[quote]sasquatch wrote:
This, ‘my friend’ is NOT natural selection.[/quote]
no, it’s not true natural selection, but as a guy with an Anthropology degree (among others), I’m willing to make the argument that it is a form of selection–and perhaps natural in some way.
If you think about it from the standpoint of a human being having a natural right to self defense…well, I’ll leave the rest to you, maybe you can come up with something.
[quote]BookerT wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Yet again more poor reading comprehension. He is saying that maybe some black folk would have killed a few white assholes and that my friend would be natural selection. If you were an asshole, you get plugged. How can you even read that to mean somthing else. Why are you guys trying so hard to paint JW and Rain as racist. Shit!
V
I was not calling JW racist or implying it, because I don’t know him and wouldn’t judge him based on a few sentences. What I was asking him was to clarify his response and that he might not have thought his hypothetical through all the way. (This is a discussion and I thought the point was to share your views and hopefully learn some new things? That doesn’t work unless you ask questions and try to understand someone else’s viewpoint)
He stated that if a few black people shot the assholes who were lynching people then their might be less lynchings. I say that if a black man in 1950 went and killed one of these assholes that that would lead to even more violence against blacks (more lynchings.) A black man killing a white man back then would have further fueled the notion that blacks were a threat to them and their families. Which in some people’s minds back then would have justified killing more black people.
If you want to disagree with that fine, but don’t claim that I was calling someone racist when I was not.
[/quote]
just for the record, I appreciate the support, Vegita, and Lord knows I can use it, but I didn’t feel that Booker T. was calling me racist. Professor X, yes. BT, no.
I think Booker T. was trying to find out just where I was going with what I was saying…before he decided what to call me.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Veg, sorry man, I’ve been under attack in another thread, my bad.[/quote]
anyone who attacks vroom is bad.
vroom should no be attacked.
vroom is good.
Joe like vroom.
vroom nutty libertarian liberal type…but Joe like anyway.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
my understanding from an admittedly cursory reading over of the history of that time etc is that the biggest problem with the Black Panthers was alliances with communist agents from Russia and Cuba–and a fear they were going to attempt to overthrow the government.
Like I said, I don’t know much about this–so feel free to teach me.
Or, better yet, give me some decent web references and I’ll go read it myself.
But I wasn’t just talking about the Panthers–I was thinking of a group of a dozen black men in some little town in Mississippi, say.
Aleksandr wrote:
JW, your other posts, I couldn’t make sense of (sorry). When black people armed themselves to protect their community from abuse (the Black Panther Party for Seld-Defense)the FBI hunted them down, imorisoned some leaders on false charges, while others were mysterously killed. If the federal government took this stance on the Panthers, it is only equitable that the same stance be taken with the minutemen, isn’t it?
That is the point others are arguing. Why do other groups have to lobby government in order to get anything adjusted, while this group is allowed to relove the problem themselves? It does appear unfair, and this unfairness is typical. In a way, it reminds me when, a few years back, that man was dragged to death by racists in Jasper, Texas and the city gave the klan (a known terrorist group) a permit to rally, but denied the New Black Panthers the permit to conduct a counter-rally, to let the people of the town know they are being protected.
When these types of injustices are so available in people’s memories, they are going to perceive future procedural injustices of the type as racist as well.
Joe Weider wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I can only assume that you think every black person should have simply grabbed fire arms during the 50’s and 60’s and that would have ended things real quick.
by the way, wouldn’t it?
I’m willing to be there would have been alot fewer assholes getting away with lynching people, for one thing. Would have been a form of natural selection, and society would be better off.
[/quote]
Did that work for Nat Turner?
Sasquatch, if I lived on the border, I’d probably participate myself.
Voicing a concern over possible negative outcomes doesn’t mean one is against it. You read a lot of extra things into what I said based on your own opinion.
Bad things happen all the time, even when you have the best intentions. Pointing out what they might be can even help prevent them.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Did that work for Nat Turner?[/quote]
Do you want to have a conversation about this, teach me some stuff (and possibly some others in the process) or do you want to just toss out circumstances that don’t fit the mold?
Nat Turner was born in what, 1800?
