[quote]conservativedog wrote:
No but I’ve had my back door kicked in at midnight by someone with a record 4 pages in length.
[/quote]
I think career criminals have a very unique problem.
The more impressive their resumee, the less succesful they were.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
I wrote the post, my good friend Beans is arguing against it. I think that’s right.
Also if anyone has tried to private message me, my messaging is not working. Happy lifting.
[quote] Excellent post, Beans.
It is taken as a given in many liberal circles that Republicans are ipso facto racists. This piece, published yesterday, articulates that viewpoint with abandon:
It it complete bullshit and predicated on the faulty, idiotic logic that, because the former Confederacy is now a Republican stalwart, Republicanism must be synonymous with racism.
Every day I see smart conservatives demolish this stereotype, and your post here is a perfect example.[/quote]
[/quote]
I’m not trying to insult you here, but I have to ask: you seem to be saying that blacks are genetically predisposed to violence, iniquity, and laziness. This is the only conclusion I can draw from your assertion that “this [crime] has nothing to do with the tough environment in which they are born into.” (As a side note, there is an Everest-sized mountain of research which says exactly the opposite).
You also seem to be implying that this genetic predisposition is either absent or far weaker in people of other races, namely whites.
Which carries the further implication that blacks are genetically inferior to whites.
Which is pretty much the textbook definition of actual, overt racism.
Correct me if I’m wrong at any point here.[/quote]
I might be seriously mistaken here but I don’t think that’s what he is arguing, I think he just really wrote it poorly. Witness a few statements in his past posts talking about the different negative change from MLK Jr and the civil rights movement to today’s “thug” culture (“change” being that MLK’s days were civilized protest and an emphasis on achieving equality and greatness through hard work–where now he views the culture as being entitled and lazy, if I am reading him correctly). A real racist would have said something more along the lines of “see, we shouldn’t have given them equal rights, look what they are doing with it”.
In addition there was a sentence in one of his last posts that said something like “The KKK in all their imagination could never have done as much to destry the african-american community as they themselves have managed to do”. To imply recent self-destruction is to imply that there was something of internal and integral value to be destroyed at some point in the past–also something I don’t think an actual racist would agree with (because a racist as you said views a race of people as genetically inferior).
I dunno, but I seem to read a guy taking a hard line “personal responsibility” argument while ignoring environmental factors leading to widespread crime rather than a racist.
I could be completely wrong. I think time will tell.
[/quote]
You could be right, I haven’t read through his other posts in this thread so I don’t have the basis (or the desire) to accuse him or anybody else around here of racism.
That said, the section I quoted came across as an articulation of a deeply racist belief, and I am genuinely curious if Conservativedog agrees with me or if I have misread him.
If the logical steps I provided turn out to be an accurate representation of his beliefs–blacks commit a disproportionately large chunk of domestic crimes, environment and circumstance do not explain this fact, therefor blacks have inborn criminal tendencies, therefor blacks are genetically inferior to whites–then he is, by his own admission, a white supremacist.
Again, I could be (and hope that I am) entirely wrong.[/quote]
Nope, I’m tracking with you. I hope you’re wrong too, because if not I just defended something terribly wrong lol.
Two of my favorite heroes as a kid… Leslie Uggams and Bruce Lee. Also I explained myself already.
I don’t want to be insulting but what federal statutes did our Congress enact that makes the ENVIRONMENT an alibi/excuse for committing crimes?? Stop living in the past. I don’t know what color the sky is in your world, but when you can post hundreds of CURRENT stories of whites living in a clean suburban environment and attacking blacks I’ll listen to you.
Until then you can cry little unicorn tears about racism but the only racism I see is coming from liberal blacks and their so called “civil rights leaders.” I get along fine with ALL , but don’t walk up behind me in a dark parking lot and ask me what time it is and then call me a racist when I put you on the ground.
I don’t fall for that , nor the pseudo intellectual pretend talk about how everything is just fine in ALL the major cities like Detroit, Oakland, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Baltimore, New Orleans, Los Angeles etc…
Also I was not the T-Nation member that brought up this school teacher’s race. Her bullying the little white girl about wearing a Romney shirt to school was the thread before it was hijacked. I suggest we get back to looking out for her right to free speech instead of gibberish about the “ENVIRONMENT” excusing behavior.
