Black People and Crime

[artisticsolution]

AS:I don't think we have to say I am wrong or you are wrong here. I think it could be a combination of things...and that is my point. We can't know until science knows. Certainly we can see a difference. As an artist, I would use different values if I was doing a portrait of a black person vs. a white person.

SOB:What do you mean by values?

AS: Oh sorry...artists jargon. An artist uses the term "value" to describe the lightness or darkness in a painting.

SOB: I just think it's funny that you'd rather ignore their centuries of persecution and find it easier to believe that it's some physical defect when in fact we all come from the same singular origin.

AS: Okay then... let's use your logic above for something else and see if it hold water. If it is true that all are equal then it should still hold water...here goes:

I think we can all agree that it is factual that men are more aggressive than women in general. Does that mean that it is because of centuries of persecution? No, the truth is...that between women and men...it is women who have had centuries of persecution by men and not the other way around...but do you see women by and large committing acts of aggression? Using your logic above...it would be "understandable" if woman did commit acts of aggression just as much as all others from this "single origin" but they don't. WHY? Could it be because there are differences between people, be it gender, race, psychological background, etc?

If everyone is the same...then why aren't women committing crimes at as big of numbers as men? It is certainly "understandable" that they would. Do you have a reason for that discrepancy in your theory? If you don't then it does not hold water.

Also, please re read my post as I have never once said that anyone is "less than" any one else. But this is what you want my words to mean. Because you are reading them as you against me...instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt.

I have been reading the anti-christ by Nietzsche and I read something today that I think can describe Chaz and you:

"I call it lying to refuse to see what one sees, or to refuse to see it as it is: whether the lie be uttered before witnesses or not before witnesses is of no consequence. the most common sort of lie is that by which a man deceives himself; the deception of others is a relatively rare offense. -Now, this will not to see what one sees,this will not to see it as it is, is almost the first requisite for all who belong to a party of whatever sort: the party man becomes inevitably a liar."

You are refusing to even ask any questions that go against your "religion" so to speak. You are a party man in the liberal idea that even to wonder "what if" aloud is blasphemous to your precious doctrine and that anyone who even wants to ask a simple question that does not fit into your ideal "liberal" agenda is obviously a racist and a traitor. This is simply not true. You are the party man...but you cannot see it because you think the party is "them" and not you. Oh and btw...I am a liberal...just not a blind follower of their doctrine.

SOB You could give them the benefit of doubt that I'm sure you'd appreciate if the tables were turned.

AS: I could give who the benefit of the doubt? The terrorist who holds up people in thier homes for fear of going out and getting groceries? Let me put it this way so you can understand. In my mind I see 2 people of the same race (I don't care what race) one person is terrorizing another. They are both the same race mind you...now I ask you...is it racist for me to say...I wonder why one is a terrorist and the other isn't? If that isn't racist...then why is it racist for me to say the same thing if one is white and the other is black?

[artisticsolution]

That's only because you are wrong.[/color]

Prove it.

Obviously if you do not take me at my word you will not be convinced of anything I say. If you want to pretend I am a racist, then there is nothing I am going to tell you to change your mind if you pretend not to believe me.
And if you don't care if I read your posts then there is hardly any point responding to you in the first place, silly girl.

Exactly!

[Clinias]

A commentator over at TigerHawk blog, Dawnfire82, rebutes the liberal raging opinion of evil whites do all sorts of things against blacks.

""First, we have a gang of blacks beating and robbing a white tourist in broad daylight while a crowd not only watches and laughs, but then steals his stuff.

Exhibit two: the same week as the infamous "Trayvon" case, three blacks murdered a white student inside his dorm room. Almost no coverage resulted. Dog bites man, really, as you'll see below.

Exhibit three: a gang of blacks set upon and beat a white man, saying "[Get] that white [man]. This is for Trayvon ... Trayvon lives, white [man]. Kill that white [man]," according to the police report. I wonder what "[man]" replaces?

Exhibit four: gang of blacks (do you see a pattern here?) beat a Hispanic kid so badly that he required restorative surgery.

Not to mention the gasoline-burning I cited before, also perpetrated by a gang of blacks. And these are stories that I just happened to know about already from like the last month.

But if that isn't enough, let's hear from the Department of Justice, shall we? Scientist types are supposed to like numbers.

As proportions go, black on white (which includes most Hispanics, btw) acquaintance homicide has steadily increased from about 4% of homicides to about 7%. White on black has increased from 1.5% to 3.4% in the same period (i.e. one half of the increase of black on white).

For stranger homicide, black on white has fallen from 18.5% to 17.7% and white on black has fallen from 4.7% to 4.5%. In both cases, the black-on-white rate is significantly higher than the reverse.

