>You might wonder why many intellectual blacks, like Richard >Wright moved to France and why so many find it better to live in >other countries in Europe as opposed to living here. Europe >nurtured African-American expatriates. It offered the same >attractions that drew other Americans, but for blacks it >represented something more: a cultural environment free of >the racial obsessions of American society. Entertainer Josephine >Baker, and jazz musicians Arthur Briggs, Benny Carter, and Dexter >Gordon were only a few of the prominent African-Americans who >found a home in France.
>Despite his American concerns, James Baldwin found much >freedom in France and Switzerland. He returned to the US for >a period of time, yet he died in France and was disillusioned with >progress here after the assassinations of Dr. King, Medgar >Evers and Malcolm X who were his personal friends.
Sure, but they still had to abide by the standards of the community. When I lived there, there was very little tolerance for the sort of shenanigans that blacks get away with routinely over here. The "My ancestors were oppressed" excuse didn't work. Also, a large number of blacks in Europe have been and still are immigrants from Africa (frequently upper or ruling class, since they were the only ones who could afford to visit,) not gang bangers from Detroit.
In my dealings with educated Nigerians (executives of the NNPC) I found they had a very low tolerance for American blacks, and would not associate with them (even those in our group.) They regarded them as vulgar, and found ebonics and kwanza to be particularly amusing myths.
> In my dealings with educated Nigerians (executives of the NNPC) I > found they had a very low tolerance for American blacks, and would not > associate with them (even those in our group.) They regarded them as > vulgar, and found ebonics and kwanza to be particularly amusing myths.
A (white) roommate of mine in the late Seventies had just returned from a 2 year stint in the Central African Republic. One thing that really struck him as odd was that even before leaving the airport, he was appalled at how American blacks revel in a subculture that promotes playing stupid. He had grown very close to many really dark Africans who are just regular people. Finding that most American blacks play along with the stupid image really pissed him off.
-- Ron Hammon Remove the "y" from ".nyet", when present, to reach me.
> In my dealings with educated Nigerians (executives of the NNPC) I > found they had a very low tolerance for American blacks, and would not > associate with them (even those in our group.) They regarded them as > vulgar, and found ebonics and kwanza to be particularly amusing myths.
Educated Nigerianz - these are the folks who send us all that e-mail offering Urgent Business Proposals to share their $21million if you give them your bank account ID/pin, etc...right?
> A (white) roommate of mine in the late Seventies had just returned from > a 2 year stint in the Central African Republic. One thing that really > struck him as odd was that even before leaving the airport, he was > appalled at how American blacks revel in a subculture that promotes > playing stupid. He had grown very close to many really dark Africans > who are just regular people. Finding that most American blacks play > along with the stupid image really pissed him off.
So the 200-pt DAFN SAT gap is just DAFNz faking stupidity? Give me a break...
> > A (white) roommate of mine in the late Seventies had just returned from > > a 2 year stint in the Central African Republic. One thing that really > > struck him as odd was that even before leaving the airport, he was > > appalled at how American blacks revel in a subculture that promotes > > playing stupid. He had grown very close to many really dark Africans > > who are just regular people. Finding that most American blacks play > > along with the stupid image really pissed him off.
> So the 200-pt DAFN SAT gap is just DAFNz faking stupidity? > Give me a break...
Not faking, exactly. After all, they can become engineers, judges, whatever they want. It is more like slacking. When our society, and, in particular, black sub-culture expects very little, then very little is exactly what most will give.
This is EXACTLY the problem with Affirmative Action, college entrance points, and so on. When people are offically treated as inferior, in the name of "helping" them, they take on the definiton. There is nothing wrong genetically with most American blacks. (In fact, American blacks are probably about 3/4 white anyway!) Real differences in mental scores between the races are also not the (direct) result of poverty. The lower scaores are the result of slacking, and slacking alone. The only way to get rid of slacking is to get rid of the excuse, special favors.
-- Ron Hammon Remove the "y" from ".nyet", when present, to reach me.
>> In my dealings with educated Nigerians (executives of the NNPC) I >> found they had a very low tolerance for American blacks, and would not >> associate with them (even those in our group.) They regarded them as >> vulgar, and found ebonics and kwanza to be particularly amusing myths.
>Educated Nigerianz - these are the folks who send us all that e-mail >offering Urgent Business Proposals to share their $21million if you >give them your bank account ID/pin, etc...right?
