More about Detroit apes...
Alton
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.
Somebody
obbz...@yahoo.com (Alton) wrote:
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).
--
Jim Welton
Now the SOOOOOOPREMEEEE Court is giving the University of Michigan the
ability to vector in to law school mediocre negroes.
Jim
>
> --
Riverman
fact is WE ARE WINNING cause you are scared shitless of the Black
Image that haunts your white minds.And we are winning over millions of
your kids who have come down lately with a severe case of "jungle
fever"
Byron Canfield
news:b4b2a645.03062...@posting.google.com...
I find it astounding that he's posting on mensa -- I wouldn't think he'd
even know how to spell it. Come to think of it, somebody must be typing for
him, as sentence structure certainly must be beyond his comprehension.
--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield
jack...@email.msn.com
> > > --
> More whiny racists.Go on with your bad internet thug selves but the
> fact is WE ARE WINNING cause you are scared shitless of the Black
> Image that haunts your white minds.And we are winning over millions of
> your kids who have come down lately with a severe case of "jungle
> fever"
Your animalistic nature is about all you have to brag about.
BroJack
whiteman_"whiteman@pacbell.net"
> More whiny racists.Go on with your bad internet thug selves but the
>fact is WE ARE WINNING cause you are scared shitless of the Black
>Image that haunts your white minds.And we are winning over millions of
>your kids who have come down lately with a severe case of "jungle
>fever"
They are simply slumming, mocking you in your pathetic attempts to
invent a "culture" or "history" when none exists. Much as one might
make cute chimpanzee noises to attract the attention of your simian
brothers in the zoo. So shut the fuck up, ape.
Byron Canfield
news:7cebf3d2.03062...@posting.google.com...
"Animalistic nature"? And that's a BAD thing? Seems to me that humans could
do with a little more "animalism" and less arrogance and ignorance. After
all, only humans truly enjoy killing their own kind. And very few other
animals (note the use of "other") kill their own even when they don't take
pleasure in it.
Byron Canfield
news:up9pfv89kr8628drg...@4ax.com...
Racists? Slumming? That's an oxymoron -- there's nothing lower.
make...@worldnet.att.net
Byron Canfield wrote:
>
> Racists? Slumming? That's an oxymoron -- there's nothing lower.
(T or F) "White Flight," the practice of everyone who can afford to
moving out, when the DAFNz move in, indicates essentially
*ALL* whites are what you characterize as "racists"
Byron Canfield
news:3EFD854A...@worldnet.att.net...
You are the master of circular reasoning. Still pegs you as an inbred
redneck racist.
make...@worldnet.att.net
Byron Canfield wrote:
>
> <make...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >
> > Byron Canfield wrote:
> > >
> > > Racists? Slumming? That's an oxymoron -- there's nothing lower.
> >
> > (T or F) "White Flight," the practice of everyone who can afford to
> > moving out, when the DAFNz move in, indicates essentially
> > *ALL* whites are what you characterize as "racists"
>
> You are the master of circular reasoning. Still pegs you as an inbred
> redneck racist.
It pegs us as the messenger: It is God's own TRUTH.
The truth is not always a pleasant thing.
White Flight proves that majority of whites are "racists"...
E Kurtz
> > You are the master of circular reasoning. Still pegs you as an inbred
> > redneck racist.
make...@worldnet.att.net wrote
> It pegs us as the messenger: It is God's own TRUTH.
> The truth is not always a pleasant thing.
...along the same lines:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/pinker_progress.htm
QUOTE:
When I [Steve Sailer] interviewed Pinker, I asked him:
Sailer: Aren't we all better off if people believe that we are not
constrained by our biology and so can achieve any future we choose?
Pinker: People are surely better off with the truth. Oddly enough,
everyone agrees with this when it comes to the arts. Sophisticated
people sneer at feel-good comedies and saccharine romances in which
everyone lives happily ever after. But when it comes to science, these
same people say, "Give us schmaltz!" They expect the science of human
beings to be a source of emotional uplift and inspirational
sermonizing.
END QUOTE
Byron Canfield
news:3EFE1E71...@worldnet.att.net...
Again circular reasoning -- your premise is false, thus your conclusion is
irrelevant, as are you. The unpleasant truth, which you so fear, is that
your notion of supremacy is based on a falsehood.
Byron Canfield
news:305becba.03062...@posting.google.com...
And your quote, like some of the other nonsense, cannot be use as an
argument of race, only of species. Yes, humans are constrained by their
biology, but that's as far as it goes. The racial supremacy crap totally
discounts environmental and circumstantial considerations.
make...@worldnet.att.net
Byron Canfield wrote:
>
> <make...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >
> > Byron Canfield wrote:
> > >
> > > <make...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > Byron Canfield wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Racists? Slumming? That's an oxymoron -- there's nothing lower.
> > > >
> > > > (T or F) "White Flight," the practice of everyone who can afford to
> > > > moving out, when the DAFNz move in, indicates essentially
> > > > *ALL* whites are what you characterize as "racists"
> > >
> > > You are the master of circular reasoning. Still pegs you as an inbred
> > > redneck racist.