As far as raw numbers go, in 2005 there were 159 white on black acquaintance homicides and 314 black on white ones. Black on black? 1,957. White on white (and recall that there are several times more whites in the country than blacks) amount to 2,129.

Altogether, the number of acquaintance killings of whites total 2,463, of which blacks caused about 12.7% and whites caused 86.4%. The number of killings of blacks total 2,118, of which whites caused about 7.5% and blacks caused about 92.3%.

In sum, blacks managed to proportionally kill more white acquaintances than whites did blacks, *actually* kill more whites than whites did blacks, and still be responsible for more than 92% of black acquaintance homicides.

The absolute numbers of stranger killings are even more lopsided. Blacks were responsible for more than 28% of stranger killings of whites and 87.6% of killings of blacks.

In every single case, black on white killings are substantially more than white on black killings, while blacks are still responsible for about 90% of black killings *as well.*

That white on black homicide is a serious problem in this country is flat WRONG. Period. If white on black killings were perfectly fair (i.e. in proportion to black populations), there would be MORE of them. White on black killings are actually far BELOW what they should be if victims were determined randomly (12.7%).

The narrative otherwise is complete and total horse-shit.""

Then, TownHall columnist Doug Giles, writes in his article, "Blacks Can Murder Whites, and It Won’t Make National News":

"Yep. Tyrone Woodfork, a black male who — much like Trayvon Martin — looks like Obama’s son, allegedly killed Nancy Strait and broke her husband Bob’s jaw, several ribs and shot him in the face with a BB gun last month in Tulsa. 20-year-old Tyrone also raped the nearly blind 97-pound Mrs. Strait, a great-great-grandmother, before he murdered her.

Did the above monstrous crime make the national news? Are you kidding me? Why, hell no. Of course not, silly!

Why wasn’t it fit for primetime, you ask? Well, it starred the wrong races in the wrong roles, and it thus did not fit into the fairytale the Left’s trying to foist on us goobers of Obamaland."

There are all sorts of stories of Black violence on Europeans but the media isn't reporting them at all! Only supposedly white violence on black because that fuels the paradigm of multiculturalism and white guilt. It's all a game. They work up the minorities on supposed evil when the media purposely covers up violence done by Blacks on whites.

[SpheresOfBalance]

AS:I don't think we have to say I am wrong or you are wrong here. I think it could be a combination of things...and that is my point. We can't know until science knows. Certainly we can see a difference. As an artist, I would use different values if I was doing a portrait of a black person vs. a white person.

SOB:What do you mean by values?

AS: Oh sorry...artists jargon. An artist uses the term "value" to describe the lightness or darkness in a painting.

SOB: Then in that case the colors/shade/values that you use to paint an individual has no bearing whatsoever on the argument, as many tree trunks have a darker value such as brown or black and they do not perpetrate violence.
-------------------------
SOB: I just think it's funny that you'd rather ignore their centuries of persecution and find it easier to believe that it's some physical defect when in fact we all come from the same singular origin.

AS: Okay then... let's use your logic above for something else and see if it hold water. If it is true that all are equal then it should still hold water...here goes:

AS: I think we can all agree that it is factual that men are more aggressive than women in general. Does that mean that it is because of centuries of persecution? No, the truth is...that between women and men...it is women who have had centuries of persecution by men and not the other way around...but do you see women by and large committing acts of aggression? Using your logic above...it would be "understandable" if woman did commit acts of aggression just as much as all others from this "single origin" but they don't. WHY? Could it be because there are differences between people, be it gender, race, psychological background, etc?

AS: If everyone is the same...then why aren't women committing crimes at as big of numbers as men? It is certainly "understandable" that they would. Do you have a reason for that discrepancy in your theory? If you don't then it does not hold water.

SOB: First let me tell you, as the male that I am, that I respect females to a great degree because between the sex's they take more crap than males, which I believe is why they tend to mature quicker than males. But your argument holds absolutely no truth at all. The difference between 'all' males and 'all' females is a chemical one, namely, the disparity that you speak of has to do with Testosterone and Estrogen. It is a curse so to speak. Have you ever wondered why males are the aggressor in seeking sexual bonding, and females are the deciding factor as to selection? It's all about those two hormones, that there is a difference between males and females with respect to aggression, such that biologically, males are the sex that ensures procreation, whereas females are the sex that ensures strong progeny. So as you can see your argument was born of ignorance, maybe you just haven't been exposed to biology enough. If you don't believe me, do some research on human sexuality and sex drive..
------------------------

AS: Also, please re read my post as I have never once said that anyone is "less than" any one else. But this is what you want my words to mean. Because you are reading them as you against me...instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt.