Vastly different time.
And as I said before, the worry about the Panthers was their alliance with Russian agents.
I’m not–by the way–saying that’s true.
So…once more. Want to have a discussion?
Or do you want to be like Louis St. X and just brand me a racist etc because I disagree with you.
I’m open if you wanna. Really.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Did that work for Nat Turner?
Do you want to have a conversation about this, teach me some stuff (and possibly some others in the process) or do you want to just toss out circumstances that don’t fit the mold?
Nat Turner was born in what, 1800?
Vastly different time.[/quote]
If you truly believe that what Nat Turner was put through, being executed and skinned alive for the rebellion along with over 200 other blacks in the state, is far removed from the racism of the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s in America, then there really isn’t much else to say. It has been a gradual progression with most change occuring over the last 30 years. My mother still had to deal with segregated water fountains as a kid.
You act like it is so far removed. That is why it is a waste of time even discussing this with you.
You have claimed, much like in the past, that you are trying to learn…but after all of the talk, the info still has to fight through too much clouded mentality to even make the effort. You aren’t truly willing to learn or else you wouldn’t have even down played what he mentioned about Nat Turner. Your words deceive your actions. People aren’t as stupid as you obviously believe they are. That doesn’t mean you are a racist (and I haven’t been the one throwing that term around throughout this thread like you and friends) but it does mean you are too opposed to what others have dealt with to ever truly understand it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Quite frankly, I’m glad you are not a neighbor of mine that I may have to depend on. These people are providing a valuable, and hopefully temporary service to one another and our country. Lets not assume trouble is where it has not yet been seen.
Sasquatch, if I lived on the border, I’d probably participate myself.
Voicing a concern over possible negative outcomes doesn’t mean one is against it. You read a lot of extra things into what I said based on your own opinion.
Bad things happen all the time, even when you have the best intentions. Pointing out what they might be can even help prevent them.[/quote]
vroom
voicing a concern would not have brought my reaction.
You used the term ‘hunting down illegals’
You said ‘if they are surprisingly ablr to act professional.’
You said that if allgoes well ‘they may make themselves feel good’
You used the term ‘posse’
And then you said (paraphrasing)
If they have the free time to do this they should have the time to write their congressmen
These are not my opinions of your statement. They are, in fact, your statement.
I do agree the situation is ripe for a possible negative incident. To date, none has ocurred. I pray none does. It would take something positive and definately tarnish it beyond repair.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Did that work for Nat Turner?
Do you want to have a conversation about this, teach me some stuff (and possibly some others in the process) or do you want to just toss out circumstances that don’t fit the mold?
Nat Turner was born in what, 1800?
Vastly different time.
If you truly believe that what Nat Turner was put through, being executed and skinned alive for the rebellion along with over 200 other blacks in the state, is far removed from the racism of the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s in America, then there really isn’t much else to say. It has been a gradual progression with most change occuring over the last 30 years. My mother still had to deal with segregated water fountains as a kid.
You act like it is so far removed. That is why it is a waste of time even discussing this with you.
You have claimed, much like in the past, that you are trying to learn…but after all of the talk, the info still has to fight through too much clouded mentality to even make the effort. You aren’t truly willing to learn or else you wouldn’t have even down played what he mentioned about Nat Turner. Your words deceive your actions. People aren’t as stupid as you obviously believe they are. That doesn’t mean you are a racist (and I haven’t been the one throwing that term around throughout this thread like you and friends) but it does mean you are too opposed to what others have dealt with to ever truly understand it.
[/quote]
I love the way you run around passing judgment on folk. It doesn’t matter if they’ve for an honest discussion, or not. You have them pegged because they are white and ingnorant of the black man’s plight.
That is bigotry beyond anything a white man has ever posted on here since I’ve been a member. But you’ll get a pass, not because you have endured anything close to what Turner did, but because it might be believed that you share DNA.
Pitiful - arrogant - Racist.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
This, ‘my friend’ is NOT natural selection.
no, it’s not true natural selection, but as a guy with an Anthropology degree (among others), I’m willing to make the argument that it is a form of selection–and perhaps natural in some way.