> >
> > It pegs us as the messenger: It is God's own TRUTH.
> > The truth is not always a pleasant thing.
> > White Flight proves that majority of whites are "racists"...
>
> Again circular reasoning -- your premise is false, thus your conclusion is
> irrelevant, as are you. The unpleasant truth, which you so fear, is that
> your notion of supremacy is based on a falsehood.
There's nothing circular about White_Flight. It's unilateral...
Byron Canfield
news:3EFF2F80...@worldnet.att.net...
Unilateral only in your mind.
make...@worldnet.att.net
How can you deny what has obviously happened in every large city
in the USA? There isn't a neighborhood anywhere that has a 50-50
DAFN/white *stable* composition. Whites aren't asking for permission
to move, the decision is *unilateral*. Whites look at the DAFN
culture and valuez and want no part of it. It isn't a few of what
you call "racists," it's *ALL* whites who can afford to move...
Byron Canfield
news:3F02DE8C...@worldnet.att.net...
That is an extreme claim for which you have no proof. I am white; so are
many of my neighbors -- I can afford to move and so can they -- there are
African Americans in my neighborhood -- we have not moved, ergo, your claim
is false. But that's no big surprise, in that it comes from a inbred racist
neanderthal.
nob...@home.com
<barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>"Animalistic nature"? And that's a BAD thing? Seems to me that humans could
>do with a little more "animalism" and less arrogance and ignorance. After
>all, only humans truly enjoy killing their own kind. And very few other
>animals (note the use of "other") kill their own even when they don't take
>pleasure in it.
Chimpanzees kill each other. How do you know whether they "enjoy" it
or not? You can't distinguish between your personal opinion and
objective reality, can you? Ipso facto, all your arguments must be
void.
BruceS
<nob...@home.com> wrote in message
news:4i56gv42flsodr1he...@4ax.com...
Sharks kill each other. Lions kill each other. Dolphins even gang rape each
other.
We are most certainly *not* the only animal to kill its own kind. Whether
any specific animal enjoys killing one of its own kind is really only known
to that particular animal. Some humans get violently ill after killing
another human, even when the killing is justified.
Also note that Byron implies that "animalism" is opposed to ignorance. Who
here believes that the average street urchin is more ignorant than the
average sea urchin?
I recall someone once arguing that humans are stupid because 1) we are the
only species that goes out of its way to consume salt; and 2) salt is
obviously unhealthy. Sometimes laughter is the best medicine.
toto
>> Unilateral only in your mind.
>
>How can you deny what has obviously happened in every large city
>in the USA? There isn't a neighborhood anywhere that has a 50-50
>DAFN/white *stable* composition. Whites aren't asking for permission
>to move, the decision is *unilateral*. Whites look at the DAFN
>culture and valuez and want no part of it. It isn't a few of what
>you call "racists," it's *ALL* whites who can afford to move...
Totally wrong for the Chicago area.
While it is true that whites don't move into the *inner city* they
are moving back into the very integrated areas of the city like
Lincoln Park. The population is *mostly white* there, but there
are many middle class blacks moving in as well.
Aside from that we moved into a suburb that is highly integrated
My immediate neighbors here are black (house on the south),
Indian from India (house immediately across the street to the
east), White ethnic Polish, I think, (house on the north),
Chinese (two houses to the north). We are white though our
heritages lie in Russia and Italy. We moved here partly because
of the diversity. We like it. The neighborhood is a nice one and
people leave their doors unlocked and their cars unlocked much
of the time.
Your take on what other races do is built on a faulty perception
because you have probably never lived in a truly integrated
neighborhood. We raised our children in one and while there
are always some people who cause problems, those people
were as likely to be white as they were to be black.
--
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits
Bob LeChevalier
>How can you deny what has obviously happened in every large city
>in the USA? There isn't a neighborhood anywhere that has a 50-50
>DAFN/white *stable* composition.
Really? And your proof is?
Large chunks of DC have stable compositions at around that level;
there aren't many parts of DC that don't have some black population.
>Whites aren't asking for permission
>to move, the decision is *unilateral*. Whites look at the DAFN
>culture and valuez and want no part of it. It isn't a few of what
>you call "racists," it's *ALL* whites who can afford to move...
Whites have been moving back into parts of DC in the last decade.
Here are a couple of census tracts for you. A little hard to find
ones close to 50/50, but these are pretty close.
1990
Tract 27.01, Washington city, Washington city, District of Columbia,
District of Columbia
Tract 27.02, Washington city, Washington city, District of Columbia,
District of Columbia
(about 4-5 miles N of the White House)
White
1976
2795
Black
2069
2022
white/black ratio
49/51
58/42
2000
Census Tract 27.01, Washington city, Washington city, District of
Columbia, District of Columbia
Census Tract 27.02, Washington city, Washington city, District of
Columbia, District of Columbia
White alone
2,184
3,091
Black or African American alone
1,737
1,214
white/black ratio
56/44
72/28
fairly stable with slight increases in white percentages over 10
years.
lojbab
make...@worldnet.att.net
Byron Canfield wrote:
>
> <make...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > How can you deny what has obviously happened in every large city
> > in the USA? There isn't a neighborhood anywhere that has a 50-50
> > DAFN/white *stable* composition. Whites aren't asking for permission
> > to move, the decision is *unilateral*. Whites look at the DAFN
> > culture and valuez and want no part of it. It isn't a few of what
> > you call "racists," it's *ALL* whites who can afford to move...