SOB: In terms of non violence, that's exactly what you're saying.

AS: I have been reading the anti-christ by Nietzsche and I read something today that I think can describe Chaz and you:

AS: "I call it lying to refuse to see what one sees, or to refuse to see it as it is: whether the lie be uttered before witnesses or not before witnesses is of no consequence. the most common sort of lie is that by which a man deceives himself; the deception of others is a relatively rare offense. -Now, this will not to see what one sees,this will not to see it as it is, is almost the first requisite for all who belong to a party of whatever sort: the party man becomes inevitably a liar."

SOB: You have taken this out of context, such that it is illogical. Logically, you cannot remove a conclusion from a set of premises and then apply it to another set of premises or visa versa. If that were possible, I could use the same quote against your argument.

AS: You are refusing to even ask any questions that go against your "religion" so to speak. You are a party man in the liberal idea that even to wonder "what if" aloud is blasphemous to your precious doctrine and that anyone who even wants to ask a simple question that does not fit into your ideal "liberal" agenda is obviously a racist and a traitor. This is simply not true. You are the party man...but you cannot see it because you think the party is "them" and not you. Oh and btw...I am a liberal...just not a blind follower of their doctrine.

SOB: This is pure speculation, and in this case, it's totally untrue. It's just a lie that you coddle yourself with, as if you could possibly know me, It would seem that you don't know yourself very well, because of it.


SOB You could give them the benefit of doubt that I'm sure you'd appreciate if the tables were turned.

AS: I could give who the benefit of the doubt? The terrorist who holds up people in thier homes for fear of going out and getting groceries? Let me put it this way so you can understand. In my mind I see 2 people of the same race (I don't care what race) one person is terrorizing another. They are both the same race mind you...now I ask you...is it racist for me to say...I wonder why one is a terrorist and the other isn't? If that isn't racist...then why is it racist for me to say the same thing if one is white and the other is black?

SOB: Could you please keep track of what we are arguing? Stop changing the subject. We are not arguing whether people of color commit violent crimes, they do, all colors commit violent crimes. We are arguing as to the why of it. Of the people of today,why do people of color seem to commit more violent crime? And as it turns out, it is mostly to do with not having the means to take care of yourself as others do, being marginalized and the associated stress, relatively speaking, in terms of, so called, class. Keep in mind that today's, so called, elite class, was born of a legacy of violence, as evidenced throughout our history books.

[SpheresOfBalance]

<snip>

There are all sorts of stories of Black violence on Europeans but the media isn't reporting them at all! Only supposedly white violence on black because that fuels the paradigm of multiculturalism and white guilt. It's all a game. They work up the minorities on supposed evil when the media purposely covers up violence done by Blacks on whites.

We live in a different time, with different tools and resources. In the USA, there were no cell phones, video cameras, etc during any of the hundreds of KKK meetings where blacks were slaughtered, they were all done in secret.

People seem to think that the modern day prevalence of violence on the evening news, in papers, etc., is an indicator of increased violence, however it's really just related to increased coverage and increased population as a function or percentages. Although I do believe it's true that eventually, with increased population, there shall be a boiling point, where the percentage of violence increases dramatically, such shall be mankind's undoing, if he doesn't check the overpopulation problem.

You mentioned guilt, and I would say that this is the actual reason why people of color, in Europe, seem to be getting away with violence, well at least in the headlines. Why would the so called guilt exist if there weren't some substance to it?

But it's, absolutely, not a game

[tbieter]

"Wittgenstein once wrote, “What we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.” Ex-National Review writer John Derbyshire has just learned the modern American version of this truth. What we Americans cannot talk about is race (except, of course, in the anodyne terms established by political correctness), and woe betide anyone who refuses to pass over this topic in silence.

Derbyshire got in trouble over a piece he posted on the webzine Taki’s Magazine called “The Talk: Nonblack Version. “The talk” is what many professional blacks call the coming-of-age conversation they have with their kids, the main theme of which seems to be the persistence of racism in American society. Derbyshire’s version focuses on some matters of fact, such as the disproportionate numbers of black criminals, and others of speculation, such as black intelligence inferiority. It was the latter, of course, that got Derbyshire fired by National Review, which called such ideas “nasty and indefensible.” (underlining added) http://frontpagemag.com/2012/04/10/john ... alk-about/

On Sunday I listened to the ABC News program "This Week." During the Round Table discussion, there is a fascinating discussion entitled "Obama vs. The Court." Professor Michael Eric Dyson contends that all criticism of Obama involves an element of racism. Fascinating. http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/

[artisticsolution]

SOB: Then in that case the colors/shade/values that you use to paint an individual has no bearing whatsoever on the argument, as many tree trunks have a darker value such as brown or black and they do not perpetrate violence.

