Thoughts on Collective Guilt

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
Sloth wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Collective guilt is a sure loser. Placing collective guilt onto an entire people, through laws, will do nothing but breed collective resentment. And maybe that resentment leads to backlash and revolt. It’s that simple.

This is what, in basic critical thinking classes, they call the “slippery slope” fallacy. Another fallacy this might commit would be called “begging the question”. If we’re counting, this might also qualify as “appeal to fear”.

Note to the attentive: in critical thinking classes, the examples given generally only exhibit one fallacy and are clear. In real life examples of fallacious reasoning, often many subtle fallacies are committed that are harder to spot. It’s that simple.

Cute. However, life isn’t a classroom. You start pushing the notion of collective guilt on people, and you get resentment. You start enacting policies to correct the object of said collective guilt, you get much more resentment. You don’t correct wrongs by accusing and punishing the innocent. And the inncoent will only tolerate so much finger pointing, and so much punishment, for the wrongs of another.

The welfare state and affirmative are good examples. Somebody has more. Or, somebody achieved more due to the color of their skin. Both attempt to make things more equitable. And, are sold to the people wrapped up in the rhetoric of collective guilt. However, you confiscate from the person who has more (punishment). Or, in AA’s case, overlook a more qualified white or asian applicant (who might even be poorer) for a black applicant. Either one is a subject often debated passionately. Resentment.

This notion of collective guilt has already gone too far. Much too far. Keep pushing individuals who are otherwise following the law, taking care of their families, and respecting the liberties of others, and you will get backlash. Not everything in life fits on a chalkboard or a slide presentation.

There is no “real life” reasoning verse “class room” reasoning. the same logic applies to both the real world and to the class room. if you don’t believe me, just look at the computer sitting next to you… it’s proof of this. (its just that in real arguments about social facts, the premises are a bit more complicated then the logic of circuits. Nevertheless, as it is logic, the general forms of arguments still hold).

You missed my point, because you just merely provided yet another long fallacious argument to show how your last one wasn’t fallacious.

[/quote]

Everyone who posts on an internet forum would then, by your criteria, be guilty of some fallacy.

Logic, as it pertains to if-then statements is absolute in computers. Humans - not so much. Emotions and perspective have a far greater influence on one’s “logic” than you, or your teacher want to admit.

“Classes” mean dick. Oh, it’s not too difficult to sit behind the keyboard with the critical thinking textbook, and list all the fallacies found in a discussion board thread - but if that’s all you are doing, then what’s the point of contributing?

162

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Au Contraire…I say these things and write them. I would happily say to any black person who asked for my input: “Black people have 70 or 80% kids born out of wedlock, less than 50% of black people nationwide choose to even finish high school, many young black men dress like wild animals…and yet it’s whitey’s fault for lousy conditions in the black community. What an absolute crock of horse-fucking-shit! Yeah…we’re all racists…yeah…”

Big_Boss wrote:

Yeah right…thats the very least of the things you’ve posted. Now according to you many young black men dress like WILD ANIMALS…I would love to HEAR you say that. Along with your constant babbling about how black people name their kids. You’re sitting all high and mighty looking down on us…only because you’re sitting high on a pile of shit.

HH, I don’t know whether it’s advertent, but you sound like a racist.

I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on your absolutely ridiculous conspiracy crap. And I don’t believe racism is the cause of the large majority of problems that are experienced by poor blacks. But how do you think you can describe people as wild animals given the history here - particularly when even if there were no history it doesn’t make any sense. Wild animals don’t even get dressed. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I cannot fathom how you could have come up with that phraseology without some generalized idea about people behaving like animals - whether it’s the young, or blacks, or both, it’s wrong.[/quote]

Agreed.

163

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Yeah right…thats the very least of the things you’ve posted. Now according to you many young black men dress like WILD ANIMALS…I would love to HEAR you say that. Along with your constant babbling about how black people name their kids. You’re sitting all high and mighty looking down on us…only because you’re sitting high on a pile of shit. You have a reputation as a troll for a reason.