My definition of a racist is anyone winning an argument with a liberal. Happy lifting TO ALL.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[/quote]
That’s funny how one group can attempt to dehumanize another with such a convoluted paragraph. How would it turn out if you labeled me a “white supremacist” then learned I have brown skin?
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That said, the section I quoted came across as an articulation of a deeply racist belief, and I am genuinely curious if Conservativedog agrees with me or if I have misread him.
If the logical steps I provided turn out to be an accurate representation of his beliefs–blacks commit a disproportionately large chunk of domestic crimes, environment and circumstance do not explain this fact, therefor blacks have inborn criminal tendencies, therefor blacks are genetically inferior to whites–then he is, by his own admission, a white supremacist.
Again, I could be (and hope that I am) entirely wrong.
Nope, I’m tracking with you. I hope you’re wrong too, because if not I just defended something terribly wrong lol.
[/quote]
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
Two of my favorite heroes as a kid… Leslie Uggams and Bruce Lee. Also I explained myself already.
I don’t want to be insulting but what federal statutes did our Congress enact that makes the ENVIRONMENT an alibi/excuse for committing crimes?? Stop living in the past. I don’t know what color the sky is in your world, but when you can post hundreds of CURRENT stories of whites living in a clean suburban environment and attacking blacks I’ll listen to you.
Until then you can cry little unicorn tears about racism but the only racism I see is coming from liberal blacks and their so called “civil rights leaders.” I get along fine with ALL , but don’t walk up behind me in a dark parking lot and ask me what time it is and then call me a racist when I put you on the ground.
I don’t fall for that , nor the pseudo intellectual pretend talk about like Detroit, Oakland, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Baltimore, New Orleans, Los Angeles etc…
Also I was not the T-Nation member that brought up this school teacher’s race. Her bullying the little white girl about wearing a Romney shirt to school was the thread before it was hijacked. I suggest we get back to looking out for her right to free speech instead of gibberish about the “ENVIRONMENT” excusing behavior.
My definition of a racist is anyone winning an argument with a liberal. Happy lifting TO ALL.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[/quote]
[/quote]
I don’t know what you’re trying to say here exactly. But no one has ever claimed that Congress enacted a federal statute declaring environment an excuse or alibi for crime. Also I’ve never heard any of this “pseudo-intellectual pretend talk about how everything is just fine in ALL the major cities.”
Regarding your line about “what if my skin was brown,” the color of one’s skin doesn’t make them a racist, their beliefs do.
And I’ll reiterate that if you think blacks commit more crime than whites because of the color of their skin, you are a white supremacist. That is, you believe white people to be inherently more moral or less predisposed to commit crime.
If that’s what you believe, you may as well say so.
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
I don’t want to be insulting but what federal statutes did our Congress enact that makes the ENVIRONMENT an alibi/excuse for committing crimes?? [/quote]
I feel like you are confusing my stance here. You are arguing that the immoral and repulsive behavior is attributed to race. I am simply arguing that the race of these people is irrelevant.
Awful behavior is awful, it doesn’t matter who performs it. You seem to think these particular black people are acting the way they are because they are black. I am simply saying they are acting how any human of any race would act given the circumstances. And yes, for the third time, the black people in these environments that breed this behavior share blame for the community and environment they live in.
I am not excusing any behavior, if anyone is excusing it the media and politicians that go out of their way to say how much they care about these people. The media excuses the behavior by ignoring it, and politicians either continue policies that have proved not to work or pass those that weren’t intended to work in the first place. why change the landscape when you are guaranteeing yourself 10% of the vote without even trying anymore?
Being ignorant of history is just that, ignorant.
I’m starting to believe you aren’t going to listen to anything but your own narrative irrelevant of “stories”.
While you are dead-on that there is a good deal of racist people in the groups you list here (assuming you mean contemporary leaders like obama’s pastor etc), if you don’t think there are white, asian, you name it racists you are truly deluded to reality.
Not trying to be disrespectful, but… Give me a fucking break here.
Rational people won’t call you a racist for defending yourself. The liberal media will call you a racist for eating a peanut butter sandwich.
Not sure I’ve seen any rational person that actually speaks the words you insinuate here.
No, you didn’t bring up race first. But you are being intellectually dishonest and you know it. Very liberal media of you to try and put words in my mouth.
I never once excused behavior, but rather went out of my way to try and explain that skin color has zero to do with the situation.