AS: That is exactly right. The reason I gave you that obviously "factual" scenario that means nothing is because you seem to think there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between white or blacks or anyone. I just wanted to show you there are factual differences that can't be denied. I wanted you to get over the "omg...don't tell him he's black" mentality. There is nothing wrong with being any color. As you say...a tree trunk have a darker value....and clouds have a lighter value...does that mean one is better than another? Duh. What I am trying to get you to do is read my posts on a deeper level. If I ask...why are tree trunks darker than clouds...there is a logical answer to that question. Even if I ask that question...doesn't mean I think tree trunk are worse than clouds. Now...can we move on and have an honest conversation? Perhaps you can shed some light on my questions without calling me a racist. Because trust me...I am the least racist I know.

SOB First let me tell you, as the male that I am, that I respect females to a great degree because between the sex's they take more crap than males, which I believe is why they tend to mature quicker than males. But your argument holds absolutely no truth at all.

AS:It's not my argument....it's yours! You said we are all from the same singular origin. Even though that may be true...it doesn't mean we are all the same in our genetic makeup. I was just using this example to make you see that this "singular origin" is not an answer to anything. I want to go deeper. I want to ask....okay..."single Origin" How then do we all have a different gene pool. So then ... "Genetically speaking, then, people with brown eyes could be either BB or Bb while people with blue eyes could only be bb." So I ask the question...if we are from a single origin....then how did blue eyes or brown eyes come about under those circumstance? As there could only be one or the other but not both according to this quote: " Although this set of genes explains how people can have green eyes, it does a poor job of explaining how blue-eyed parents could have brown-eyed children or how anyone can have hazel or gray eyes at all."

I got the quotes from this site:

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=2

All I am asking is that we ask questions...not make people less than. Go back through all my posts and I defy you to pick out one thing I have said that means anyone is less than. You are taking my words and applying your own prejudice to them. You hate racism so you want to see it everywhere to make yourself "better than." But I don't think you understand what you do when you do this...you silence academic inquiry.

SOB:The difference between 'all' males and 'all' females is a chemical one, namely, the disparity that you speak of has to do with Testosterone and Estrogen. It is a curse so to speak. Have you ever wondered why males are the aggressor in seeking sexual bonding, and females are the deciding factor as to selection? It's all about those two hormones, that there is a difference between males and females with respect to aggression, such that biologically, males are the sex that ensures procreation, whereas females are the sex that ensures strong progeny.

AS: Duh. Yes I know this...and I agree. But what I was getting at is we couldn't know this without someone asking a question and then using science to come up with an answer. If you aren't allowed to ask questions then we would never have known that men have testosterone and women estrogen.


SOB: You have taken this out of context, such that it is illogical. Logically, you cannot remove a conclusion from a set of premises and then apply it to another set of premises or visa versa. If that were possible, I could use the same quote against your argument.

AS: No I don't....because Nietzsche was using Christianity because it is the best example of the "party man" but he states many times that it is not just Christianity that has this dilemma. Read the book with an open mind. If you want to debate this then let's take it into the anti-Christ thread here:

viewtopic.php?f=11&p=104985#p104985

The reason I say you are doing this and I am not is because I have heard your argument a thousand times from liberals. In the past I have made such arguments. Then...they became boring to me because they went NO WHERE. They only caused people to point at everything and scream VICTIM or RACIST at each other. We seriously have to get past that...and to get past that we need the facts so we have nothing to fear...but in order to get those facts we have to ask the hard questions...like...

"When's the last time you saw a swede hijack and airplane?"

SOB: Keep in mind that today's, so called, elite class, was born of a legacy of violence, as evidenced throughout our history books.

AS:But that is a diluted piss poor catch all reasoning for America's racism. I want to get beyond that...because that will never go away if we don't. That type of thinking doesn't bring up to healing or justice...it just perpetuates the rage. How long will there be resentment over something that happened in the past? 1000 years? It would be like American or the Japanese hating each other because Japanese bombed pearl harbor and Americans dropped the bomb. It's time to move on...and we can't do that because of the stupidity of the "party man."

[chaz wyman]

There are all sorts of stories of Black violence on Europeans but the media isn't reporting them at all!

This is the lamest argument of the week.
So tell us all - where is your evidence?
If you think this is true then you must have a non-media source from which you glean your facts. Please elucidate!
~Or are you just making it up as you go along to force your point?


Only supposedly white violence on black because that fuels the paradigm of multiculturalism and white guilt. It's all a game. They work up the minorities on supposed evil when the media purposely covers up violence done by Blacks on whites.