If you think about it from the standpoint of a human being having a natural right to self defense…well, I’ll leave the rest to you, maybe you can come up with something.[/quote]
Joe,
Sometimes I have to wonder where you come up with some of your stuff. This is in no way selection of any type, and most certainly has nothing to do with natural selection. Killing someone is just that–not any form of selection.
Self-defense was NOT inferred in his statement. I believe it went something like ‘plugging someone who is an asshole.’
Come on Joe, you can not defend this by using some type of Darwinism theorization.
Your Anthropology degree aside (amongst others) does not suggest this type of correlation.
It would have been a horrific mistake with most horrific consequences.
Natural selection—you’ve got to be kidding me
[quote]These are not my opinions of your statement. They are, in fact, your statement.
I do agree the situation is ripe for a possible negative incident. To date, none has ocurred. I pray none does. It would take something positive and definately tarnish it beyond repair. [/quote]
Heh, we are saying the same thing almost, you realize that right?
Anyway, I know everyone knows wayyyyyyyy more about this stuff than me, so I’ll go mind my own business.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
This, ‘my friend’ is NOT natural selection.
no, it’s not true natural selection, but as a guy with an Anthropology degree (among others), I’m willing to make the argument that it is a form of selection–and perhaps natural in some way.
If you think about it from the standpoint of a human being having a natural right to self defense…well, I’ll leave the rest to you, maybe you can come up with something.
Joe,
Sometimes I have to wonder where you come up with some of your stuff. This is in no way selection of any type, and most certainly has nothing to do with natural selection. Killing someone is just that–not any form of selection.
Self-defense was NOT inferred in his statement. I believe it went something like ‘plugging someone who is an asshole.’
Come on Joe, you can not defend this by using some type of Darwinism theorization.
Your Anthropology degree aside (amongst others) does not suggest this type of correlation.
It would have been a horrific mistake with most horrific consequences.
Natural selection—you’ve got to be kidding me[/quote]
If you remove someone from the breeding population, you have in effect selected away from them.
It’s the principle behind putting trophy fish back, for one thing.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Did that work for Nat Turner?
Do you want to have a conversation about this, teach me some stuff (and possibly some others in the process) or do you want to just toss out circumstances that don’t fit the mold?
Nat Turner was born in what, 1800?
Vastly different time.
If you truly believe that what Nat Turner was put through, being executed and skinned alive for the rebellion along with over 200 other blacks in the state, is far removed from the racism of the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s in America, then there really isn’t much else to say. It has been a gradual progression with most change occuring over the last 30 years. My mother still had to deal with segregated water fountains as a kid.
You act like it is so far removed. That is why it is a waste of time even discussing this with you.
You have claimed, much like in the past, that you are trying to learn…but after all of the talk, the info still has to fight through too much clouded mentality to even make the effort. You aren’t truly willing to learn or else you wouldn’t have even down played what he mentioned about Nat Turner. Your words deceive your actions. People aren’t as stupid as you obviously believe they are. That doesn’t mean you are a racist (and I haven’t been the one throwing that term around throughout this thread like you and friends) but it does mean you are too opposed to what others have dealt with to ever truly understand it.
[/quote]
okay, so how many black people your mother grew up with were skinned alive?
Yeah…she had to sit in the back of the bus and have segregated water fountains. That’s horrible.
But things have come a long way. And, dammit, if people like you could lose the attitude that views everything through a negative prism of racism and bigotry, we’d get a lot further.
I don’t care what fucking color you are.
I admire you because you’ve gone from a skinny ass kid to a pretty damn big man.
I admire you because you survived med school and internship–stuff I’m pretty damn sure I actually couldn’t do.
But what I don’t admire is the way you treat everyone else as if they were worthless unless they agree with you.
Now…I guess if I was black I may very well have a different take on it. I don’t know.
I’ve been the only white face in a place before, it didn’t bother me, but that wasn’t day after day.
However…Professor, you’ve grown up through a time of pretty rapid change for the better. Why can’t you just accept that for what it is without beating everyone over the head with the stupid shit from the past?
[quote]vroom wrote:
These are not my opinions of your statement. They are, in fact, your statement.
