up to the standard that others are held to.


So which failure is being "glossed over" by having priority registration? Not being White? :ednorton:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I told you where to look.  Look.  I led you to the water, boy, now drink.


:sip:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Why should I bother with such an incurious and lazy pupil?  get thee to the well-spring, my son.  It is called Google and it is sweet clear water.


I'm very curious, and enjoy learning; I also, though, enjoy a good debate, which you're not showing me you wish to engage in because you refuse to accept your burden of proof.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
ORLY?  "Some" of anything is meaningless.  It could be one out of a million.


It's still a judgment, though.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Nope.  Did I say the typical black family is something?  Nope.  Just citing raw numbers.


You implied it by generalizing; you said "The Negro family is...".


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Most Negro children are born out of wedlock.  Numerical fact.  It has deteriorated greatly since the mid sixties welfare explosion.  Daniel Patrick Moynihan, liberal lion, warned of it and was vilified.


You have failed to explain to me what you believe is the root cause of that phenomenon.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I didn't specifically say they had more babies. Their problem is that they more often have babies before they have the wherewithall to support them.  Very different.


Read above.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Phred]
    #13574650 - 12/02/10 07:50 PM (10 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

According to the Wikipedia article on the Tenth Amendment, the Supreme court made an exception to the enumerated powers clause; this exception is called "cooperative federalism".




And again, we need not even get as far into the Constitution as the Tenth Amendment to discover that the US federal government may not involve itself in education. The Tenth Amendment merely reiterates what was already made abundantly clear earlier in the Constitution - the federal government may involve itself in nothing other than those areas listed. Since education is not listed (enumerated), the feds may not get involved, "co-operative federalism" or no "co-operative federalism".


The Supreme Court is the official interpreter of constitutional law; if the Supreme Court decides that cooperative federalism is constitutional, then it is, whether or not it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.


Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

The fundamental principle of the US system of limited government is not the entire Constitution.




This statement only makes more plain to the audience that you haven't the faintest idea how Constitutional government works, and what role the Constitution plays in that government. The uniqueness of the United States as a nation was that its government was designed to be handcuffed hand and foot to the concept of limited government. The Constitution is nothing more than the owner's manual which describes the precise mechanism by which that limited government is permitted to operate.


So what? Even if I didn't understand that, do you honestly believe that I cannot understand anything else in the Constitution, including this random passage:

Quote:

Article Six establishes the Constitution, and the laws and treaties of the United States made according to it, to be the supreme law of the land, and that "the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the laws or constitutions of any state notwithstanding."



:wow:


Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

No, I mentioned cooperative federalism, and you were unable comprehend what that is.




I comprehend full well what Wikipedia purports it to be. I merely correctly point out that it has exactly zero relevance to whether or not federal government involvement in education is constitutional. Clearly, said involvement is unconstitutional, since involvement in education is not one of the enumerated powers.


The Supreme Court is the official interpreter of constitutional law; if the Supreme Court decides that cooperative federalism is constitutional, then it is, whether or not it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.


Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

I asked you to provide your interpretation of the clause in the Constitution which you believe forbids it, because I wanted to know your understanding of the said clause.



And here is where I correctly pointed out that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "unconstitutional" - which misunderstanding you continue to demonstrate with each succeeding post. There is no clause which specifically forbids government involvement in education, because there doesn't have to be such a clause, because that is not how the Constitution works. Again, the Constitution only allows the federal government to do stuff specifically enumerated in its very short list of stuff the feds may do. If it ain't on the list, the feds may not do it. Game over. Case closed. Since "messing around with education" is not on that list, the feds may not mess around with education.

Why are you having such a hard time grasping this exceedingly simple concept?


I understand that concept fully well, it is you who has a hard time grasping the exceedingly simple fact that whatever the Supreme Court decides is constitutional is constitutional, regardless of whether or not their decisions are specifically listed in the Constitution.






Poid


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Poid]
    #13574894 - 12/02/10 08:58 PM (10 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
You present that as evidence of white privilege?  Sorry, no thank you.  I don't give two shits what some white liberal jackass feels guilty about.


Yes I do; whether or not he's a liberal is irrelevant, you're making an ad hominem.




You are presenting him as an authority.  Since you are presenting him as an authority I can attack his credentials.  He has none.
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
How does describing a measurable feature of a whole class of people correspond to ascribing the class characteristic to any individual member?  You are thickening.


Why do you think that describing a measurable feature of a whole class of people is not racist, while ascribing the class characteristic to any individual member is not?