>
> That is an extreme claim for which you have no proof. I am white; so are
> many of my neighbors -- I can afford to move and so can they -- there are
> African Americans in my neighborhood -- we have not moved, ergo,
The threshold for massive white exodus is when the DAFN-fraction
reaches about 20%. Every neighborhood has a DAFN or two these
days, what'z the percentage in yourz?
toto
I looked up my census tract, we have 55.5% white, 15% black, 21.5%
asian, 4% other and 4% multiracial. People do move, but not to get
away from the diversity in general. As people retire, they tend to
move to less expensive areas than this one.
I am not sure what the other consists of from the table - It is not
American Indian or Pacific Islander or Alaskan native - those are
given as 0%. Hispanic is given separate from race since there
are white Hispanics, black Hispanics, multiracial Hispanics, etc.
make...@worldnet.att.net
lbu...@pobox.com wrote:
>
> Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> writes:
> > make...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >>
> >> How can you deny what has obviously happened in every large city in
> >> the USA? There isn't a neighborhood anywhere that has a 50-50
> >> DAFN/white *stable* composition.
> >
> > Really? And your proof is? Large chunks of DC have stable
> > compositions at around that level; there aren't many parts of DC
> > that don't have some black population.
>
> Some interesting research on this point was done by
> Thomas Schelling, published in 1978 (Micromotives and Macrobehavior).
> Schelling's work was an attempt to describe a phenomenon noted in the
> 1960s: very few neighborhoods had less than 75% of their population of
> the same color, whether white or black.
> [...]
> Tentative conclusions can be drawn from these models. First, even if
> everyone in the world were unprejudiced, but retained a small
> discomfort with being the only member of one's ethnic group in a given
> neighborhood, then voluntarily "segregated" neighborhoods will emerge.
> Second, when the "discomfort" is much stronger--e.g., being the only
> non-English-speaking Latino in an English-speaking neighborhood--the
> effect will be even more pronounced.[...]
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."
make...@worldnet.att.net
toto wrote:
>
> make...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> >Byron Canfield wrote:
> >>
> >> <make...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > How can you deny what has obviously happened in every large city
> >> > in the USA? There isn't a neighborhood anywhere that has a 50-50
> >> > DAFN/white *stable* composition. Whites aren't asking for permission
> >> > to move, the decision is *unilateral*. Whites look at the DAFN
> >> > culture and valuez and want no part of it. It isn't a few of what
> >> > you call "racists," it's *ALL* whites who can afford to move...
> >>
> >> That is an extreme claim for which you have no proof. I am white; so are
> >> many of my neighbors -- I can afford to move and so can they -- there are
> >> African Americans in my neighborhood -- we have not moved, ergo,
> >
> >The threshold for massive white exodus is when the DAFN-fraction
> >reaches about 20%. Every neighborhood has a DAFN or two these
> >days, what'z the percentage in yourz?
>
> I looked up my census tract, we have 55.5% white, 15% black, 21.5%
> asian, 4% other and 4% multiracial. People do move, but not to get
> away from the diversity in general.
You haven't yet exceeded the tolerable DAFN threshold.
The threshold pertains to *DAFNz* not simply non-white.
Asians bring strength to the community (low OOW breeding,
good performance in school, quiet dignity). Asians
aren't out in the street at 2AM shuckin' 'n jivin'.
Byron Canfield
news:3F04141D...@worldnet.att.net...
"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.
Byron Canfield
Are you really saying you can't see any difference between the circumstances
of chimpanzees killing each other and humans killing each other? Talk about
problems with reality!
Byron Canfield
news:rQEMa.23$Ez4....@news.uswest.net...
provocation, but based on differences in ideology, has got to be one of the
stupidest arguments for intelligence.
Byron Canfield
news:3F038620...@worldnet.att.net...
How about some verifiable sources of that, or are you just making it up as
you go along? You appear to lack a basic understanding of causation.
toto
Neither are my black middle class neighbors. And the black
children on my street are just as polite and nice as the white
children and the asian children and do pretty well in school too.
make...@worldnet.att.net
Byron Canfield wrote:
>
> <make...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >
> > 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...
make...@worldnet.att.net
Byron Canfield wrote:
>
> <make...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >
> > Byron Canfield wrote:
> > >
> > > <make...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How can you deny what has obviously happened in every large city
> > > > in the USA? There isn't a neighborhood anywhere that has a 50-50
> > > > DAFN/white *stable* composition. Whites aren't asking for permission
> > > > to move, the decision is *unilateral*. Whites look at the DAFN
> > > > culture and valuez and want no part of it. It isn't a few of what
> > > > you call "racists," it's *ALL* whites who can afford to move...