Also,to add…I don’t share this perceived agreement that white people are at fault for anything in the black community…and I don’t agree with collective guilt either.[/quote]

I have said exactly the things mentioned and to black people. Granted, the black people I associate with are highly educated (one is a colleague of my wife, who teaches at a university) and they agree: To be black in America means that you have to overcome all these negative statistics and images about black people whites see in the media.

Here’s a clue: get a degree (Masters or higher preferably), marry the mother of your children, go to a REAL church (unlike Obama), don’t give your children bizarre names, and don’t dress like a former convict with his pants below his ass…and you’ll encounter very little prejudice. You’ll get a good job and have a nice home. How fucking hard is that???

164

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Au Contraire…I say these things and write them. I would happily say to any black person who asked for my input: “Black people have 70 or 80% kids born out of wedlock, less than 50% of black people nationwide choose to even finish high school, many young black men dress like wild animals…and yet it’s whitey’s fault for lousy conditions in the black community. What an absolute crock of horse-fucking-shit! Yeah…we’re all racists…yeah…”

Big_Boss wrote:

Yeah right…thats the very least of the things you’ve posted. Now according to you many young black men dress like WILD ANIMALS…I would love to HEAR you say that. Along with your constant babbling about how black people name their kids. You’re sitting all high and mighty looking down on us…only because you’re sitting high on a pile of shit.

HH, I don’t know whether it’s advertent, but you sound like a racist.

I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on your absolutely ridiculous conspiracy crap. And I don’t believe racism is the cause of the large majority of problems that are experienced by poor blacks. But how do you think you can describe people as wild animals given the history here - particularly when even if there were no history it doesn’t make any sense. Wild animals don’t even get dressed. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I cannot fathom how you could have come up with that phraseology without some generalized idea about people behaving like animals - whether it’s the young, or blacks, or both, it’s wrong.

Agreed.[/quote]

When I see a group of young black males ‘trippin’ through the mall, with scruffy beards, hair every which way, ragged shirts, and their pants belted below their asses instead of around their waists, they look like wild animals to me. Don’t be shocked if most whites see that and don’t be shocked when no one will hire said creatures in their businesses.

How about a haircut, a shave, and an education? “Nah, keeps me from hangin’ with my broz.” Jeeeezzzzzzzzzzz…

165

[quote]

Sloth wrote:
Collective guilt is a sure loser. Placing collective guilt onto an entire people, through laws, will do nothing but breed collective resentment. And maybe that resentment leads to backlash and revolt. It’s that simple.

stokedporcupine wrote:
This is what, in basic critical thinking classes, they call the “slippery slope” fallacy. Another fallacy this might commit would be called “begging the question”. If we’re counting, this might also qualify as “appeal to fear”.

Note to the attentive: in critical thinking classes, the examples given generally only exhibit one fallacy and are clear. In real life examples of fallacious reasoning, often many subtle fallacies are committed that are harder to spot. It’s that simple.

BostonBarrister wrote:
Yes, though in real life we know that “logical fallacy” means that something isn’t proved, not that it’s necessarily wrong. Some fallacies are less likely to be wrong than are others - there’s a nasty tendency for things to fall down the slippery slope, particularly when you’re making a legal rule (or dealing with something else dependent on chain of reasoning): BEYOND THE SLIPPERY SLOPE

stokedporcupine wrote:
“logical fallacy” means thats something is a fallacious argument. I.e., it means that the argument proves no good reasons to believe the consequence. Thus, the fact that the argument is fallacious obviously doesn’t imply that the thing to be argued for is wrong. It merely means that even if the thing being argued for is correct, the argument proves no reason to think so. [/quote]

Thanks for taking three sentences to re-state what I said in one. Are you an academic? Or maybe a lawyer? We tend to be overly wordy as a group…

I can summarize the main point of the long article I linked too: When you’re dealing with dependent variables, in which the occurrence of each makes the subsequent variable more likely, dismissing “slippery slope” arguments out of hand is itself problematic.

166

There went the benefit of the doubt. Please stop posting on this - your expression is going to discredit your points.

167

[quote]

Big_Boss wrote:
…
Also,since he chooses to focus on those stats for black people…BB,what are those figures like when you add the percentage of white people and our country as a whole? I wonder if its something to be proud of.