Because I don't ascribe the features of the class to the individual.  Get it yet?
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Same thing.  They failed to live up to the standard that others are held to.


So which failure is being "glossed over" by having priority registration? Not being White? :ednorton:




Not passing the tests everybody else has to to the same level they have to.
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I told you where to look.  Look.  I led you to the water, boy, now drink.


:sip:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Why should I bother with such an incurious and lazy pupil?  get thee to the well-spring, my son.  It is called Google and it is sweet clear water.


I'm very curious, and enjoy learning; I also, though, enjoy a good debate, which you're not showing me you wish to engage in because you refuse to accept your burden of proof.




You win.  http://www.adversity.net/newhavenfd/default.htm
You also lose, because you have exposed yourself as too lazy to contribute to your own education and too incurious to challenge your own biases. 
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
ORLY?  "Some" of anything is meaningless.  It could be one out of a million.


It's still a judgment, though.




No.
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Nope.  Did I say the typical black family is something?  Nope.  Just citing raw numbers.


You implied it by generalizing; you said "The Negro family is...".




I imply nothing.  I come right out and say what I mean.  You do not have the zappaisgod decoder ring so I don't expect you to read between the lines.  I'm even somewhat dubious that you can read plain text.
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Most Negro children are born out of wedlock.  Numerical fact.  It has deteriorated greatly since the mid sixties welfare explosion.  Daniel Patrick Moynihan, liberal lion, warned of it and was vilified.


You have failed to explain to me what you believe is the root cause of that phenomenon.




I never tried to explain the root cause of Negroes having too many babies they can't support.  But Moynihan warned about it.
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I didn't specifically say they had more babies. Their problem is that they more often have babies before they have the wherewithall to support them.  Very different.


Read above.




Answered above.  I will point out this obvious fact, though.  When you subsidize something you get more of it.  Tying welfare benefits to the number of children you have gets you more babies.  I can not at all explain why that has afflicted Negroes more than Caucasians.


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13578394 - 12/03/10 07:59 PM (10 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
You are presenting him as an authority.


No I'm not, I'm presenting his claims; he has nothing to do with this.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Since you are presenting him as an authority I can attack his credentials.  He has none.


Jensen is a professor in the School of Journalism in the University of Texas at Austin.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Because I don't ascribe the features of the class to the individual.  Get it yet?


So you believe those features can only be ascribed to the class, but not to any of the individuals who belong to that class?


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Not passing the tests everybody else has to to the same level they have to.


But many of them did pass the tests; they're given priority registration whether or not they passed those tests.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I told you where to look.  Look.  I led you to the water, boy, now drink.


:sip:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
You win.  http://www.adversity.net/newhavenfd/default.htm


:sambergfive:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
You also lose, because you have exposed yourself as too lazy to contribute to your own education and too incurious to challenge your own biases.


I'm not too lazy, and I'm not incurious; I already told you why I'm not reading the information contained within the links you provided.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
No.


"Some apples taste like shit."--you really think that's not a judgment? :etjesus:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I imply nothing.  I come right out and say what I mean.  You do not have the zappaisgod decoder ring so I don't expect you to read between the lines.  I'm even somewhat dubious that you can read plain text.


I aced my English placement exam for college and was placed in the highest English course. :stoned:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineNexius
Ruler
Male


Registered: 06/24/07
Posts: 3,960
Loc: Earth Flag
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Poid]
    #13578483 - 12/03/10 08:21 PM (10 years, 7 months ago)



--------------------
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Edibles   Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Why would anyone NOT vote 3rd party??
( 1 2 3 all )
LearyfanS 3,481 57 12/20/02 02:21 PM
by silversoul7
* to those that vote based on tax cuts
( 1 2 3 all )
1stimer 2,092 40 07/14/03 02:11 PM
by DoctorJ
* Lott is a racist
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Buddha5254 3,912 78 12/19/02 07:42 AM
by silversoul7
* why vote? uki 1,974 17 10/30/04 11:51 AM
by Viaggio
* Liberal politicians hate those uppity blacks. luvdemshrooms 556 1 11/03/03 07:24 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* fuck bush and kerry...vote nader!!!
( 1 2 all )
ABBAZABA 3,920 39 06/23/04 11:40 AM
by Ancalagon
* Am I a racist
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Ripple 5,560 92 01/08/03 03:09 PM
by Phluck
* To Americans here who don't vote:
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 3,900 39 03/14/03 04:32 PM
by Innvertigo

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,430 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.038 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 17 queries.