> > >
> > > That is an extreme claim for which you have no proof. I am white; so are
> > > many of my neighbors -- I can afford to move and so can they -- there
> are
> > > African Americans in my neighborhood -- we have not moved, ergo,
> >
> > The threshold for massive white exodus is when the DAFN-fraction
> > reaches about 20%. Every neighborhood has a DAFN or two these
> > days, what'z the percentage in yourz?
>
> How about some verifiable sources of that, or are you just making it up as
> you go along? You appear to lack a basic understanding of causation.
Do a Google search on "white flight" (put it within quote marks)
and tell me the 13,900 hits you get are *imaginary*.
busing "racial equality" - 1090 hits
"mandatory busing" - 743 hits
are a couple other good ones
Ask your "seeing eye dog" to read between the lines for you...
BruceS
"Byron Canfield" <barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote in message
news:NRWMa.3745$Ix2.1793@rwcrnsc54...
> <nob...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:4i56gv42flsodr1he...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 07:20:20 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
> > <barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
> >
> > >"Animalistic nature"? And that's a BAD thing? Seems to me that humans
> could
> > >do with a little more "animalism" and less arrogance and ignorance.
After
> > >all, only humans truly enjoy killing their own kind. And very few other
> > >animals (note the use of "other") kill their own even when they don't
> take
> > >pleasure in it.
> >
> > Chimpanzees kill each other. How do you know whether they "enjoy" it
> > or not? You can't distinguish between your personal opinion and
> > objective reality, can you? Ipso facto, all your arguments must be
> > void.
>
> Are you really saying you can't see any difference between the
circumstances
> of chimpanzees killing each other and humans killing each other? Talk
about
> problems with reality!
I don't see where "nobody" gave any indication that there isn't a difference
between chimpanzees killing their own kind and humans doing so. He simply
provided a counter to your ludicrous claims that humans are 1) the *only*
animals to enjoy killing their own kind; and 2) among the very few who kill
their own kind at all. Many people make silly claims without thinking them
through. Were I you, I'd retract those claims and possibly find a better
reason to favor "animalistic nature".
toto
>> "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.
False...
White flight did occur (out of fear of blacks) during a certain period
of time, but many neighborhoods were segregated without any white
flight at all because they were historically all one ethnicity.
People tend to settle where their are people who are *like* them
and blacks were no exception to that. When the migration from the
south to northern cities took place, many blacks settled in areas of
the city where family and friends had already settled. That's not
surprising, but it led to segregated schools in the north by housing
patterns. That segregation in housing needs to be broken down.
The other factor to consider is that there were different covenants
that prevented blacks from moving out and into *white* neighborhoods
in more affluent areas. Thus the segregation in housing led to a
segregation in neighborhood schools as well.
If the neighborhoods were integrated, of course, there would
have been no need for busing at all. And if all the schools were
good ones, that too would have made things work better as
white children could also have been bused into schools in black
neighborhoods. The system as it was formed put the entire
burden of integration on black school children which was not
a fair thing to do to them.
I don't think busing works, however.. I think that it is more
important to improve schools in all neighborhoods. My own
proposal would be to make neighborhood schools K-3 centers
and to have 4 to 6 grade schools that k-3 fed into that served
several neighborhoods and then to widen the area served
again for 7 to 9 and again for 10-12.
Simply being in a classroom together, btw, is by no means
going to eliminate racism. Most white people have never
experienced the kinds of discrimination that allow them to
understand the black experience in this country. And many
students self-segregate at the lunch table and in after-school
activities because they pick up attitudes at home or because
of single experiences that they don't analyze, but put into
looking at people in general. The same kinds of fears often
lead to segregating themselves from disabled people.
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.
Ron Hammon
>
snip
> People tend to settle where their are people who are *like* them
snip
> That segregation in housing needs to be broken down.
snip
How can you justify such a breech of liberty? Do you really believe
that people must be made to live where they do not choose?!
--
Ron Hammon
Remove the "y" from ".nyet", when present, to reach me.
Bob LeChevalier
>Do a Google search on "white flight" (put it within quote marks)
>and tell me the 13,900 hits you get are *imaginary*.
Not a particularly large number.
> busing "racial equality" - 1090 hits
> "mandatory busing" - 743 hits
Many people did "white flight" in order to avoid busing.
Others did so because they were racists.
In some areas, others did so because the white flight of some caused
property values to drop, making it economically unsafe to remain.
None of this is evidence that "most" much less "all" whites
participate in "white flight". There are many neighborhoods that are
multiracial.
In fact, "white flight" was primarily a phenomenon of the 60s and 70s,
and maybe a little into the 80s, and is not particularly common these
days.
lojbab
toto
wrote:
>How can you justify such a breech of liberty? Do you really believe
>that people must be made to live where they do not choose?!
No, I believe though that people have a right to live where they
choose without regard to racial prejudices.
Covenants that don't allow blacks to move in and steering by
real estate brokers and other such things are still around.
Ron Hammon
>
snip
> No, I believe though that people have a right to live where they
> choose without regard to racial prejudices.
>
No, you believe that people have a right to live where they choose WITH
regard to racial prejudices. You already said:
> People tend to settle where their are people who are *like* them
> That segregation in housing needs to be broken down.