So you believe kwanza is a legitimate tradition and ebonics is a real language? I'm saying the gang bangers aren't even welcome in Africa. Why don't you shoot yourself in the other foot?
>> Easy. American liberty does not include the general right to >> self-segregation.
>The right of free association
What "right of free association". The constitution allows the right of peaceable assembly.
>is meaningless without the right of >non-association. Imagine if you were required to accept me as a guest >whenever I invite myself to your house.
That pertains to property rights, not association rights.
>> The law prevents discrimination based on race in who you sell to.
>Non-discrimination is morally superior to discrimination. I can't see >any defense of discriminatory selling practices, which is _almost_ the >same thing as agreeing that these laws are justified.
But of course discriminatory selling was the primary preventative of desegregation.
>It is a tricky matter, however, because this notion is being applied >universally, including ways that are wrong. The government of British >Columbia nearly passed a law which, depending on court handling of it, >could have mandated that churches ordain gay or female clergy >regardless of their beliefs on the matter.
Luckily the US has the Establishment Clause that would prevent that.
>Pressure on churches, the >Boy Scouts, and other private organizations is mounting all the time.
"Pressure", so long as it is not from the government, is perfectly legal. That's freedom of speech.
>The goal seems to be to criminalize any voluntary non-association.
I think that the bulk of the activity in this realm is dealing only with non-association in public situations (and possibly using public facilities). People mistakenly believe that the Boy Scouts is a public organization, because it has a federal charter and often has privileged access to public facilities (usually based on its community service activities); the courts ruled otherwise.
(I suspect that most people feel that churches are, or should be, public organizations, though not government organizations - theologically they believe that churches belong to God, not to private organizations).
I've lived in my neighborhood for nearly 20 years. I suspect that I haven't even met half my neighbors, and don't really "associate" with more than a couple of them at a level any higher than I do a store clerk.
> > All those negroids rioting over what.... essentially the circumstances > > they put themselves in.
> > The ONLY reason there are hordes of poor negroids in these inner > > cities is...why...because the factory where they make poor negroes has > > been running overtime shifts?
> > Nooo...because they choose to copulate and create babies in marginal > > circumstances.
> > Hey folks, there's too damn many of you. It ain't da white man fawt > > dey ain't no jobz for all dem unedoo-cated, unskilled bruthas...If you > > choose to bring chilluns into such conditions, you have NOONE to blame > > but your rutting selves... But then again, your ancestral bruthas in > > all those Sally Struthers commercials do the same thing. Except over > > there, there's no welfare system, no food stamps, no WIC checks, no > > convenience stores to knock over. Mother nature takes care of it.
> This must be why Mother nature created AIDS... to preserve the natural > balance of nature in a world where the population of niggers has been > increasing too rapidly. Perhaps our kids and grandkids won't have to > worry about niggers anymore because there will no longer be any of > them too see except in the history books. Imagine some little girl > in the year 2200 asking her mom, "mommy, mommy, what's a nigger"? > It just might come to pass, except that before it does, the US govt > would probably declare them to be an endangered species and thus > eligible for free everything (oh, I forgot... it already is that way).
> --
If black people reproduce faster in conditions where aids/hiv becomes a source of natural selection they may end up developing immunity to the virus. The so called animalistic behavior of black people is actually probably the most intelligent type of behavior, if they were to be considered a competing species.
By living on the fringe of what is possible and ensuring that their many children have the toughest fight for life ahead of them black people are speeding up their evolution. While non blacks devolve into myopic weaklings with little animalistic instinct blacks could evolve to the point where they become dominant in society.
When your descendants are forced to grow up in rough ghettos and spend most of their cognitive powers ensuring their day to day survival their IQs will probably seem amazingly low. Giving black people an easy ride to the higher echelons of society is probably the only way to avoid the children of the future asking "yo moma did people with pale skin really exist?".
<Jason> wrote in message news:0tsdgv0qo42ms9bdfg9o1tt99iscrtimj0@4ax.com... > Can't they see what happens to the new community when the black > population percentage reaches approx 40 percent. It then regresses to > the conditions that motivated the move from the original community. > It is sometimes referred to as TNB.
more like 10-12 per cent
it only takes 2-3 % actually LIVING there, the hangers-on from 'da hood' will insure TNB
> > In article <e116921e.0306212029.55e57...@posting.google.com>, > > obbzer...@yahoo.com (Alton) wrote:
> > > All those negroids rioting over what.... essentially the circumstances > > > they put themselves in.