BostonBarrister wrote:
They’re not good:

http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=23

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23048/pub_detail.asp

Professor X wrote:
Why is it that data such as :
The crisis in the white family has attracted curiously little attention from commentators and policymakers. Yet by many of the criteria of the Moynihan report, today’s white American family looks to be at least as troubled as the black family of the early 1960s.

…is never focused upon in majority? Every idiot has logged in over the past few weeks to inform us of every negative stat related to blacks that they can find while the houses of whites are burning down as well.

Don’t you at least find that odd? Whites make up the majority, but the problems are not described as a national problem with the AMERICAN FAMILY, but a problem with black families?

Is this like how you haven’t noticed missing white girls get more media coverage?

Big_Boss wrote:
Amazing isn’t it??[/quote]

It’s because each thing you’ve mentioned is more properly understood as a class problem rather than a race problem. Low graduation, out-of-wedlock births - even your missing girls issue, from the British study in the Wiki link you posted - are issues that overwhelmingly affect the poor, as opposed to a race. Framing them as a race issue is distracting from the real problems - like a lot of other problems.

I think a lot of social commentators who frame them as race issues - such as Thomas Sowell - do so to focus attention on the cultural value issues that cause some of the problems (low graduation rates, out-of-wedlock births, etc.). But the same cultural values that cause the problems go across racial groups, and lead to the same overall end problem: poverty.

168

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
…
Also,since he chooses to focus on those stats for black people…BB,what are those figures like when you add the percentage of white people and our country as a whole? I wonder if its something to be proud of.

They’re not good:

http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=23

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23048/pub_detail.asp

[/quote]

I don’t follow how this relates to the discussion. The rot caused by a mixed economy social welfare state is bound to effect everyone sooner or later.

As I’ve said before, I don’t judge others by race, but by achievement. Since black people as a group are more likely to not be achievers or to have some sort of issues, I wait for anyone who interacts with me to prove otherwise. To do otherwise would be to ignore facts. That’s not racism. To be racist means you exclude someone without regard for other facts.

80% of white teens graduate from high school. Less than 50% of black people do. Show me your diploma.

28% of whites are born out of wedlock, over 70% of black people are. Show me a stable employment history.

How many black Phds/Masters are there, compared to whites?

Numbers and facts have meaning to me. I will not ignore numbers out of some sort of PC white-guilt bullshit.

(Hell, 3 of my ancestors fought in the Union Army, a g-grandad and 2 of his brothers. Why would I have any white guilt? Its bullshit.)

169

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Au Contraire…I say these things and write them. I would happily say to any black person who asked for my input: “Black people have 70 or 80% kids born out of wedlock, less than 50% of black people nationwide choose to even finish high school, many young black men dress like wild animals…and yet it’s whitey’s fault for lousy conditions in the black community. What an absolute crock of horse-fucking-shit! Yeah…we’re all racists…yeah…”

Big_Boss wrote:

Yeah right…thats the very least of the things you’ve posted. Now according to you many young black men dress like WILD ANIMALS…I would love to HEAR you say that. Along with your constant babbling about how black people name their kids. You’re sitting all high and mighty looking down on us…only because you’re sitting high on a pile of shit.

HH, I don’t know whether it’s advertent, but you sound like a racist.

I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on your absolutely ridiculous conspiracy crap. And I don’t believe racism is the cause of the large majority of problems that are experienced by poor blacks. But how do you think you can describe people as wild animals given the history here - particularly when even if there were no history it doesn’t make any sense. Wild animals don’t even get dressed. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I cannot fathom how you could have come up with that phraseology without some generalized idea about people behaving like animals - whether it’s the young, or blacks, or both, it’s wrong.

Zap Branigan wrote:

Agreed.

Headhunter wrote:
When I see a group of young black males ‘trippin’ through the mall, with scruffy beards, hair every which way, ragged shirts, and their pants belted below their asses instead of around their waists, they look like wild animals to me. Don’t be shocked if most whites see that and don’t be shocked when no one will hire said creatures in their businesses.