In other words, people tend to segregate themselves, if allowed a free
choice of where to live. And, the "fix" to this tendancy is "breaking
down segregation", which you believe "needs" to be done. There is no
getting around what you said.
Brian King
>Well, a species that performs mass killing of it's own kind, not based on
>provocation, but based on differences in ideology, has got to be one of the
>stupidest arguments for intelligence.
>
>
>--
>"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
>those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
>-----------------------------
>Byron "Barn" Canfield
It's not an argument for intelligent, merely a byproduct of it.
bk
Bob LeChevalier
>toto wrote:
>>
>snip
>
>> People tend to settle where their are people who are *like* them
>
>snip
>
>> That segregation in housing needs to be broken down.
>
>snip
>
>How can you justify such a breech of liberty?
Easy. American liberty does not include the general right to
self-segregation.
>Do you really believe
>that people must be made to live where they do not choose?!
The question is whether people (blacks) must be made to NOT live where
they choose (neighborhoods that were previously segregated). The law
prevents discrimination based on race in who you sell to.
lojbab
toto
wrote:
>toto wrote:
>>
>snip
>
>> No, I believe though that people have a right to live where they
>> choose without regard to racial prejudices.
>>
>No, you believe that people have a right to live where they choose WITH
>regard to racial prejudices. You already said:
>
>> People tend to settle where their are people who are *like* them
>
>> That segregation in housing needs to be broken down.
>
>In other words, people tend to segregate themselves, if allowed a free
>choice of where to live. And, the "fix" to this tendancy is "breaking
>down segregation", which you believe "needs" to be done. There is no
>getting around what you said.
I dont, however, believe in a government solution to this. OTOH,
I think that if people don't get to know each other prejudices cannot
be broken down. Believing the stereotypes instead of seeing the
individual person no matter what his race doesn't seem very
intelligent to me. Running away from other people is the coward's
way out, imo.
People no matter what their race are more similar than different.
There are good people and bad people in every race and culture.
toto
wrote:
>In fact, "white flight" was primarily a phenomenon of the 60s and 70s,
>and maybe a little into the 80s, and is not particularly common these
>days.
>
And as I said, the opposite is currently happening in cities like
Chicago and New York. People who left and raised children in
the suburbs are returning to the city for the amenities that the
cities provide in the arts, music, theater and culture.
>lojbab
Ron Hammon
>
> Ron Hammon <rha...@charter.nyet> wrote:
> >toto wrote:
> >>
> >snip
> >
> >> People tend to settle where their are people who are *like* them
> >
> >snip
> >
> >> That segregation in housing needs to be broken down.
> >
> >snip
> >
> >How can you justify such a breech of liberty?
>
> Easy. American liberty does not include the general right to
> self-segregation.
>
government could assign houses. How can you possibly spout this and
claim to be an American?
> >Do you really believe
> >that people must be made to live where they do not choose?!
>
> The question is whether people (blacks) must be made to NOT live where
> they choose (neighborhoods that were previously segregated). The law
> prevents discrimination based on race in who you sell to.
>
That was NOT the "question". Perhaps, you better reread the quotes
above. There was nothing mentioned about black, white, or purple. The
same statement about "like" people segregating themselves could be about
language (Louisiana, for instance), political views (Berekley versus
"Podunk, Idaho"), sexual orientation (former Fire Island), Religion
(Amana Colonies), recreational desires (yachters), age (retirement
villages), and so on. We were told that this segregation of unlike
people needs to be broken down. I still hope that we live in a free
country and can live where we damned well please. If someone who I
don't wish to live beside, for whatever reason, moves next door, I can
leave if it means that much to me.
make...@worldnet.att.net
toto wrote:
>
> 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...
make...@worldnet.att.net
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
> 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...
toto
Voluntary, of course, so those who don't want to go stay here, right.
How about we send you over there instead though. Makes about as
much sense.
nob...@home.com
wrote:
>
>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.
Ron Hammon
>
snip
> 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.
make...@worldnet.att.net
nob...@home.com wrote:
>
> 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?
make...@worldnet.att.net
Ron Hammon wrote:
>
> 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...
Ron Hammon
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.
nob...@home.com
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?
Bob LeChevalier
>>
>> Easy. American liberty does not include the general right to
>> self-segregation.
>
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.
lojbab
tomstegers
> In article <e116921e.03062...@posting.google.com>,
> obbz...@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.
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?".
Mudda Lann Newz Servus
<Jason> wrote in message news:0tsdgv0qo42ms9bdf...@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
Byker
news:c5db3088.03070...@posting.google.com...
Providing that society is Stone Age:
http://www.thirdworldplanet.com/pic/kisscow2.jpg
A cow piss shower after a goat dung rubdown is a something of an ultimate
trip for kaffirs
Bob LeChevalier
>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.
Many people believe otherwise.
lojbab
tomstegers
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.
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> writes:
>>
>> Nope. The right to transact business is regulated by the state.
>
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.
lojbab
Byker
news:c5db3088.03070...@posting.google.com...