> > > The ONLY reason there are hordes of poor negroids in these inner > > > cities is...why...because the factory where they make poor negroes has > > > been running overtime shifts?
> > > Nooo...because they choose to copulate and create babies in marginal > > > circumstances.
> > > Hey folks, there's too damn many of you. It ain't da white man fawt > > > dey ain't no jobz for all dem unedoo-cated, unskilled bruthas...If you > > > choose to bring chilluns into such conditions, you have NOONE to blame > > > but your rutting selves... But then again, your ancestral bruthas in > > > all those Sally Struthers commercials do the same thing. Except over > > > there, there's no welfare system, no food stamps, no WIC checks, no > > > convenience stores to knock over. Mother nature takes care of it.
> > This must be why Mother nature created AIDS... to preserve the natural > > balance of nature in a world where the population of niggers has been > > increasing too rapidly. Perhaps our kids and grandkids won't have to > > worry about niggers anymore because there will no longer be any of > > them too see except in the history books. Imagine some little girl > > in the year 2200 asking her mom, "mommy, mommy, what's a nigger"? > > It just might come to pass, except that before it does, the US govt > > would probably declare them to be an endangered species and thus > > eligible for free everything (oh, I forgot... it already is that way).
> > --
> If black people reproduce faster in conditions where aids/hiv becomes > a source of natural selection they may end up developing immunity to > the virus. The so called animalistic behavior of black people is > actually probably the most intelligent type of behavior, if they were > to be considered a competing species.
> By living on the fringe of what is possible and ensuring that their > many children have the toughest fight for life ahead of them black > people are speeding up their evolution. While non blacks devolve into > myopic weaklings with little animalistic instinct blacks could evolve > to the point where they become dominant in society.
lbud...@pobox.com wrote: >The "establishment clause" is commonly used to strike down laws that >benefit believers in some religion. It is much less likely to be used >to strike down laws that hinder the practice of religion.
Correct. That is the free exercise clause. One gives a degree of "freedom of religion", and the other a degree of "freedom from (government supported) religion".
>>> The goal seems to be to criminalize any voluntary non-association.
>> I think that the bulk of the activity in this realm is dealing only >> with non-association in public situations (and possibly using public >> facilities).
>I.e., "public accommodations". This law is so entrenched in our >thinking, that we can't even get clear in our minds that a hotel is, >in fact, somebody's private property--and its owner should be able to >exercise his private property rights in its use.
Nope. The right to transact business is regulated by the state.
>> People mistakenly believe that the Boy Scouts is a public >> organization...
>It isn't.
>> (I suspect that most people feel that churches are, or should be, >> public organizations, though not government organizations...)
>No organization is "public", except the government itself.
> > > > All those negroids rioting over what.... essentially the circumstances > > > > they put themselves in.
> > > > The ONLY reason there are hordes of poor negroids in these inner > > > > cities is...why...because the factory where they make poor negroes has > > > > been running overtime shifts?
> > > > Nooo...because they choose to copulate and create babies in marginal > > > > circumstances.
> > > > Hey folks, there's too damn many of you. It ain't da white man fawt > > > > dey ain't no jobz for all dem unedoo-cated, unskilled bruthas...If you > > > > choose to bring chilluns into such conditions, you have NOONE to blame > > > > but your rutting selves... But then again, your ancestral bruthas in > > > > all those Sally Struthers commercials do the same thing. Except over > > > > there, there's no welfare system, no food stamps, no WIC checks, no > > > > convenience stores to knock over. Mother nature takes care of it.
> > > This must be why Mother nature created AIDS... to preserve the natural > > > balance of nature in a world where the population of niggers has been > > > increasing too rapidly. Perhaps our kids and grandkids won't have to > > > worry about niggers anymore because there will no longer be any of > > > them too see except in the history books. Imagine some little girl > > > in the year 2200 asking her mom, "mommy, mommy, what's a nigger"? > > > It just might come to pass, except that before it does, the US govt > > > would probably declare them to be an endangered species and thus > > > eligible for free everything (oh, I forgot... it already is that way).
> > > --
> > If black people reproduce faster in conditions where aids/hiv becomes > > a source of natural selection they may end up developing immunity to > > the virus. The so called animalistic behavior of black people is > > actually probably the most intelligent type of behavior, if they were > > to be considered a competing species.