How about a haircut, a shave, and an education? “Nah, keeps me from hangin’ with my broz.” Jeeeezzzzzzzzzzz…

There went the benefit of the doubt. Please stop posting on this - your expression is going to discredit your points.[/quote]

I wouldn’t hire white people who look this way either, or who have no skills, then blame someone else for all their troubles. Guess I’m racist against whites too…jeeezzz…

Amazing how you young folks ascribe demanding proof and expecting achievement as ‘racist’. See my thread about the dumbing down of America…damn…

170

"One of the creepy things about our “need to have a conversation about race” is the assumption that whites can somehow make blacks feel better, or be happier, or be more self-accepting. Nobody has the power to do that, except what individuals do for themselves, one person at a time.

Most people don’t come close to lasting happiness in their own lives. So the popular Leftist charge of America’s “institutional racism” comes down to saying that “The Great White Conspiracy is responsible for rescuing you from your bad feelings.” That is just cockeyed."

“Far too many black people don’t feel good about themselves, and are constantly looking for answers from somebody else. That quest for the impossible has been turned into an accusation against the invisible but all-powerful white racist establishment. Michelle and Barack Obama were indoctrinated with those toxic beliefs at Princeton and Harvard, so that they are now making more than a million bucks a year, living in a mansion in Chicago while still feeling sorry for themselves. Give me a break. (Michelle Obama’s salary increased by almost 200,000 dollars in one year at the University of Chicago. How many people get that kind of raise?)”

171

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

I wouldn’t hire white people who look this way either, or who have no skills, then blame someone else for all their troubles. Guess I’m racist against whites too…jeeezzz…

Amazing how you young folks ascribe demanding proof and expecting achievement as ‘racist’. See my thread about the dumbing down of America…damn…

[/quote]

As a professional communicator, I think you realize that how you express a point is very important.

If the point is “appearance matters” I agree - and it can be expressed that way without referring specifically to black people as beasts.

When you talk or write in a racist manner, you invite people to ignore anything you say. And quit rotting your brain with that conspiracy stuff - I wouldn’t be at all surprised if reading the virulent crap spewed by Lew Rockwell, Lyndon LaRouche and similar people is affecting both your perceptions and communications. Garbage in, garbage out.

172

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
It’s because each thing you’ve mentioned is more properly understood as a class problem rather than a race problem. Low graduation, out-of-wedlock births - even your missing girls issue, from the British study in the Wiki link you posted - are issues that overwhelmingly affect the poor, as opposed to a race. Framing them as a race issue is distracting from the real problems - like a lot of other problems.
[/quote]

This got me to thinking. A few months back, CNN posted an editorial wondering how Black women must be tortured at the thought of choosing between a female and a black candidate. They (rightly) got a sound drubbing from many indignant readers who stated that they would weigh the issues and vote for the candidate who they thought was the most qualified. In short, they are good citizens, thank you very much. CNN apologized and then it was business as usual.

Nobody really got at the reason for this. I think it is that, again, part of the historical strategy for the Black community has been to point out that they have been treated as a group. Therefore it has become the discoursive framework to always phrase everything about them in terms of race. As it were, it is now the politically correct thing to do to keep it racist.

[quote]I think a lot of social commentators who frame them as race issues - such as Thomas Sowell - do so to focus attention on the cultural value issues that cause some of the problems (low graduation rates, out-of-wedlock births, etc.). But the same cultural values that cause the problems go across racial groups, and lead to the same overall end problem: poverty.
[/quote]

I dunno. Is poverty the cause or the symptom? Again, I’m not baiting or trolling, I really do not know. A staple of Marxist analysis is that poverty lies at the root of all evils and that class is fate. It is equally plausible in a relatively free society that there are strong sociological (as opposed to simple economic) issues. Attempts to alleviate poverty with various aid programs are a very mixed bag. I suspect that it is a mixture of education as well as attitudes toward work as well as --and this is the key – an understanding of how one accumulates wealth. A lot of people have no clue about good financial planning or long-term goal making. Far too many kids coming out of schools, getting a job is about some hazy, feel-good summer camp personal growth shtick.

My experiences (I’ve taught at universities for years, so I guess I’m just an ivory tower egghead) is that black students are in this same boat as white students. Asian students tend to have a better thought out strategy for this, at least if they or their parents are immigrants. After a few generations of public schooling, there really isn’t much of a difference. So yes, I do see this as a problem we have inflicted across the board on our students. Hence it bothers me that it gets turned in to a racial topic only for black students. This is because no meaningful discourse can occur outside of a simple racist framework. Very sad indeed.