> "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> wrote in message
news:<vgevujk...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "tomstegers" <tomst...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:c5db3088.03070...@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.
> >
> > Providing that society is Stone Age:
> >
> > http://www.thirdworldplanet.com/pic/kisscow2.jpg
> >
> > 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."
http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/Apr2000/12-e413656b.html
BroJack
swinging from trees, and eating each other.
BroJack
________
\On 6 Jul 2003 10:07:34 -0700, tomst...@hotmail.com (tomstegers)
wrote:
Bob LeChevalier
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>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.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> writes:
>> lbu...@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.
>
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).
lojbab
Byron Canfield
news:3F04B176...@worldnet.att.net...
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
Byron 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.]
<make...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F044D1C...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Byron Canfield wrote:
> >
> > <make...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > 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.
Byron Canfield
news:3F04B0BF...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> toto wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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.
Byron Canfield
news:3F0466...@charter.nyet...
> toto wrote:
> >
> snip
>
> > People tend to settle where their are people who are *like* them
>
> snip
>
> > That segregation in housing needs to be broken down.
>
> snip
>
> How can you justify such a breech of liberty? Do you really believe
> that people must be made to live where they do not choose?!
I think the issue would resolve itself, if we simply moved all the people
like the bozo who started this thread to a rocky island with no way off.
Byron 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.]
<make...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F045468...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Byron Canfield wrote:
> >
> > <make...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > Byron Canfield wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <make...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > How can you deny what has obviously happened in every large city
> > > > > in the USA? There isn't a neighborhood anywhere that has a 50-50
> > > > > DAFN/white *stable* composition. Whites aren't asking for
permission
> > > > > to move, the decision is *unilateral*. Whites look at the DAFN
> > > > > culture and valuez and want no part of it. It isn't a few of what
> > > > > you call "racists," it's *ALL* whites who can afford to move...
> > >
> > > > That is an extreme claim for which you have no proof. I am white; so
are
> > > > many of my neighbors -- I can afford to move and so can they --
there
> > are
> > > > African Americans in my neighborhood -- we have not moved, ergo,
> > >
> > > The threshold for massive white exodus is when the DAFN-fraction
> > > reaches about 20%. Every neighborhood has a DAFN or two these
> > > days, what'z the percentage in yourz?
> >
> > How about some verifiable sources of that, or are you just making it up
as
> > you go along? You appear to lack a basic understanding of causation.
>
> Do a Google search on "white flight" (put it within quote marks)
> and tell me the 13,900 hits you get are *imaginary*.
>
> busing "racial equality" - 1090 hits
> "mandatory busing" - 743 hits
> are a couple other good ones
>
> Ask your "seeing eye dog" to read between the lines for you...
Most of what turned up was opinion papers with not a single verifiable
statistic. Secondly, there is no tie-in between "white flight" and African
Americans. Every definition of "white flight" indicated it was simply an
attempt to get away from all racial diversity, not any specific race.
So your attempts to twist that into slurs against a specific race are in
vain and silly.
Maybe you should simply learn to read. Maybe you could get a DAFN teacher to
teach you to read.
Byron Canfield
news:3F04D67E...@worldnet.att.net...
So you're of the opinion that every Nigerian is involved in an email scam
enterprise? Just how many do you think it takes to run such a campaign? And
you were making disparaging remarks about THEIR education? Just in case you
are really that ignorant, the entirity of all the 419 email campaigns,
extras and all, could be accomplished by as few as a dozen people. And you
want to blame the entire population of Nigeria?
Your fear is showing again.
Byron Canfield
news:3f046f00...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> >Well, a species that performs mass killing of it's own kind, not based on
> >provocation, but based on differences in ideology, has got to be one of
the
> >stupidest arguments for intelligence.
> >
>
> It's not an argument for intelligent, merely a byproduct of it.
I submit that there is a lack of causality there -- more likely to be a
by-product of emotional immaturity.
Byron Canfield
news:QOYMa.17$Wj.2...@news.uswest.net...
>
> "Byron Canfield" <barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote in message
> news:NRWMa.3745$Ix2.1793@rwcrnsc54...
> > <nob...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:4i56gv42flsodr1he...@4ax.com...
> > > On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 07:20:20 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
> > > <barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >"Animalistic nature"? And that's a BAD thing? Seems to me that humans
> > could
> > > >do with a little more "animalism" and less arrogance and ignorance.
> After
> > > >all, only humans truly enjoy killing their own kind. And very few
other
> > > >animals (note the use of "other") kill their own even when they don't
> > take
> > > >pleasure in it.
> > >
> > > Chimpanzees kill each other. How do you know whether they "enjoy" it
> > > or not? You can't distinguish between your personal opinion and
> > > objective reality, can you? Ipso facto, all your arguments must be
> > > void.
> >
> > Are you really saying you can't see any difference between the
> circumstances
> > of chimpanzees killing each other and humans killing each other? Talk
> about
> > problems with reality!