> > By living on the fringe of what is possible and ensuring that their > > many children have the toughest fight for life ahead of them black > > people are speeding up their evolution. While non blacks devolve into > > myopic weaklings with little animalistic instinct blacks could evolve > > to the point where they become dominant in society.
> A cow piss shower after a goat dung rubdown is a something of an ultimate > trip for kaffirs
You need to ask yourself which men have the most kids in our society and what is attraction between men and women increased by. (in my opinion) Without doubt the appearance of material wealth is attractive to women. Charm and charisma are attractive to men and women, as is intelligence. Athletic ability is also attractive along with a good position in society. These (being the most desirable qualities) will be the attributes that will evolve the most quickly from having a black mindset.
When you have the situation where the best of a group fathers a very large number of children in that group and the least successful and desirable may father no children the groups rate of evolution will be increased.
In a society where very few people die before they reach the age at which they can support themselves at a subsistence level (even if they are raised by a lone (or no) parent) having a natural tendency to form a traditional family is a major handicap. A family in which two parents support their children is no longer a necessary condition for the children's survival and future success.
Unfortunately for mensa members, learned intelligence can only really appeal to other people who have learnt it themselves. This type of attraction is an attraction towards something that is not in the genes.
If a child from a mensa family was separated from its parents and educated at a dreadful school it undoubtably would not have the (what mensa people call) intelligence it would have had it been raised by its original family.
I wouldn't be surprised if, were a black NBA basketball players child to be raised normally in a mensa family it would have a mensa high IQ when tested (along with impressive athletic ability).
Having a black attitude will not lead towards an evolution into socially backwards type of inherited instinctual mindset it will simply lead to a more highly intelligent instinctual mindset (one that is more finely tuned to society as it has become) in the group that has it.
Women chose to a certain extent who they have children with and were they to be optimally intelligent in their choice of who to have children with they would choose the best mate, this in today's society is not the best father. It is the most black man.
I think this is why there is so much resentment amongst the now genetically inferior non black men, why there are so many mixed race kids and why young kids are developing "jungle fever".
Maybe youngsters are recognizing the fact (subconsciously) that they, drastically, need to adapt away from the victorian family mindset (that enabled a highly educated and regimented group to plunder most of the world) if they are to spread their genes in the most intelligent way.
>> Nope. The right to transact business is regulated by the state.
>Wrong. Buying and selling is an inherent free property right.
There are no inherent rights. In a society, you have the rights that the society agrees to as part of the social contract.
>The >Constitution vests regulation of _interstate_ trade in the federal >government; nowhere is the power to control commercial use of private >property vested in the states. >Amendment X
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor > prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states > respectively, or to the people.
In other words, the states have ANY power other than those that the Constitution gives to the Feds. There are no limits on state power other than the 14th amendment, the guarantee of a republican form of state government, and a couple of other minor clauses. In theory, a state could probably eliminate private property entirely (within the state) under the Constitution, if a suitable majority of its citizens went along with it so that "due process" is followed.
>>> No organization is "public", except the government itself.
>> Many people believe otherwise.
>Then they don't know what "public" means.
Merriam-Webster:
>Main Entry: 1pub·lic >Pronunciation: 'p&-blik >Function: adjective >Etymology: Middle English publique, from Middle French, from Latin publicus; akin to Latin populus the people >Date: 14th century >1 a : exposed to general view : OPEN b : WELL-KNOWN, PROMINENT c : PERCEPTIBLE, MATERIAL >2 a : of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state <public law> b : of or relating to a government c : of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation >3 a : of or relating to people in general : UNIVERSAL b : GENERAL, POPULAR >4 : of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs : SOCIAL >5 : devoted to the general or national welfare : HUMANITARIAN >6 a : accessible to or shared by all members of the community b : capitalized in shares that can be freely traded on the open market -- often used with go >- pub·lic·ness noun
Most people think of public in terms of meanings 1) and 4) and within meaning 2, think of 2a or 2c as often as 2b (which is the meaning you seem to be using).
I'm not disagreeing with your definition - merely saying that the word is ambiguous, and different readings lead to different politics.
> > "tomstegers" <tomsteg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:c5db3088.0307050744.3233f05f@posting.google.com... > > > By living on the fringe of what is possible and ensuring that their > > > many children have the toughest fight for life ahead of them black > > > people are speeding up their evolution. While non blacks devolve into > > > myopic weaklings with little animalistic instinct blacks could evolve > > > to the point where they become dominant in society.