So here is one thought that is off topic. Poverty didn’t exist in the world, at least in the modern sense (what, you think those African Bushman were having class wars?), until the West create affluence and started to grapple at first internally with its own haves/have-nots. A sticky point in Leftist thinking is that poorer countries are better off spiritually (this is the debased Puritanism/Rousseau-ean thinking that is standard) at the same time they are worse off because they are poor. Standard Marxist thinking is also that somehow Capitalists managed to impoverish all other nations rather than lift themselves out of poverty. Much of this was a moral position to condemn the West and present various strands of Socialism as the alternative. Of course, we know that Socialism has been pretty much a failure any time it gets the upper hand, but the criticisms and policies reacting to when it was a viable alternative remain. As it were, when I read a lot of stats on the state of the world, I can’t help but get the feeling the people writing them are doing so and fighting an ideological war of 50 years ago.

And I could be full of shit…

– jj

173

[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
…
Also,since he chooses to focus on those stats for black people…BB,what are those figures like when you add the percentage of white people and our country as a whole? I wonder if its something to be proud of.

They’re not good:

http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=23

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23048/pub_detail.asp

Why is it that data such as :
The crisis in the white family has attracted curiously little attention from commentators and policymakers. Yet by many of the criteria of the Moynihan report, today’s white American family looks to be at least as troubled as the black family of the early 1960s.

…is never focused upon in majority? Every idiot has logged in over the past few weeks to inform us of every negative stat related to blacks that they can find while the houses of whites are burning down as well.

Don’t you at least find that odd? Whites make up the majority, but the problems are not described as a national problem with the AMERICAN FAMILY, but a problem with black families?

Is this like how you haven’t noticed missing white girls get more media coverage?[/quote]

Err, we’ve discussed the American Family in general, right here on this forum.

174

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
Sloth wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Collective guilt is a sure loser. Placing collective guilt onto an entire people, through laws, will do nothing but breed collective resentment. And maybe that resentment leads to backlash and revolt. It’s that simple.

This is what, in basic critical thinking classes, they call the “slippery slope” fallacy. Another fallacy this might commit would be called “begging the question”. If we’re counting, this might also qualify as “appeal to fear”.

Note to the attentive: in critical thinking classes, the examples given generally only exhibit one fallacy and are clear. In real life examples of fallacious reasoning, often many subtle fallacies are committed that are harder to spot. It’s that simple.

Cute. However, life isn’t a classroom. You start pushing the notion of collective guilt on people, and you get resentment. You start enacting policies to correct the object of said collective guilt, you get much more resentment. You don’t correct wrongs by accusing and punishing the innocent. And the inncoent will only tolerate so much finger pointing, and so much punishment, for the wrongs of another.

The welfare state and affirmative are good examples. Somebody has more. Or, somebody achieved more due to the color of their skin. Both attempt to make things more equitable. And, are sold to the people wrapped up in the rhetoric of collective guilt. However, you confiscate from the person who has more (punishment). Or, in AA’s case, overlook a more qualified white or asian applicant (who might even be poorer) for a black applicant. Either one is a subject often debated passionately. Resentment.

This notion of collective guilt has already gone too far. Much too far. Keep pushing individuals who are otherwise following the law, taking care of their families, and respecting the liberties of others, and you will get backlash. Not everything in life fits on a chalkboard or a slide presentation.

There is no “real life” reasoning verse “class room” reasoning. the same logic applies to both the real world and to the class room. if you don’t believe me, just look at the computer sitting next to you… it’s proof of this. (its just that in real arguments about social facts, the premises are a bit more complicated then the logic of circuits. Nevertheless, as it is logic, the general forms of arguments still hold).

You missed my point, because you just merely provided yet another long fallacious argument to show how your last one wasn’t fallacious.

[/quote]

Are you just trolling? I don’t give a damn if it’s a slippery slope argument. It’s human nature. You pile guilt on me, for someone else’s misdeeds, and I’ll resent you for it.