I do agree the situation is ripe for a possible negative incident. To date, none has ocurred. I pray none does. It would take something positive and definately tarnish it beyond repair.
Heh, we are saying the same thing almost, you realize that right?
Anyway, I know everyone knows wayyyyyyyy more about this stuff than me, so I’ll go mind my own business.[/quote]
vroom
If you want to pull one statement out of my several post and the say we agree–so be it.
Most any situation like this could result in a negative, but that was not the true feeling of your previous statement.
That being said
Let’s let it go–nothing more to be gained here
Did you pull those 4 wheels yet?
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
This, ‘my friend’ is NOT natural selection.
no, it’s not true natural selection, but as a guy with an Anthropology degree (among others), I’m willing to make the argument that it is a form of selection–and perhaps natural in some way.
If you think about it from the standpoint of a human being having a natural right to self defense…well, I’ll leave the rest to you, maybe you can come up with something.
Joe,
Sometimes I have to wonder where you come up with some of your stuff. This is in no way selection of any type, and most certainly has nothing to do with natural selection. Killing someone is just that–not any form of selection.
Self-defense was NOT inferred in his statement. I believe it went something like ‘plugging someone who is an asshole.’
Come on Joe, you can not defend this by using some type of Darwinism theorization.
Your Anthropology degree aside (amongst others) does not suggest this type of correlation.
It would have been a horrific mistake with most horrific consequences.
Natural selection—you’ve got to be kidding me
If you remove someone from the breeding population, you have in effect selected away from them.
It’s the principle behind putting trophy fish back, for one thing.[/quote]
This is not in any way, shape, or form the definition of natural selection.
I don’t disagree with you on the minutemen and their purpose, but please, don’t try to convince me or anyone else that this would be, in effect, any type of selection.
You can not condone these possible actions by saying only the dumbest, slowest, weakest would have been affected.
Enough said–I believe we should agree to disagree here.
I’m looking at it from where it could go, and describing it, which sounds really negative… but I’m not saying that we are actually there. So, I see us closer on this issue than you do.
Anyway, on a more important note, nope, no four wheels yet, hopefully within the next couple weeks…
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
This is not in any way, shape, or form the definition of natural selection.
I don’t disagree with you on the minutemen and their purpose, but please, don’t try to convince me or anyone else that this would be, in effect, any type of selection.
You can not condone these possible actions by saying only the dumbest, slowest, weakest would have been affected.
Enough said–I believe we should agree to disagree here.
[/quote]
From Wilkpedia:
. After a century of obscure and vague preliminary formulations, it was proposed as the main mechanism of evolution by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858. Natural selection can be subdivided into two types; ecological selection, and sexual selection. Natural selection is distinguished from artificial selection by humans. Other mechanisms of evolution include genetic drift and gene flow. Mutations create the genetic variation on which natural selection acts.
It is important to note that the term “natural selection” is often used in the inaccurate yet fairly harmless metaphorical sense as having causal status. To be precise, natural selection is not truly a “mechanism” in itself, as opposed to something like gravity. Instead, natural selection is the result of genetic and environmental forces acting upon an organism.
Now…what I said had nothing to do with the topic. We were off on another tangent. I was trying to say that if, back when, the idiot assholes in the white sheets had come for a black guy and had been met with force–which “selected” a few of them, and their hatred and stupidity was removed from the gene pool, this might have been a good thing.
This fits within the definition of selection.
Try again.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
This is not in any way, shape, or form the definition of natural selection.
I don’t disagree with you on the minutemen and their purpose, but please, don’t try to convince me or anyone else that this would be, in effect, any type of selection.
You can not condone these possible actions by saying only the dumbest, slowest, weakest would have been affected.
Enough said–I believe we should agree to disagree here.
From Wilkpedia:
. After a century of obscure and vague preliminary formulations, it was proposed as the main mechanism of evolution by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858. Natural selection can be subdivided into two types; ecological selection, and sexual selection. Natural selection is distinguished from artificial selection by humans. Other mechanisms of evolution include genetic drift and gene flow. Mutations create the genetic variation on which natural selection acts.