[Arising_uk]

"Wittgenstein once wrote, “What we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.” Ex-National Review writer John Derbyshire has just learned the modern American version of this truth. What we Americans cannot talk about is race (except, of course, in the anodyne terms established by political correctness), and woe betide anyone who refuses to pass over this topic in silence. ...

I agree, its been to long that the obvious racism in America has not been addressed. Just look at your birth certificates for a start.

But I think what you mean is that you want to promote the idea that races have certain traits and tendencies inherent in the 'race', link it to those things that are ostensibly more about education, poverty and class, and as such justify more baseless racism.

Still, if you want to go this route, then you should hand over the running of pretty much everything to the oriental and asian, as they score consistently higher in IQ tests than anyone else, their 'races' just appear cleverer.
p.s.
Quite a misuse of Wittgenstein I think.

[artisticsolution]

A::But I think what you mean is that you want to promote the idea that races have certain traits and tendencies inherent in the 'race', link it to those things that are ostensibly more about education, poverty and class, and as such justify more baseless racism.

AS: I think we first need to define racism. I like wikipedia's definition:

"Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination."

I think you and other are making the mistake that because someone sees inherent differences in racial groups means that they will always justify discrimination. I don't think that it necessarily true. Do we not have eyes? Can we not admit some differences as just obvious and not then go onto the thought..."therefore I must hate and discriminate"?

Isn't it obvious that black people have a better body type for physical activity in general? MInd you I am not saying all black people do...just that most in pro sports who are chosen as "the best" are black. How come we see more black people as pro athletes? Even in sports that have been previously dominated by whites? Only a few short years ago it in american...it was only whites who could play, golf tennis, basketball, etc. Now it is black. Obviously, the best athlete, no matter what color or educational background (except for stupid academic snobbery in colleges ) .or poverty level is chosen for pro sports. Why? Because they are better at something than someone else. That doesn't mean that whites can't play...it doesn't mean that we should justify racism...it simply means that physically, there is a difference. What is wrong with saying so? To not say so is to be blind.

A:Still, if you want to go this route, then you should hand over the running of pretty much everything to the oriental and asian, as they score consistently higher in IQ tests than anyone else, their 'races' just appear cleverer.

AS:Good...then you can see it too! Finally...someone brave enough to speak the truth! You see a difference or you could not have made that distinction. The only difference between us here is I would not go on to say that we should "hand over the running of everything" to one certain race...even if they are better at it. Just because there are genetic factors involved doesn't mean that we should not allow competition. I think the will to do something is as important as genetic disposition.

[SpheresOfBalance]

SOB: Then in that case the colors/shade/values that you use to paint an individual has no bearing whatsoever on the argument, as many tree trunks have a darker value such as brown or black and they do not perpetrate violence.

AS: That is exactly right. The reason I gave you that obviously "factual" scenario that means nothing is because you seem to think there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between white or blacks or anyone. I just wanted to show you there are factual differences that can't be denied. I wanted you to get over the "omg...don't tell him he's black" mentality.

SOB: I can't get over things I don't have. Actually I think your assertion, elementary, and actually laughed when I read it. I'm the one saying there is no difference between any color person, except the pigment in their skin. You're the one that sees a difference, specifically that they are more violent. Tell me, is it a good thing to be more violent? If not then why would anyone want to be the color that is more violent. I think your powers in logic are sorely diminished, but it has absolutely nothing to do with your color, I see it as a case by case, individual, thing.

AS: There is nothing wrong with being any color.

SOB: Why are you changing your story?

AS: As you say...a tree trunk have a darker value....and clouds have a lighter value...does that mean one is better than another? Duh.

SOB: Now you got it! I hope you can keep it!

AS: What I am trying to get you to do is read my posts on a deeper level.

SOB: Not to be mean, but your posts go no deeper. In fact they are quite shallow.

AS: If I ask...why are tree trunks darker than clouds...there is a logical answer to that question. Even if I ask that question...doesn't mean I think tree trunk are worse than clouds. Now...can we move on and have an honest conversation?

SOB: I've been honest the entire time, I never lie, ever, which is not to say that I never have, but rather, that I've given it up!

AS: Perhaps you can shed some light on my questions without calling me a racist. Because trust me...I am the least racist I know.

SOB: Actually, I've never called you a racist. I see you as ignorant of some facts just like the rest of the world, including myself, just that in this particular case it's you that's in the dark.


SOB First let me tell you, as the male that I am, that I respect females to a great degree because between the sex's they take more crap than males, which I believe is why they tend to mature quicker than males. But your argument holds absolutely no truth at all.

AS:It's not my argument....it's yours! You said we are all from the same singular origin. Even though that may be true...it doesn't mean we are all the same in our genetic makeup.