175

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Yeah right…thats the very least of the things you’ve posted. Now according to you many young black men dress like WILD ANIMALS…I would love to HEAR you say that. Along with your constant babbling about how black people name their kids. You’re sitting all high and mighty looking down on us…only because you’re sitting high on a pile of shit. You have a reputation as a troll for a reason.

Also,to add…I don’t share this perceived agreement that white people are at fault for anything in the black community…and I don’t agree with collective guilt either.

I have said exactly the things mentioned and to black people. Granted, the black people I associate with are highly educated (one is a colleague of my wife, who teaches at a university) and they agree: To be black in America means that you have to overcome all these negative statistics and images about black people whites see in the media.

Here’s a clue: get a degree (Masters or higher preferably), marry the mother of your children, go to a REAL church (unlike Obama), don’t give your children bizarre names, and don’t dress like a former convict with his pants below his ass…and you’ll encounter very little prejudice. You’ll get a good job and have a nice home. How fucking hard is that???

[/quote]

Everyone else has spoken for me,no point in saying anything to that…except that I’ve passed your qualifications for not being a “wild animal.” Yet look at what I just faced…ignorance from you…which is racism in its most basic form.

176

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Yeah right…thats the very least of the things you’ve posted. Now according to you many young black men dress like WILD ANIMALS…I would love to HEAR you say that. Along with your constant babbling about how black people name their kids. You’re sitting all high and mighty looking down on us…only because you’re sitting high on a pile of shit. You have a reputation as a troll for a reason.

Also,to add…I don’t share this perceived agreement that white people are at fault for anything in the black community…and I don’t agree with collective guilt either.

I have said exactly the things mentioned and to black people. Granted, the black people I associate with are highly educated (one is a colleague of my wife, who teaches at a university) and they agree: To be black in America means that you have to overcome all these negative statistics and images about black people whites see in the media.

Here’s a clue: get a degree (Masters or higher preferably), marry the mother of your children, go to a REAL church (unlike Obama), don’t give your children bizarre names, and don’t dress like a former convict with his pants below his ass…and you’ll encounter very little prejudice. You’ll get a good job and have a nice home. How fucking hard is that???

Everyone else has spoken for me,no point in saying anything to that…except that I’ve passed your qualifications for not being a “wild animal.” Yet look at what I just faced…ignorance from you…which is racism in its most basic form.[/quote]

Guess you missed it, above:

“Far too many black people don’t feel good about themselves, and are constantly looking for answers from somebody else. That quest for the impossible has been turned into an accusation against the invisible but all-powerful white racist establishment. Michelle and Barack Obama were indoctrinated with those toxic beliefs at Princeton and Harvard, so that they are now making more than a million bucks a year, living in a mansion in Chicago while still feeling sorry for themselves. Give me a break. (Michelle Obama’s salary increased by almost 200,000 dollars in one year at the University of Chicago. How many people get that kind of raise?)”

177

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
It’s because each thing you’ve mentioned is more properly understood as a class problem rather than a race problem. Low graduation, out-of-wedlock births - even your missing girls issue, from the British study in the Wiki link you posted - are issues that overwhelmingly affect the poor, as opposed to a race. Framing them as a race issue is distracting from the real problems - like a lot of other problems.

jj-dude wrote:
This got me to thinking. A few months back, CNN posted an editorial wondering how Black women must be tortured at the thought of choosing between a female and a black candidate. They (rightly) got a sound drubbing from many indignant readers who stated that they would weigh the issues and vote for the candidate who they thought was the most qualified. In short, they are good citizens, thank you very much. CNN apologized and then it was business as usual.