My definition of a racist is someone that judges people based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
edit: changed a crucial are to aren’t
edit2: I was good the first time
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
That’s funny how one group can attempt to dehumanize another with such a convoluted paragraph. How would it turn out if you labeled me a “white supremacist” then learned I have brown skin?
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That said, the section I quoted came across as an articulation of a deeply racist belief, and I am genuinely curious if Conservativedog agrees with me or if I have misread him.
If the logical steps I provided turn out to be an accurate representation of his beliefs–blacks commit a disproportionately large chunk of domestic crimes, environment and circumstance do not explain this fact, therefor blacks have inborn criminal tendencies, therefor blacks are genetically inferior to whites–then he is, by his own admission, a white supremacist.
Again, I could be (and hope that I am) entirely wrong.
Nope, I’m tracking with you. I hope you’re wrong too, because if not I just defended something terribly wrong lol.
[/quote]
[/quote]
You just misquoted me–almost the entirety of “my” quote is actually smh23’s words.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
Two of my favorite heroes as a kid… Leslie Uggams and Bruce Lee. Also I explained myself already.
I don’t want to be insulting but what federal statutes did our Congress enact that makes the ENVIRONMENT an alibi/excuse for committing crimes?? Stop living in the past. I don’t know what color the sky is in your world, but when you can post hundreds of CURRENT stories of whites living in a clean suburban environment and attacking blacks I’ll listen to you.
Until then you can cry little unicorn tears about racism but the only racism I see is coming from liberal blacks and their so called “civil rights leaders.” I get along fine with ALL , but don’t walk up behind me in a dark parking lot and ask me what time it is and then call me a racist when I put you on the ground.
I don’t fall for that , nor the pseudo intellectual pretend talk about like Detroit, Oakland, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Baltimore, New Orleans, Los Angeles etc…
Also I was not the T-Nation member that brought up this school teacher’s race. Her bullying the little white girl about wearing a Romney shirt to school was the thread before it was hijacked. I suggest we get back to looking out for her right to free speech instead of gibberish about the “ENVIRONMENT” excusing behavior.
My definition of a racist is anyone winning an argument with a liberal. Happy lifting TO ALL.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[/quote]
[/quote]
I don’t know what you’re trying to say here exactly. But no one has ever claimed that Congress enacted a federal statute declaring environment an excuse or alibi for crime. Also I’ve never heard any of this “pseudo-intellectual pretend talk about how everything is just fine in ALL the major cities.”
Regarding your line about “what if my skin was brown,” the color of one’s skin doesn’t make them a racist, their beliefs do.
And I’ll reiterate that if you think blacks commit more crime than whites because of the color of their skin, you are a white supremacist. That is, you believe white people to be inherently more moral or less predisposed to commit crime.
If that’s what you believe, you may as well say so.[/quote]
Leave me alone you are brainwashed to the nth degree. I’m putting you on ignore so go tivo your hour of socialism with Rachel Maddow and Al Sharpton.
Alrighty then.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Alrighty then.[/quote]
He can’t see your response… You’re on “ignore!”
But now that I’ve quoted it, he can, I guess. Ha ha.[/quote]
lol, I don’t think I’ve been on ignore before. Exciting.
[quote]smh23 wrote:You also seem to be implying that this genetic predisposition is either absent or far weaker in people of other races, namely whites.
Which carries the further implication that blacks are genetically inferior to whites.
Which is pretty much the textbook definition of actual, overt racism.
Correct me if I’m wrong at any point here.[/quote]
You have completely ignored everything I’ve written and continue with your push to label what you disagree with as racism. McCarthyism, which dominated Washington from the late 1940s to the late 1950s, was the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason with no regard for evidence.
McCarthyism was characterized by fallaciously overhyped fears of communist influence on American institutions and was originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of Joseph McCarthy.
You are attempting this with the word racism. You completely ignore the hundreds of flash mob planned crimes and US cities paralyzed by violent black crime by saying it doesn’t matter what color their skin is. (google flash mob crime and tell us how many whites are a part of that then google white on black crime and be a friend to law enforcement rather than an apologist)
I would have fully supported a Condoleezza Rice presidency. Condoleezza Rice - Wikipedia
I am a fan of Walter E. Williams Walter E. Williams - Wikipedia
I am embarrassed to be from the same country as Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and Jessie Jackson and run by a president that apologizes to countries that hate us and have become our enemy.