> > A cow piss shower after a goat dung rubdown is a something of an ultimate > > trip for kaffirs
> You need to ask yourself which men have the most kids in our society
The DAFNs, of course, like this brutha who at 21 left behind 16 OOW niglets. Das' right, bro': Sixteen porch monkeys sired via nine different ho's. Not news, really, just TNB -- right on down to the brawl at the funeral over the paternity of his crotchmaggots...... --------------------------------------------------------- Slain father left 16 kids at age 21
TORAINE NORRIS News staff writer
When a gunman's bullet ended the life of 21-year-old George McHeard III in a Pratt City apartment complex parking lot April 3, his four children living in Ensley were left fatherless.
So were his two children in Bessemer.
And so were his two children in Maytown.
In all, McHeard, left behind at least 16 children by at least nine different women, said his mother, Audrey Williams.
Now those women are grappling with providing for their children in the absence of a father. "I didn't plan for him to leave," said LaDrea Campbell, a 21-year-old who had 8-month-old LaShundrea with McHeard.
Mrs. Williams said Tuesday her son began siring children shortly after he turned 14. She said she begged several of his girlfriends not to conceive children with her son, but those pleas went largely unheeded. "I asked them not to have babies for my son," she said.
She said McHeard purchased milk, clothing and diapers for all his kids.
"He loved his children and took care of them," she said. "He bought them whatever they needed."
Mrs. Williams said her son made his living selling cars out of their one-story home in Ensley Highlands. She said the family business has neither a name or a lot.
McHeard, nicknamed "Punchie" by his mother, loved to drive fancy cars and motorcycles, Mrs. Williams said. He loved them so much that his funeral program devoted a full page to pictures of his luxury rides. Two of his children are named Mercedes and Infiniti.
McHeard died in a Chevrolet Impala in the parking lot of Saint Charles Villa apartments in the 100 block of Pratt Highway. A masked gunman walked up to the car at 5:45 p.m. and fired at least three point-blank shots, police have said.
Detectives are continuing to search for clues in the killing.
During the week leading up to his death, Mrs. Williams said her son was unusually quiet. "He just wasn't saying anything," she said. "It was like he knew his time was up."
His death was only the beginning of chaos.
A brawl erupted during McHeard's funeral Saturday afternoon between the aunt of one of his children's mothers and his mother's family. Three of the children's mothers were involved in the fight, witnesses said. Mrs. Williams said an obituary mix-up sparked the fight.
After officers secured the scene, only McHeard's mother's and father's families were allowed to remain at the funeral. No one was arrested, said Sgt. Daphne Horton.
And left to cope are nine mothers.
"It's going to take some time for me to dwell on what I'm going to do now that my baby's father is gone," Ms. Campbell said. "I'm taking care of her to the best of my ability."
>> > > > All those negroids rioting over what.... essentially the circumstances >> > > > they put themselves in.
>> > > > The ONLY reason there are hordes of poor negroids in these inner >> > > > cities is...why...because the factory where they make poor negroes has >> > > > been running overtime shifts?
>> > > > Nooo...because they choose to copulate and create babies in marginal >> > > > circumstances.
>> > > > Hey folks, there's too damn many of you. It ain't da white man fawt >> > > > dey ain't no jobz for all dem unedoo-cated, unskilled bruthas...If you >> > > > choose to bring chilluns into such conditions, you have NOONE to blame >> > > > but your rutting selves... But then again, your ancestral bruthas in >> > > > all those Sally Struthers commercials do the same thing. Except over >> > > > there, there's no welfare system, no food stamps, no WIC checks, no >> > > > convenience stores to knock over. Mother nature takes care of it.
>> > > This must be why Mother nature created AIDS... to preserve the natural >> > > balance of nature in a world where the population of niggers has been >> > > increasing too rapidly. Perhaps our kids and grandkids won't have to >> > > worry about niggers anymore because there will no longer be any of >> > > them too see except in the history books. Imagine some little girl >> > > in the year 2200 asking her mom, "mommy, mommy, what's a nigger"? >> > > It just might come to pass, except that before it does, the US govt >> > > would probably declare them to be an endangered species and thus >> > > eligible for free everything (oh, I forgot... it already is that way).
>> > > --
>> > If black people reproduce faster in conditions where aids/hiv becomes >> > a source of natural selection they may end up developing immunity to >> > the virus. The so called animalistic behavior of black people is >> > actually probably the most intelligent type of behavior, if they were >> > to be considered a competing species.