>
> I don't see where "nobody" gave any indication that there isn't a
difference
> between chimpanzees killing their own kind and humans doing so. He simply
> provided a counter to your ludicrous claims that humans are 1) the *only*
> animals to enjoy killing their own kind; and 2) among the very few who
kill
> their own kind at all. Many people make silly claims without thinking them
> through. Were I you, I'd retract those claims and possibly find a better
> reason to favor "animalistic nature".
>
>
And I'll do no such thing. Perhaps *you* should read some of the behavioral
studies of chimpanzees by Jane Goodall.
Byron Canfield
> toto wrote:
> >
> snip
>
> > No, I believe though that people have a right to live where they
> > choose without regard to racial prejudices.
> >
> No, you believe that people have a right to live where they choose WITH
> regard to racial prejudices. You already said:
>
> > People tend to settle where their are people who are *like* them
>
>
> choice of where to live. And, the "fix" to this tendancy is "breaking
> down segregation", which you believe "needs" to be done. There is no
> getting around what you said.
>
Dorothy amended what she said as she realized she did not make her point
clear, perhaps in the haste of responding to the bozo who initiated this
thread. People are allowed to attempt to make clear what they were trying to
say, and if they say "that's not what I meant; I meant...", then that's the
way it is. That's what communcation is all about. You're in no position to
judge what they were thinking, and insist that they meant one thing when
they say they meant another.
make...@worldnet.att.net
Byron Canfield wrote:
>
> Admit it -- you're terrified of other races.
Hey, Asian-Americans are great: Strong family values and they revere
education/hard-work. Wouldn't bother me if all the whites in my
neighborhood moved out and Asian-Ams moved in...
Byron Canfield
news:3F096DF0...@worldnet.att.net...
Okay, make that, you're terrified of one other race. You fear African
Americans, and so exude hatred toward them, which you make feeble attempts
to justify with ill-founded conclusions.
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> writes:
>>
>> I have said nothing about what is "right". I consider such a
>> question worthless without common moral assumptions.
>
>people is a moral discussion,
I disagree. In this context, it is a political discussion.
>without making your foundation
>clear. I'm not interested in a discussion relative to the law of the
>jungle, so I'm out.
I'm only interested in the law (and history) of the United States. If
we are a jungle, then that is what we are.
>> 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.
>
>Hoot hoot! That's your opinion, of course. A hedonist, whose opinion
>is of equal value to yours, would disagree.
Therefore there is no absolute morality. The moment you inject the
word "opinion" you refer to subjective morality.
>> ...the effect of a God-morality on relativism is negligible.
>
>Until and unless God shows himself.
As I noted (voice from the sky).
>> Of course, one can argue that if God is the creator, then the morality
>> He built into our genes probably reflects His absolute morality.
>
>Attempts at defining a "universal" or "natural" morality always boil
>down to a bit of circular reasoning.
Yep.
>I do adopt the weaker stance that obeying scriptural morality, whether
>knowingly or not, usually results in the optimal decision--but there
>are plenty of caveats and exceptions.
Whereas I observe that the scriptures are full of people acting
immorally, with no clear evidence that acting morally got a better
result.
I also question that there is in fact a single morality in the Bible.
Arguing with a certain racist nincompoop who cites Deuteronomy in
commanding Israel not to accept those of mixed blood into the
congregation of the Lord, we find Isaiah, which commands the opposite.
Christ says that "not one jot" of the law has passed away, but
commands his disciples to go to all the world, seemingly violating
Deuteronomy.
One can rationalize this into a single morality, but the multitude of
Judeo-Christian sects shows that these rationalizations do not achieve
identification of a non-subjective, 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.
>
>There is no reason to conclude that this is a genetic fact, rather
>than (as I suppose) a sociological and psychological one. But this
>line of inquiry only minimally interests me.
Me too. It just seems like a possible approach.
>> 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".
>
>Since there's no such rule, you're stuck where you started.
I disagree. Our minds are surely more than a bunch of independent
brain cells. "Thinking" seems to be a product of the interaction
between brain cells, and hence is an addition on top of what
individual cells can do solely on their own.
Similarly, two human beings working together can accomplish things
that no two individuals working separately could accomplish.
>> In a free market, it is absolute that might (more money) makes right.
>
>Might refers to force. Money is a means of persuasion
I disagree. It can symbolically represent labor, or it can represent
past use of force or persuasion.
But persuasion is of course a form of force.
>--but so is charm, sex, and a useful skill.
All forms of force.
>> I disagree. And here we have one of those impasses that leads me
>> not to discuss morality.
>
>Then you hold a dangerous fallacy. Since "society" is an abstraction
>without a literal counterpart,
I disagree. It is the summation of all individuals and all plural
INTERACTIONS of the members of that society.
>and it does _not_ have rights _or_ interests,
But it does.
>one is left believing in something with superior claims to
>those of an individual, but which can't be identified. Whoever gets to
>palm off his vision as "society's needs", gets to trample rights with
>impunity. Best of luck to ya.
You find money moral, but money is a product of a society. Money has
value ONLY because it is backed by an entire society.
>> 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.
>
>Right. Until a conversation crops up with a less gelatinous topic,
>that is; I'm basically done with this one.
Your choice.
>>> 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.