It is important to note that the term “natural selection” is often used in the inaccurate yet fairly harmless metaphorical sense as having causal status. To be precise, natural selection is not truly a “mechanism” in itself, as opposed to something like gravity. Instead, natural selection is the result of genetic and environmental forces acting upon an organism.
Now…what I said had nothing to do with the topic. We were off on another tangent. I was trying to say that if, back when, the idiot assholes in the white sheets had come for a black guy and had been met with force–which “selected” a few of them, and their hatred and stupidity was removed from the gene pool, this might have been a good thing.
This fits within the definition of selection.
Try again.[/quote]
That sounds a lot like astrology Joe. You can make it fit whatever circumstance you want.
I know your act to well by now.
I’ve not seen you recant once on any post so I don’t expect to be the first where you say
“well I suppose I may have mispoke”
You won’t convince me, I won’t convince you. In the grand scheme it is not worth wasting the time to
‘try again.’
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
This is not in any way, shape, or form the definition of natural selection.
I don’t disagree with you on the minutemen and their purpose, but please, don’t try to convince me or anyone else that this would be, in effect, any type of selection.
You can not condone these possible actions by saying only the dumbest, slowest, weakest would have been affected.
Enough said–I believe we should agree to disagree here.
From Wilkpedia:
. After a century of obscure and vague preliminary formulations, it was proposed as the main mechanism of evolution by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858. Natural selection can be subdivided into two types; ecological selection, and sexual selection. Natural selection is distinguished from artificial selection by humans. Other mechanisms of evolution include genetic drift and gene flow. Mutations create the genetic variation on which natural selection acts.
It is important to note that the term “natural selection” is often used in the inaccurate yet fairly harmless metaphorical sense as having causal status. To be precise, natural selection is not truly a “mechanism” in itself, as opposed to something like gravity. Instead, natural selection is the result of genetic and environmental forces acting upon an organism.
Now…what I said had nothing to do with the topic. We were off on another tangent. I was trying to say that if, back when, the idiot assholes in the white sheets had come for a black guy and had been met with force–which “selected” a few of them, and their hatred and stupidity was removed from the gene pool, this might have been a good thing.
This fits within the definition of selection.
Try again.[/quote]
And what you still don’t get is that it wasn’t that simple. If black people in general had reacted to lynchings by shooting or killing those “assholes” there is a very real likely hood that blacks in general would have been wiped out or severly decimated in the south.
If shooting the assholes would have stopped the lynchings, then I can understand your statement about natural selection, but if you have any idea of what was going on back then you would know that shooting them would have caused more problems. Think of the Klan like terrorists, if you kill one, even if it is justified, they will use that act to recruit even more poor or disadvantaged people.
Natural selection would have been the black people in America being wiped out because they had no power to effectively defend themselves.
As for the racist comment, I still don’t think you are a racist. I just think that you may not have a clear understanding of what black people in America experienced 60 or 50 years ago and what that environment was like.
Additionally, to be more on topic, I am not against the MinuteMen. I think as long as they are not breaking any laws or intimidating anyone they can report on illegals all they want. Am I wary of what they “might” do if the the wrong situation presents itself?
Yes.
However, I figure if one illegal is abused by them, it will be all over the national media services since they would love that story.
Back off topic:
As for the blacks have it better now theme: Yes we have it much better then 200 years ago or 40. Is it perfect now? No. Do I expect it to be perfect? No. The difference now is that in those situations were I think my skin color is being used against me, I can stand up for myself without having to worry about getting lynched.
When you say that our parents weren’t skinned alive and only had to use different water or sit in the back of the bus, to me it’s like telling a rape victim: Well at least he didn’t kill you.
JW if you don’t mind my asking, where did you grow up and how old are you?
Thank you BookerT.
Finally, a black guy that is willing to have an honest conversation about this issue without the preaching/condescending attitude.
I think you should start a new thread for this discussion. I would be a more than willing listener (which means I would keep my big mouth shut).
I’m not affraid to admit my ignorance to the race problems wrt black v. white. I must admit, however, that sometimes your message gets lost because of the anger/resentment that is ever present on bith sides.
Once again, thanks for your honest attempt to school those of us who want to understand.