>> > By living on the fringe of what is possible and ensuring that their >> > many children have the toughest fight for life ahead of them black >> > people are speeding up their evolution. While non blacks devolve into >> > myopic weaklings with little animalistic instinct blacks could evolve >> > to the point where they become dominant in society.
>> A cow piss shower after a goat dung rubdown is a something of an ultimate >> trip for kaffirs
>You need to ask yourself which men have the most kids in our society >and what is attraction between men and women increased by. (in my >opinion) Without doubt the appearance of material wealth is attractive >to women. Charm and charisma are attractive to men and women, as is >intelligence. Athletic ability is also attractive along with a good >position in society. These (being the most desirable qualities) will >be the attributes that will evolve the most quickly from having a >black mindset.
>When you have the situation where the best of a group fathers a very >large number of children in that group and the least successful and >desirable may father no children the groups rate of evolution will be >increased.
>In a society where very few people die before they reach the age at >which they can support themselves at a subsistence level (even if they >are raised by a lone (or no) parent) having a natural tendency to form >a traditional family is a major handicap. A family in which two >parents support their children is no longer a necessary condition for >the children's survival and future success.
>Unfortunately for mensa members, learned intelligence can only really >appeal to other people who have learnt it themselves. This type of >attraction is an attraction towards something that is not in the >genes.
>If a child from a mensa family was separated from its parents and >educated at a dreadful school it undoubtably would not have the (what >mensa people call) intelligence it would have had it been raised by >its original family.
>I wouldn't be surprised if, were a black NBA basketball players child >to be raised normally in a mensa family it would have a mensa high IQ >when tested (along with impressive athletic ability).
>Having a black attitude will not lead towards an evolution into >socially backwards type of inherited instinctual mindset it will >simply lead to a more highly intelligent instinctual mindset (one that >is more finely tuned to society as it has become) in the group that >has it.
>Women chose to a certain extent who they have children with and were >they to be optimally intelligent in their choice of who to have >children with they would choose the best mate, this in today's society >is not the best father. It is the most black man.
>I think this is why there is so much resentment amongst the now >genetically inferior non black men, why there are so many mixed race >kids and why young kids are developing "jungle fever".
>Maybe youngsters are recognizing the fact (subconsciously) that they, >drastically, need to adapt away from the victorian family mindset >(that enabled a highly educated and regimented group to plunder most >of the world) if they are to spread their genes in the most >intelligent way.
>>> Wrong. Buying and selling is an inherent free property right.
>> There are no inherent rights. In a society, you have the rights >> that the society agrees to as part of the social contract.
>There are layers to that statement! Orthodox Rabbis (and I) would tend >to agree with you: in a universe where humans are the supreme >intelligence, your opinion that I shouldn't kill you carries no more >weight than my opinion that I should.
>The Rabbis (and I) would go further to state that the only genuine >rights are those bestowed by a superior (namely, the supreme) >being. The framers of the US Constitution would agree entirely.
>The framers would strongly disagree with you; your position reflects >the relativism of my first paragraph, untempered by the theism implied >in my second. In particular, if the social contract calls for slavery, >then you have no basis to complain--except personal preference.
You can complain on any basis you want. But without a change in the social contract, your complaint is fruitless.
>In this context, I was adopting a middle ground between the framers >and modern libertarians: in the absence of any theism, the >libertarians make one moral assumption--that the initiation of force >against another is inherently wrong.
Unless everyone in the society accepts the same moral assumptions, moral arguments are impossible. Social contracts are the way they are, because societal consensus agrees to the contract. Individual objections do not override societal consensus, unless society allows them to.
>The rest of their philosophy >follows with delightful consistency: that self-defense is justified, >that unrestricted commerce inheres as a property right, and all the >rest. This allowed me to adopt a consistent position without first >converting you away from atheism.
Clearly you make a false assumption: that I am an atheist and need to be converted. On the contrary, I am a Christian, though I reject the fundamentalist assumptions.
>But you are quite right that the libertarian prime directive is >ultimately indefensible except on two grounds: the theist argument >(that freedom from coercion is an inalienable right endowed by the >creator), and the argument from utility. The argument from utility >fails, because liberty is very useful to me, but it is of course the >opposite to the would-be dictator.
The argument from utility applies to society - whether something is useful to you or the would-be dictator is irrelevant; what matters is whether society finds it useful within the context of the existing social contract.