You will see in 2013 that the unemployment rate is much worse than what the liberal media reports it to be while Obama is still in office and that we are heading into another depression.
By the way how exactly does diversity fit into the great civilizations of world history? How does diversity increase ones intelligence especially in light of the fact that multiculturalism & in particular busing school students has done nothing to increase jobs, erase poverty here or anywhere else in the world. Just another “IMAGINE” illusion that has helped to run our country into TRILLIONS of $$$ in debt.
Get a clue and stop parroting failed liberal mantra. The End.
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:You also seem to be implying that this genetic predisposition is either absent or far weaker in people of other races, namely whites.
Which carries the further implication that blacks are genetically inferior to whites.
Which is pretty much the textbook definition of actual, overt racism.
Correct me if I’m wrong at any point here.[/quote]
You have completely ignored everything I’ve written and continue with your push to label what you disagree with as racism. McCarthyism, which dominated Washington from the late 1940s to the late 1950s, was the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason with no regard for evidence.
McCarthyism was characterized by fallaciously overhyped fears of communist influence on American institutions and was originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of Joseph McCarthy.
You are attempting this with the word racism. You completely ignore the hundreds of flash mob planned crimes and US cities paralyzed by violent black crime by saying it doesn’t matter what color their skin is. (google flash mob crime and tell us how many whites are a part of that then google white on black crime and be a friend to law enforcement rather than an apologist)
I would have fully supported a Condoleezza Rice presidency. Condoleezza Rice - Wikipedia
I am a fan of Walter E. Williams Walter E. Williams - Wikipedia
I am embarrassed to be from the same country as Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and Jessie Jackson and run by a president that apologizes to countries that hate us and have become our enemy.
You will see in 2013 that the unemployment rate is much worse than what the liberal media reports it to be while Obama is still in office and that we are heading into another depression.
By the way how exactly does diversity fit into the great civilizations of world history? How does diversity increase ones intelligence especially in light of the fact that multiculturalism & in particular busing school students has done nothing to increase jobs, erase poverty here or anywhere else in the world. Just another “IMAGINE” illusion that has helped to run our country into TRILLIONS of $$$ in debt.
Get a clue and stop parroting failed liberal mantra. The End.
[/quote]
Somewhere in this rambling clusterfuck I’ve somehow managed to discern a couple of your key points: you feel affronted, you don’t believe you’re racist, you do have a problem with black criminals (as if anyone thinks crime is just fantastic).
If you feel so uncomfortable about this conversation then feel free to stop engaging in it.
If not, then I’ll tell you that I’m by this point really, actually curious to know what your answer is to the following question (which I’ve posed a number of times and which you haven’t even attempted to answer): do you believe that the state of black America can be explained genetically? Put differently: do you believe that the salient (or a primary) reason why black people commit a relatively large chunk of the violent crime in America, and why white people commit a relatively small chunk of that crime, has to do with skin color?
This is not an unreasonable question to ask, I’m curious because of what you said about dismissing environment and circumstance. And it’s not an assault–it’s a just a question. I believe that, as a member of a bodybuilding website, you will be able to handle it just fine.
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
McCarthyism, which dominated Washington from the late 1940s to the late 1950s, was the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason with no regard for evidence.
McCarthyism was characterized by fallaciously overhyped fears of communist influence on American institutions and was originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of Joseph McCarthy.
[/quote]
Buckley would disagree with you on that one:
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
Let me add:
He who controls the media controls the minds of the public… Noam Chomsky
[/quote]
Chomsky?
Reading through this has really made me ponder on a point that has come to mind and I would really like people’s thoughts on it.
Are we so certain of the term “racist” meaning “belief in genetic superiority” and if so, is it a correct, or useful definition?
I have always taken the term “racist” to mean something a little different. I’m not sure that I can articulate it all that well but my understanding of the term, and what I think is a more appropriate definition is something like this: racism is the propensity to unfairly categorizes and stereotype INDIVIDUALS without giving appropriate opportunity for them to demonstrate otherwise.
I bring this up because I have a hard time seeing how any statement of FACT could be “racist”.