>
>Violation of one's rights is not a proof of nonexistance.
If a right is be violated, then it has been taken away, and it is not
an inalienable right.
>> I don't deal in "shoulds", so I guess I accept your categorization.
>
>Human rights are about "shoulds". They are fundamentally a moral
>concept. All discussion of rights with you is impossible; in this area
>you are essentially a solipsist.
If you say so.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>>> But you've indulged in a discussion about "rights", which for most
>>> people is a moral discussion,
>>
>> I disagree. In this context, it is a political discussion.
>
>all discussion of "rights" is fruitless if we don't know what "rights"
>are.
Indeed.
>> I'm only interested in the law (and history) of the United States.
>
>Then you're interested in a context in which rights are regarded as
>"inalienable".
Not by most people. They know the words, but they don't think it is
true.
>> Similarly, two human beings working together can accomplish things
>> that no two individuals working separately could accomplish.
>
>That doesn't imply that "this pair" has rights superseding the rights
>of the two individuals composing it.
I didn't say that they did. I merely said that the whole is more than
the sum of its parts. Make it 300 million people and the whole is a
LOT more than the sum of its parts.
>Indeed, I like your reductio; it
>helps draw out the absurdity. If "society" has rights,
Society doesn't "have" rights; it DEFINES rights, and it grants them
to its individuals.
>>> Might refers to force. Money is a means of persuasion
>>
>> I disagree. It can symbolically represent labor, or it can
>> represent past use of force or persuasion.
>
>It's a possession I can offer you. Nothing more or less. This is not a
>matter for poetry, allegory or symbolism. Your desire for what I offer
>is a persuader; it is by definition not force.
Nonsense. Someone you would claim "uses force" has something to offer
you too, the opportunity to not have your head bashed in. Your desire
for what they have to offer is a persuader.
"Persuasion" and "psychological manipulation" can cause damage to
individuals. They are force.
Indeed any way of getting someone else to do what you want them to do
is "force".
>You retain the power to
>say yes or no. (Defining "force" as any differential advantage
>essentially renders the concept useless.
Force is not "differential advantage", it is "ability to persuade"
someone to do something that they would not do without persuasion.
I can have a differential advantage, but if I never use it to get you
to do something, I have not used force.
>Anyone who has what you want, by your definition, holds a whip over you.
Potentially they do. And that whip can potentially do as much damage
as a real whip. So why is it different?
>> I disagree. It is the summation of all individuals and all plural
>> INTERACTIONS of the members of that society.
>
>You have failed to identify an entity with special rights and
>interests, superseding the rights of the citizens.
I don't admit that the citizens have rights, so there is nothing to
supersede.
>>> Violation of one's rights is not a proof of nonexistance.
>>
>> If a right is be violated, then it has been taken away, and it is
>> not an inalienable right.
>
>Muddy thinking.
Look up the definition of "inalienable" - it means "cannot be taken
(or given) away".
The D of I says that "liberty" is inalienable.
The Constitutional Preamble refers to the "blessings of liberty". A
"blessing" IS alienable; see Jacob and Esau. It is a gift, and a gift
can be given to another, and a gift can be taken away. The Preamble
AND the D of I, say that liberty has to be "secured". If something
has to be secured, it is not inalienable.
If we had "inalienable" rights, not even the omnipotent God could take
it away, because "inalienable" means that it is part of our nature,
and hence cannot be taken away without us becoming something other
than human beings.
My genes are an inalienable part of me. My mind is arguably
inalienable - if one loses their cognition, it is arguable that they
are no longer entirely human. "Rights" don't work that way.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> writes:
>> lbu...@pobox.com wrote:
>>> Indeed, I like your reductio; it helps draw out the absurdity. If
>>> "society" has rights,
>>
>> Society doesn't "have" rights; it DEFINES rights, and it grants them
>> to its individuals.
>
>who lives and who dies. Lucky for the guy who gets to wear the big hat.
>
>> Indeed any way of getting someone else to do what you want them to
>> do is "force".
>
>definition, asking for a favor constitutes "force".
It is as much an infringement on another's liberty as force is. One
has a choice in either case (force or polite request) to go along or
not. There are consequences to either choice; generally going along
has more pleasant outcomes than not going along.
If your dying mother asks a favor, and you refuse, and then she dies,
you may have lifelong guilt feelings (emotional pain). If she
threatens to beat you if you don't do what she want, and you refuse
and she beats you, and then dies (not from administering the beating),
you'll be in physical pain for a short while, and probably feel little
or no guilt. Long term, you are better off.
Those who argue a special role for "force" do not accept that human
beings can suffer emotional pain that is as debilitating if not more
so than physical suffering. People can die of emotional damage just
as surely as they can die from physical damage.
>> I don't admit that the citizens have rights, so there is nothing to
>> supersede.
>
>Which is why all discussion of "rights" is pointless. You keep using
>the word, but upon closer examination you deny the existence of each
>right, one by one.
I deny that they are "rights" in the sense that you appear to define
"rights".
If man had the inalienable right to life, then how could God send
Noah's flood? How inalienable were the flood victims' rights to life?
lojbab