I was just using this example to make you see that this "singular origin" is not an answer to anything. I want to go deeper. I want to ask....okay..."single Origin" How then do we all have a different gene pool. So then ... "Genetically speaking, then, people with brown eyes could be either BB or Bb while people with blue eyes could only be bb." So I ask the question...if we are from a single origin....then how did blue eyes or brown eyes come about under those circumstance? As there could only be one or the other but not both according to this quote: " Although this set of genes explains how people can have green eyes, it does a poor job of explaining how blue-eyed parents could have brown-eyed children or how anyone can have hazel or gray eyes at all."

I got the quotes from this site:

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=2

SOB: Here I have something for you:

"Genetic factors may generally influence the development of psychopathy while environmental factors affect the specific traits that predominate."

"A 2005 twin study found that children with antisocial behavior can be classified into two groups: those who also had high "callous-unemotional traits" were "under extremely strong genetic influence and no influence of shared environment" while those who were ranked low of those traits were under both "moderate genetic and shared environmental influence.""
--Wikipedia--

AS: All I am asking is that we ask questions...not make people less than. Go back through all my posts and I defy you to pick out one thing I have said that means anyone is less than. You are taking my words and applying your own prejudice to them. You hate racism so you want to see it everywhere to make yourself "better than." But I don't think you understand what you do when you do this...you silence academic inquiry.
SOB: OK, violence and peacefulness, tell me which is more or less desirable?

SOB:The difference between 'all' males and 'all' females is a chemical one, namely, the disparity that you speak of has to do with Testosterone and Estrogen. It is a curse so to speak. Have you ever wondered why males are the aggressor in seeking sexual bonding, and females are the deciding factor as to selection? It's all about those two hormones, that there is a difference between males and females with respect to aggression, such that biologically, males are the sex that ensures procreation, whereas females are the sex that ensures strong progeny.

AS: Duh. Yes I know this...and I agree. But what I was getting at is we couldn't know this without someone asking a question and then using science to come up with an answer. If you aren't allowed to ask questions then we would never have known that men have testosterone and women estrogen.


SOB: You have taken this out of context, such that it is illogical. Logically, you cannot remove a conclusion from a set of premises and then apply it to another set of premises or visa versa. If that were possible, I could use the same quote against your argument.

AS: No I don't....because Nietzsche was using Christianity because it is the best example of the "party man" but he states many times that it is not just Christianity that has this dilemma. Read the book with an open mind. If you want to debate this then let's take it into the anti-Christ thread here:


viewtopic.php?f=11&p=104985#p104985

SOB: There are two things here in opposition, Christianity and Non-Christianity. He said what he said about Christianity. Who are you to speak for him and liken the stance of my argument with that of his on Christianity, and your's with Non-Christianity? How can you possibly be sure that he wouldn't see it the opposite way? You can't, as he is dead and he never made comment as to our discussion.

AS: The reason I say you are doing this and I am not is because I have heard your argument a thousand times from liberals. In the past I have made such arguments. Then...they became boring to me because they went NO WHERE. They only caused people to point at everything and scream VICTIM or RACIST at each other. We seriously have to get past that...and to get past that we need the facts so we have nothing to fear...but in order to get those facts we have to ask the hard questions...like...

SOB: Your beliefs and observations has nothing to do with his. It doesn't matter what you think. For you to quote him he has to think it.


AS: "When's the last time you saw a swede hijack and airplane?"
SOB: This is an absurd argument as swede's have many things in common, any one of which, or multiples there of, could be the reason for this.

Here's something that supports my argument relative to poverty:

and


SOB: Keep in mind that today's, so called, elite class, was born of a legacy of violence, as evidenced throughout our history books.

AS:But that is a diluted piss poor catch all reasoning for America's racism. I want to get beyond that...because that will never go away if we don't. That type of thinking doesn't bring up to healing or justice...it just perpetuates the rage. How long will there be resentment over something that happened in the past? 1000 years? It would be like American or the Japanese hating each other because Japanese bombed pearl harbor and Americans dropped the bomb. It's time to move on...and we can't do that because of the stupidity of the "party man."

SOB: I was talking about the world, specifically the west.

And finally, it would seem that my arguments are beyond your scope.

[chaz wyman]

A::But I think what you mean is that you want to promote the idea that races have certain traits and tendencies inherent in the 'race', link it to those things that are ostensibly more about education, poverty and class, and as such justify more baseless racism.

AS: I think we first need to define racism. I like wikipedia's definition:

"Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination."

I think you and other are making the mistake that because someone sees inherent differences in racial groups means that they will always justify discrimination. I don't think that it necessarily true. Do we not have eyes? Can we not admit some differences as just obvious and not then go onto the thought..."therefore I must hate and discriminate"?