Nobody really got at the reason for this. I think it is that, again, part of the historical strategy for the Black community has been to point out that they have been treated as a group. Therefore it has become the discoursive framework to always phrase everything about them in terms of race. As it were, it is now the politically correct thing to do to keep it racist.[/quote]

I think you’re largely correct.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I think a lot of social commentators who frame them as race issues - such as Thomas Sowell - do so to focus attention on the cultural value issues that cause some of the problems (low graduation rates, out-of-wedlock births, etc.). But the same cultural values that cause the problems go across racial groups, and lead to the same overall end problem: poverty.

jj-dude wrote:
I dunno. Is poverty the cause or the symptom? Again, I’m not baiting or trolling, I really do not know. A staple of Marxist analysis is that poverty lies at the root of all evils and that class is fate. It is equally plausible in a relatively free society that there are strong sociological (as opposed to simple economic) issues. Attempts to alleviate poverty with various aid programs are a very mixed bag. I suspect that it is a mixture of education as well as attitudes toward work as well as --and this is the key – an understanding of how one accumulates wealth. A lot of people have no clue about good financial planning or long-term goal making. Far too many kids coming out of schools, getting a job is about some hazy, feel-good summer camp personal growth shtick. [/quote]

I think it’s complicated enough that poverty is both a symptom and a cause - my conception is that poverty functions as sort of a feedback loop as long as certain cultural factors are present.

I do think that public high schools should teach basic economics and finance as a required course. That might not solve the problems (a lot of public schools are ridiculously bad and in need of real competition) but it’s a start.

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
My experiences (I’ve taught at universities for years, so I guess I’m just an ivory tower egghead) is that black students are in this same boat as white students. Asian students tend to have a better thought out strategy for this, at least if they or their parents are immigrants. After a few generations of public schooling, there really isn’t much of a difference. So yes, I do see this as a problem we have inflicted across the board on our students. Hence it bothers me that it gets turned in to a racial topic only for black students. This is because no meaningful discourse can occur outside of a simple racist framework. Very sad indeed. [/quote]

Agree again.

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

So here is one thought that is off topic. Poverty didn’t exist in the world, at least in the modern sense (what, you think those African Bushman were having class wars?), until the West create affluence and started to grapple at first internally with its own haves/have-nots. A sticky point in Leftist thinking is that poorer countries are better off spiritually (this is the debased Puritanism/Rousseau-ean thinking that is standard) at the same time they are worse off because they are poor. Standard Marxist thinking is also that somehow Capitalists managed to impoverish all other nations rather than lift themselves out of poverty. Much of this was a moral position to condemn the West and present various strands of Socialism as the alternative. Of course, we know that Socialism has been pretty much a failure any time it gets the upper hand, but the criticisms and policies reacting to when it was a viable alternative remain. As it were, when I read a lot of stats on the state of the world, I can’t help but get the feeling the people writing them are doing so and fighting an ideological war of 50 years ago.

And I could be full of shit…

– jj[/quote]

Marxism has a couple good insights, but it’s mostly crap - particularly its conclusions. It’s still surviving in the ivory tower though. Maybe we need more market forces up there in the tower… =-)

178

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Professor X wrote:
"…Evil doesn’t have a dress code. When will some people figure this out?

Why haven’t people figured this out? It only takes a blink of an eye for someone to become a “criminal.”

Because violent street crimes aren’t being committed by the guys wearing dockers and button collar shirts.

lol…you’re funny :wink:

No, I’m experienced in life.

Well,you and billions of other people have something in common. Get real.

I’m being real. Unfortunately, some folks around here foolishly cling to PC sentiments. And, can’t even be honest. Neighborhoods aren’t being shot up by guys that looks like this. He isn’t the guy one worries about, because he’s behind you waiting to use the ATM. That guy isn’t going to rob me, or car jack me, or jump me with a bunch of his friends because he doesn’t like my pasty skin color.

Didn’t he work in the top echelon at Enron?Or Worldcom?

Oh no ,wait,that would be us white guys…

Since we’re talking crime and all that.

What?! I can take the white collar criminal to court, later on. Hopefully, in the scenario of a violent street crime, I’m not bleeding out from a gun shot wound. Than there is no recovery for damage if some thug has blown my brains out for the $20 I had on me… Ugh, please follow along.[/quote]

If you’re white, you’re not allowed your heuristics. You’re not allowed to notice any trends or patterns in those of other races that may or may not affect your wellbeing. I suppose we’ll just continue to buy property and send our kids to school districts based on those heuristics, but pretend that we don’t have them.

I can’t believe people here can’t distinguish between violent crime and white collar crime. And Bush, while he may be a criminal, is not likely to point a gun at me in the street.

179

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Everyone who posts on an internet forum would then, by your criteria, be guilty of some fallacy.