>>> Amendment X
>>> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, >>> nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states >>> respectively, or to the people.
>I assume you can read, so I assume you didn't fail to notice the words >"or to the people" in that paragraph. Is that a fair assumption?
Correct. That is why I made note (I believe) of the Constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government to the states. The people can change the allocation of power between themselves and the state at any time, so long as equal protection under the laws and the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution are preserved. In the absence of the people asserting their rights, states have almost unlimited power.
>> In other words, the states have ANY power other than those that the >> Constitution gives to the Feds. There are no limits on state power >> other than the 14th amendment...
>Oh oh oh, I guess it *isn't* a fair assumption! Please reread the >amendment.
>> Most people think of public in terms of meanings 1) and 4) and >> within meaning 2, think of 2a or 2c as often as 2b (which is the >> meaning you seem to be using).
>Sad about the muddy thinking of people, isn't it?
Both those making arguments and those hearing them.
It merely means that people making political arguments need to be clear which meanings that they are using.
>> I'm not disagreeing with your definition - merely saying that the >> word is ambiguous, and different readings lead to different >> politics.
>Sure. Wrong readings are inevitable.
Not necessarily "wrong". Just "different". It is the responsibility of a speaker/writer to make themselves clear, not to assume that everyone will understand by mind reading just what the speaker/writer is trying to say.
lbud...@pobox.com wrote: >Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> writes: >> lbud...@pobox.com wrote: >>> In particular, if the social contract calls for slavery, then you >>> have no basis to complain--except personal preference.
>> You can complain on any basis you want. But without a change in the >> social contract, your complaint is fruitless.
>You have just made the argument of thrasymachus that might makes right.
I have said nothing about what is "right". I consider such a question worthless without common moral assumptions.
My claim is that the status quo beats change, unless those who wish change can convince others to go along. (The default, except in times of revolution, is for the status quo. In a revolution, change for almost any reason becomes the default, and then "might makes reality".)
>> Unless everyone in the society accepts the same moral assumptions, >> moral arguments are impossible.
>Ah. So you're a relativist in the extremest sense. (Or since you say >you're a "christian", you are arguing in the absense of God--that an >atheistic world is also an absolutely relativistic one. ;-)
Neither. Without God, there is no absolute morality, but there is the implicit biological morality built into our genes by evolution that whatever best leads to the survival of those genes is superior. (Note that "might makes right" is NOT considered the most successful genetic algorithm in many circumstances).
With God, there is an absolute morality, but it is unknowable except to those who know God. Since the only proofs that one "knows God" are subjective (in the absence of a voice from the heavens for all to hear), the effect of a God-morality on relativism is negligible.
Of course, one can argue that if God is the creator, then the morality He built into our genes probably reflects His absolute morality. That is a logical interpretation of the statement that we were made in His own image. Thus we would discover absolute morality best by studying what our genes drive us to do instinctively.
But even that is arguable, and I don't find it useful to argue what is moral. Seldom is anyone convinced unless they are willing to accept the assumptions.
>> Clearly you make a false assumption: that I am an atheist and need >> to be converted. On the contrary, I am a Christian, though I reject >> the fundamentalist assumptions.
>I made an assumption, but I didn't base much on it--and meant no >offense. If you are a "christian", then I can only suspect you're >making a utilitarian, rather than a moral argument, and leaving your >religion out of it.
More or less.
>If you're a christian but also a relativist, then >I'll have a time getting my mind around your worldview: that would be >highly contradictory.
I'm a Christian that recognizes that God gave us all the power to make our own moral choices. It is thus not for me to tell someone else that their morality is wrong; I am neither God nor Christ and have no such right.
>> The argument from utility applies to society - whether something is >> useful to you or the would-be dictator is irrelevant...what matters >> is whether society finds it useful...
>There is no such animal as "society". There are only individuals, each >asserting their own interests.
False. Society and other collective animals exist by the rule of "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts".
>Nebuchadrezzar and Alexander of Macedon >got their utility function recognized as "society's"; most do not. In >a free market, a democratic process is used to determine "society's" >utility function (i.e., a price structure).
In a free market, it is absolute that might (more money) makes right.
>But believing that there >is a thing called "society" which has its own distinct interests is a >dangerous fallacy.
I disagree. And here we have one of those impasses that leads me not to discuss morality. You have one assumption; I have a contrary one. They are irresolvable, since I have no interest in or expectation of convincing you, and you would be wise to have the same towards me.