For example. There are indisputable genetic differences between races when it comes to vulnerability to certain diseases ( heart disease, lactose intolerance, etc). Is it “racist” to then say that race X is superior to race Y concerning disease Z ?? If we use the definition that has been given in this thread then that would in fact be the case, but I doubt that anyone would agree that the above statement constitutes “racism”. You probably see where this is going…
Now, if you agree that the above statement is in fact not “racist”, and if hypothetically in the future we were able to show that certain races had a GENETIC predisposition towards certain character traits ( intelligence, benevolence, violence, etc ) would it still be racist to say that race X was superior over race Y concerning trait Z ???
This is why I like my definition.
“The teacher told high schooler Samantha Pawlucy to ?get out of this class? and pointed to the door when she entered the room, then tried to mark the shirt with a red marker.”
First, that’s just rude. No teacher should deny a child admission to a math class based on one’s shirt of choice - political or not. The shirt had two simple names on it, candidates for president - I guess Obama gets a “Come on in Darling! Now let me mark your shirt with a yellow marker and draw a happy face.”???
Obama lovers deserve to wear their shirts as well as Romney lovers - have at it, I don’t care.
Second, any mutherf*cker who tries to touch my daughter with a red marker on her “shirt” would get more than an earful. I’d fucking break that teacher’s face in. Never know what they’re really want to touch…
Plain, simple, and politically unbiased. End of story.
Perhaps an inflammatory point to continue:
In terms of IQ testing they consistently find the following:
Asian>Caucasian>Black
We can argue all day about IQ testing and its validity, and I agree with many of the objections. But, given the 40+ years of testing, the many attempts to make culture neutral test, and the political will to find otherwise, you would think, if there weren’t in fact genetic differences, that they would have been able to find it as so. And even if the above turns out to be untrue, which it very well could, the point still stands that recognizing genetic differences isn’t inherently racist, but that the misuse of that understanding is racist.
In other words, what I think “racism” is, is failing to recognize that these traits are normally distributed, that is they form a bell curve; there are plenty of Blacks smarter than Asians, Asians dumber than Caucasians, etc. Racism is not treating people as INDIVIDUALS.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
Let me add:
He who controls the media controls the minds of the public… Noam Chomsky
[/quote]
Chomsky?[/quote]
The irony there was delicious.
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
Reading through this has really made me ponder on a point that has come to mind and I would really like people’s thoughts on it.
Are we so certain of the term “racist” meaning “belief in genetic superiority” and if so, is it a correct, or useful definition?
I have always taken the term “racist” to mean something a little different. I’m not sure that I can articulate it all that well but my understanding of the term, and what I think is a more appropriate definition is something like this: racism is the propensity to unfairly categorizes and stereotype INDIVIDUALS without giving appropriate opportunity for them to demonstrate otherwise.
I bring this up because I have a hard time seeing how any statement of FACT could be “racist”.
For example. There are indisputable genetic differences between races when it comes to vulnerability to certain diseases ( heart disease, lactose intolerance, etc). Is it “racist” to then say that race X is superior to race Y concerning disease Z ?? If we use the definition that has been given in this thread then that would in fact be the case, but I doubt that anyone would agree that the above statement constitutes “racism”. You probably see where this is going…
Now, if you agree that the above statement is in fact not “racist”, and if hypothetically in the future we were able to show that certain races had a GENETIC predisposition towards certain character traits ( intelligence, benevolence, violence, etc ) would it still be racist to say that race X was superior over race Y concerning trait Z ???
This is why I like my definition.
[/quote]
You bring up an interesting point and I get what you’re saying. It was for this reason that I was trying to use the term “white supremacist” rather than “racist.”
Still, there is a huge difference between susceptibility to sickle-cell anemia and moral inferiority. To my knowledge, no genetic predisposition to violence has ever been established by objective science, so to choose to believe in one (note that I said believe, not posit the existence of) is, yes, racist.
In any case, to dismiss the veritable mountains of research which establish clear and obvious links between criminality and environment is to be at best uninformed. Is it racist? Well, call it what you’d like, but I believe it qualifies.
Furthermore, this is not a conservative or liberal issue. Nowhere are excuses being made, and nowhere is an argument being made for amnesty or clemency or forgiveness. Every mildly-informed middle-school graduate understands that there is a reason why rich people with stable families become lawyers and poor people raised by single crack-addicted mothers in rat-infested ghettos end up in jail. And it isn’t about melanin.