This is a preposterous suggestion. Knowing or accepting a race has a certain characteristic dooms anyone of that race to prejudice for that characteristic. But the point is that the definition of a race against another is always arbitrary; that these characteristics are always too variable to make useful any prejudice; and all prejudice whether positive or negative always works towards other races the opposite way. Thus there is no positive discrimination without a commensurate negative discrimination.
Your problem is that you think that 'discrimination' is an adjunct to hate, when it is its own evil.


Isn't it obvious that black people have a better body type for physical activity in general?

Better? what do you mean 'better'? This is exactly the sort of stupidity that leads to discrimination.



Your statement is asinine.



MInd you I am not saying all black people do...just that most in pro sports who are chosen as "the best" are black.

So what is the point?

How come we see more black people as pro athletes?

Do we?


Even in sports that have been previously dominated by whites? Only a few short years ago it in american...it was only whites who could play, golf tennis, basketball, etc. Now it is black. Obviously, the best athlete, no matter what color or educational background (except for stupid academic snobbery in colleges ) .or poverty level is chosen for pro sports. Why? Because they are better at something than someone else. That doesn't mean that whites can't play...it doesn't mean that we should justify racism...it simply means that physically, there is a difference. What is wrong with saying so? To not say so is to be blind.

So what?


A:Still, if you want to go this route, then you should hand over the running of pretty much everything to the oriental and asian, as they score consistently higher in IQ tests than anyone else, their 'races' just appear cleverer.

AS:Good...then you can see it too! Finally...someone brave enough to speak the truth! You see a difference or you could not have made that distinction. The only difference between us here is I would not go on to say that we should "hand over the running of everything" to one certain race...even if they are better at it. Just because there are genetic factors involved doesn't mean that we should not allow competition. I think the will to do something is as important as genetic disposition.

The point about why gathering these sorts of stats is stupid is that it is meaningless.
When you need a person for a job it is more than stupid to look at their race, rather than at the person.
Even if it is true that green persons score higher and blue lower; that fact is that if there is one blue person that is higher than at least one green one then they should not be discounted. It would be an evil to dismiss any blue for that reason.
This is what happens.
That is why racial discrimination is bad idea, and the simple fact of gathering the stats is discriminatory.
Insurance companies and other institutions already discriminate on a range of other factors, which can penalise for gender, social class, lifestyle choices, income, postcode etc.

[artisticsolution]

SOB: Actually I think your assertion, elementary, and actually laughed when I read it.

AS:Funny...that is what I think of you...in your little box...can't break free...

SOB: I'm the one saying there is no difference between any color person, except the pigment in their skin.

AS: Then why do you think the "elite class, was born of a legacy of violence, as evidenced throughout our history books." Who are the elite class? Are they white? Are they black? Or are they mixed...if they are mixed then it has nothing to do with racism and doesn't need apply to this thread. If they are black or white then it does apply...but then you noticing a difference proves my fucking point you dipwad. So tell me...who are these elitist? Dare to say?

SOB: Why are you changing your story?

AS: Never changed it. I am telling you...You are blinded by your "religion" you're a "party man."

SOB: Not to be mean, but your posts go no deeper. In fact they are quite shallow.

AS: They only appear shallow to you because you can't break free of the box.

SOB:The difference between 'all' males and 'all' females is a chemical one, namely, the disparity that you speak of has to do with Testosterone and Estrogen. It is a curse so to speak. Have you ever wondered why males are the aggressor in seeking sexual bonding, and females are the deciding factor as to selection? It's all about those two hormones, that there is a difference between males and females with respect to aggression, such that biologically, males are the sex that ensures procreation, whereas females are the sex that ensures strong progeny.

AS: LOL Read from that box label baby! Don't stretch your mind to ask what if. Ask yourself this ....how many females world wide....get to select who they sleep with? How many today vs yesterday? I am sure quite a few more...but this is not where we came from...we had to fight for our right to select. We are still seen and incapable of selecting hence the reason we are not considered equal. But of the women who are from parts of the world were we are considered "equal" (I put that in quotation marks because it is clear that we are not really seen as equals in the eyes of most men) in today's world....there is more of an incidence of women seeking sexual bonding and men not so much. Change happens...and what was a fact yesterday...is not a fact today. Come out of that 70's mentality! Oh and btw...your fucking graph is 12 years old....and do you bow down to every graph you see or do you have the guts to not be spoon fed every piece of information without trying to interpret what you see for yourself? Oh...I forgot...you don't question anything...you just spit out the same old shit you learned in the 70's oh that coincides with it.