Logic, as it pertains to if-then statements is absolute in computers. Humans - not so much. Emotions and perspective have a far greater influence on one’s “logic” than you, or your teacher want to admit.

“Classes” mean dick. Oh, it’s not too difficult to sit behind the keyboard with the critical thinking textbook, and list all the fallacies found in a discussion board thread - but if that’s all you are doing, then what’s the point of contributing?
[/quote]

Most people on internet forms ARE guilty of committing fallacies as they ague. Most people in general are guilt of committing fallacies.

Please don’t take me for a fool. I’m quite painfully aware that your average person relies on emotion and self interest far more then logic in their “reasoning”. I’m also painfully aware that most people are far to ignorant to construct valid arguments. (Don’t misunderstand me though. i’m surely not implying that one can understand how the average person reasons by using logic.)

This though does not mean that one SHOULD argue like this. The point is, valid arguments get you somewhere, invalid ones get you no where. You might as well be speaking gibberish, because thats about all an invalid argument amounts to. The point of argumention is to provide evidence or proof of a proposition. What good then is argumentation that provides no grounds for either?

The results of this inability of the public to reason are all around us too… You all want to complain when people are “too dumb” and vote incompetent politicians into office, hold ridiculous foreign policy views, and take out mortgages they can’t afford, yet you get upset at me for trying to inject ration and coherent arguments into discussion?

So, what is the point of contributing? Perhaps the point of contributing is argue against the same tired old fallacious reasoning that has gotten us into this mess.

Besides, to be honest, i’m waiting to see if ANYONE here can defend their claims against rigorous analysis. So far, all that has happened is people complain that i’m calling them out when they say something silly. I never thought i’d be called a troll for giving valid arguments and objectively analyzing others.

oh, since “classes mean dick” and this “if-then” reasoning is silly, please kindly explain to me what sort of reasoning better captures the way things really work? i surely hope you don’t mean these fallacious arguments.

180

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Everyone who posts on an internet forum would then, by your criteria, be guilty of some fallacy.

Logic, as it pertains to if-then statements is absolute in computers. Humans - not so much. Emotions and perspective have a far greater influence on one’s “logic” than you, or your teacher want to admit.

“Classes” mean dick. Oh, it’s not too difficult to sit behind the keyboard with the critical thinking textbook, and list all the fallacies found in a discussion board thread - but if that’s all you are doing, then what’s the point of contributing?

Most people on internet forms ARE guilty of committing fallacies as they ague. Most people in general are guilt of committing fallacies.

Please don’t take me for a fool. I’m quite painfully aware that your average person relies on emotion and self interest far more then logic in their “reasoning”. I’m also painfully aware that most people are far to ignorant to construct valid arguments. (Don’t misunderstand me though. i’m surely not implying that one can understand how the average person reasons by using logic.)

This though does not mean that one SHOULD argue like this. The point is, valid arguments get you somewhere, invalid ones get you no where. You might as well be speaking gibberish, because thats about all an invalid argument amounts to. The point of argumention is to provide evidence or proof of a proposition. What good then is argumentation that provides no grounds for either?

The results of this inability of the public to reason are all around us too… You all want to complain when people are “too dumb” and vote incompetent politicians into office, hold ridiculous foreign policy views, and take out mortgages they can’t afford, yet you get upset at me for trying to inject ration and coherent arguments into discussion?

So, what is the point of contributing? Perhaps the point of contributing is argue against the same tired old fallacious reasoning that has gotten us into this mess.

Besides, to be honest, i’m waiting to see if ANYONE here can defend their claims against rigorous analysis. So far, all that has happened is people complain that i’m calling them out when they say something silly. I never thought i’d be called a troll for giving valid arguments and objectively analyzing others.

oh, since “classes mean dick” and this “if-then” reasoning is silly, please kindly explain to me what sort of reasoning better captures the way things really work? i surely hope you don’t mean these fallacious arguments. [/quote]

So, are you denying that pushing collective guilt won’t foster resentment? I mean, what exactly is so hard to believe?

The welfare state and AA already cause a considerable amount of resentment. And they rely on a collective guilt trip for their existence. Imagine if you took it even further than that. How much resentment then?