>>> I assume you can read, so I assume you didn't fail to notice the >>> words "or to the people" in [the tenth amendment]. Is that a fair >>> assumption?
>> ...The people can change the allocation of power between themselves >> and the state at any time, so long as equal protection under the >> laws and the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution are >> preserved.
>In theory, the fundamental rights include life, liberty and >property. Certainly the framers intended as much.
Those rights do not exist, even in theory. Tell those people in the twin towers about their right to life. Tell the slaves about the right to property. Tell the Enron people (and those they cheated) about the right to property. None of these rights are "real"; they are at best goals.
>> In the absence of the people asserting their rights, states have >> almost unlimited power.
>Granted. This is a utilitarian, rather than a moral statement: "they >do", not "they should".
I don't deal in "shoulds", so I guess I accept your categorization.
>>> Sure. Wrong readings are inevitable.
>> Not necessarily "wrong". Just "different". It is the responsibility >> of a speaker/writer to make themselves clear...
>In the case that we are discussing the intent of the framers of the US >Constitution, the term is "wrong". Their position is abundantly clear.
I disagree.
And indeed people have debated for 200+ years what their position was, so many find it unclear. It is quite arguable that their position was neither unilateral (they didn't all agree) nor constant (their ideas changed, as evidenced by the Articles giving way to the Constitution) nor self-consistent (Jefferson and slavery).
> > In some areas, others did so because the white flight of some caused > > property values to drop, making it economically unsafe to remain.
> If mainstream America really wanted to livwe with DAFNz, > the property values would have gone up. Proves my point...
But having people like you in the neighborhood would make the property values go down. So what does THAT mean?
-- "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." ----------------------------- Byron "Barn" Canfield
-- "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." ----------------------------- Byron "Barn" Canfield http://www.headsprout.com Flash examples: http://www.canfieldstudios.com/flash5 [I do not respond to private emails regarding issues for which the appropriate venue is this newsgroup, nor do I reply to posts by email.]
> > > What's this "discomfort" crap? Sounds like a euphemism.
> > > Discomfort is being in pain, having a pebble in your shoe, > > > being too hot or cold. In short, a very undesirable situation.
> > > White flight is nothing more than the "discomfort" of being > > > in proximity to a group that breeds 70%_OOW, has low IQ, and > > > low emphasis on the the elements of a strong society: education, > > > honesty, non-violence, personal responsibility, and > > > speaking plain english.
> > > In other words, White_Flight is simply good judgment. > > > A reflection of a well-functioning intelligence at work. > > > Canfield calls it "racism."
> > "White Flight" is a figment of your imagination. That you propose it is what > > is racism. You're a bigot and you can't even see it yourself. But I guess > > that's normal for bigots.
> I suppose School_Bussing_For_Racial_Equality (a practice which went > on from about 1965-1995?) is another figment of my DAFN-hating fertile > imagination, huh? Without white flight, such bussing never would have > occurred in the first place.
> You know, Canfield, fess up. Are you really *blind* and doing all > this on a braille computer? Oops, make that (more PC) "sight impaired." > Wouldn't want to offend anyone...
I'm sighted enough to see evidence in my own neighborhood that your claim is a load of mule muffins. Admit it -- you're terrified of other races. You have a fear that you can't control, and so you must direct hate at others. That's sad.
Is there such a thing as "bigot flight" -- because I would support that. Perhaps you could move to Iran, to get a taste of what it's like being on the other side of your racial hatred.
-- "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." ----------------------------- Byron "Barn" Canfield
> > You might wonder why many intellectual blacks, like Richard > > Wright moved to France and why so many find it better to live in > > other countries in Europe as opposed to living here. Europe > > nurtured African-American expatriates. It offered the same > > attractions that drew other Americans, but for blacks it > > represented something more: a cultural environment free of > > the racial obsessions of American society. Entertainer Josephine > > Baker, and jazz musicians Arthur Briggs, Benny Carter, and Dexter > > Gordon were only a few of the prominent African-Americans who > > found a home in France.
> Soundz good to me! How about the DAFN_Expatriate_Act_of_2004? > They all get a one-way ticket to their European country of choice...
How about a compulsory Bigots to Mars compulsory rocketship trip? Mars is uninhabitable? That's okay.
-- "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." ----------------------------- Byron "Barn" Canfield