SOB: There are two things here in opposition, Christianity and Non-Christianity. He said what he said about Christianity. Who are you to speak for him and liken the stance of my argument with that of his on Christianity, and your's with Non-Christianity? How can you possibly be sure that he wouldn't see it the opposite way? You can't, as he is dead and he never made comment as to our discussion.

AS: Here are some quotes from anti_christ. Let me know if they sound to you like he was just speaking about Christianity.

"The conditions under which one understands me and then necessarily understands -- I know them all too well. One must be honest in intellectual matters to the point of harshness to so much as endure my seriousness, my passion. One must be accustomed to living on mountains -- to seeing one wretched ephemeral chatter of politics and national egoism beneath one. One must have become indifferent, one must never ask whether truth is useful or a fatality.... Strength which prefers questions for which no one today is sufficiently daring; courage of the forbidden; predestination for the labyrinth. An experience out of seven solitudes. New ears for new music. New eyes for the most distant things. A new conscience for truths which have hitherto remained dumb. And the will to economy in the grand style: to keeping one's energy, one's enthusiasm in bounds.... Reverence for oneself; love for oneself; unconditional freedom with respect to oneself ..."

Do you think for a moment that there could be a christian on the face of the earth that can do this? Or do you just label people and that's that?

Between the 2 of us...I am the only one with a new argument. You are ranting the same thing I did in the 80's. It became boring to me because it was a dead end. There were useful things about it mind you...to raise the consciousness of white men in American, but now the is stale because people still want to fight that battle when battle is over (for the most part...it will always linger though...because of the "party man"). Again....japan and america are friends....even after the atrocious crimes they committed against humanity. That was 50 + years ago...a damn site shorter than slavery! But yet you still want to keep the victim status and the rage.

You are lazy...resting on the laurels of the 70 mentality. But we know that we don't know all there is to know about genetics and the human mind. And yet you want to crucify anyone who dares mention that we don't know! It is your religion pure and simple. I on the other hand am making the argument that, 1. we can't know 2. someday we might know and 3. even if we do know...we should all be equal in our humanity.

You are saying, 1. we do know 2. We are all the same 3. violence is only caused by the elitist class. Caused in the sense that they do it themselves...and that they cause others to commit acts of violence as well.

SOB: Your beliefs and observations has nothing to do with his. It doesn't matter what you think. For you to quote him he has to think it.

AS:Here's another Nietcszhe quote:

"What is good? -- All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad? -- All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? -- The feeling that power increases -- that a resistance is overcome.

Not contentment, but more power, not peace at all, but war; not virtue, but proficiency (virtue in the Renaissance style, virth, virtue free of moralic acid.) The weak and ill-constituted shall perish: first principle of our philanthropy. And one shall help them to do so. What is more harmful than any vice? -- Active sympathy for the ill-constituted and weak -- Christianity ...."

Now tell me...who do you have an active sympathy for? You have it for the ill-constituted and weak ...or at least what your party has told you who was weak. You are making the people of poverty out to be the weak by saying they are taken advantage of by the elitist...like cattle. The people of poverty are not weak. The fact that you take pity on them shows you don't think much of them. If you're not a christian...it certainly sound like you are. Which is obvious that is what Nietzsche meant to imply. That the "Christian doctrine" has bred, the "party man" means you can't think for yourself. You need to rely on whatever the herd says.

[artisticsolution]

Knowing or accepting a race has a certain characteristic dooms anyone of that race to prejudice for that characteristic.

You whole post is ridiculous. But this particular one only tells us that you are inclined to think this way and so you cannot imagine that people can actually see differences and not be prejudice.

[Arising_uk]

...
AS:Good...then you can see it too! Finally...someone brave enough to speak the truth! You see a difference or you could not have made that distinction. The only difference between us here is I would not go on to say that we should "hand over the running of everything" to one certain race...even if they are better at it. Just because there are genetic factors involved doesn't mean that we should not allow competition. I think the will to do something is as important as genetic disposition.

It was meant ironically AS as IQ tests are pretty much not worth the paper they were written on. The reason why the asians and orientals do so well is cultural, i.e. their family structure and in the orientals case their tradition of Confucianism, that and parents who are 'tyrants' and don't believe in the 'western' idea that their 'babies' are 'special' and 'little geniuses' and should be allowed to develop by themselves to find their own 'special' talents.

Its much like your idea that blacks in America should have this 'special' language of their own and not be required to learn a reasonable level of English. In your own way you are as racist as tom but I think it part of American culture so I think I understand. As you are a disunited multiculture, only united under the pursuit of individual happiness and the almighty dollar. Its why I think you always need an 'enemy' to define yourselves against, as if you don't have one you'll turn upon each other. But this is just opinion.

Take a look at who the heavyweight champions of the boxing world are. I remember many years ago your ideas being applied to the black heavyweight champions of the world.