(06-16-2021 08:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess is that if your belief system precludes it, one should just ignore those little points.

(06-15-2021 03:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  If one thinks that there are no differences between black people and white people in terms of intellectual performance then I still don't understand why one continues to bring up the possibility that a difference exists. I understand responding with "you may be right" but that's different than bringing it up in the first place.

Quote:

(06-15-2021 12:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  He pointed out the physical differences and then talked about the possibility that there are other differences (e.g. mental) as well.

Not that you showed me. What you showed me is that he named some specific physical differences and talked about their being the possibility of other differences... which (because he wasn't specific) COULD include mental, hence I'm not saying you're crazy to read it this way... but I didn't see him say that. YOU assumed that. It's also possible that 'mental differences' are things like a tendency towards spatial reasoning or art as opposed to physical sciences... which is a difference, but NOT REMOTELY a 'superior/inferior' judgement which is what you're implying/alluding to.

Quote:[quote]
I agree with this... though thousands of years of evolution has lessened it in most people. This isn't about better or worse as you seem to be concluding, merely about 'different'.... like blue eyed vs brown eyes people... and as you note, nobody wants to look up research that might try and prove or disprove that, risking hitting on something heinous. Similarly, any attempt to even SPECULATE on what those differences could be is wrought with risk...

So this is quite literally one of those situations where you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't... If you even IMPLY that there could be statistically significant (which doesn't mean the same thing as significant) differences in the races beyond the physical, you are immediately labeled as 'racist', even if the difference is an asset.

I never labelled him as a racist. I simply pointed out that he had brought up the possibility of differences in mental capacity on more than one occasion.

(06-16-2021 08:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am also of the opinion that every race-based program is inherently racist. For example, if we passed a law saying whites had to sit in the back of the bus to make up for the decades that blacks had to sit there, I think that would be racist. Any program that says "this race this, that race that" is racist.

(06-16-2021 08:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 08:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 08:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 07:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  disabled dairy farmer sues Biden Administration

“Plaintiff Adam P. Faust owns a dairy farm in Calumet County, near Chilton, in the Northern Division of the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Mr. Faust is a double-amputee. In addition to milking about 70 Holstein cows, Mr. Faust farms 200 acres for feed for his cows. Mr. Faust would be eligible for the loan forgiveness program in Section 1005 of ARPA, except he is white,” a lawsuit filed on his behalf states.

The law firm noted on its website that the Supreme Court has “rejected the interest in remedying societal discrimination because it had no logical stopping point.”

The race-obsessed Biden administration, in its larger mission to root out perceived systemic racism, branded Faust — a man who is by definition disabled — as privileged. As a result, he and other farmers are having to sue, because as his law firm rightly pointed out, the high court of the land has already ruled that reparations for perceived inequality have no stopping point.

I suspect that even Lad93 would agree that this provision of Biden's is racist. But I am not so sure that they would say it was wrong. After all, it follows in the general path of making up for past discrimination that they hold dear.

I have no problem saying it is wrong, and definitely racist.

I dont think he would. Without offense, both he and lad seem to be completely unable to fathom the very real secondary definition of 'racist'.

I guess is that if your belief system precludes it, one should just ignore those little points. Just use that 'magic marker' on it so to speak.

I wonder what they will decided is the now-proper term for making a decision based wholly or partly on race (whatever 'race' is, mind you). Or if that magic-marker simply crosses that issue out as well as the word describing it.

I'd call this a race-based program and not racist. That is much clearer in describing this program (it is based on race) and it doesn't add the additional baggage that using the term "racist" clearly does if someone doesn't believe the program is prejudice against those who do not have access to it.

And is completely race dependent itself, funny that.

If the farmers given an edge are black, it should be 'a race based program'. If the farmers given an edge agree white, it is racist (apparently).

Funny how your own definition fits your conundrum. Is your own attempt to redefine English a 'race based program' or 'racist'?

Godel would be impressed with your logic in this I would surmise. (literally a self-referential (pun intended) joke unto itself, for those unaware of the work of Godel)

(06-16-2021 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I can understand why you may disagree with said program, and that you think it isn't equitable. But I don't think it is racist because it is not negatively affecting someone who is ineligible for it - it just isn't providing "an edge" as you say.

(06-16-2021 10:07 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I can understand why you may disagree with said program, and that you think it isn't equitable. But I don't think it is racist because it is not negatively affecting someone who is ineligible for it - it just isn't providing "an edge" as you say.

If it isn't equitable and someone isn't eligible for it based solely on race, how is it not racist??

How is this different from a 'whites only' and 'blacks only' water fountain??

(06-16-2021 10:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 10:07 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I can understand why you may disagree with said program, and that you think it isn't equitable. But I don't think it is racist because it is not negatively affecting someone who is ineligible for it - it just isn't providing "an edge" as you say.

If it isn't equitable and someone isn't eligible for it based solely on race, how is it not racist??

How is this different from a 'whites only' and 'blacks only' water fountain??

Bingo. The racists in 1951 argued that "colored" were not disadvantaged since they had their own separate but equal water fountains, bathrooms, and waiting rooms.

(06-16-2021 09:23 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 03:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  If one thinks that there are no differences between black people and white people in terms of intellectual performance then I still don't understand why one continues to bring up the possibility that a difference exists. I understand responding with "you may be right" but that's different than bringing it up in the first place.

Maybe he said something different, but nothing you quoted said anything about 'intellectual performance'. Not to mention that 'intellectual performance' is what you do with your intellectual capabilities, and not your intellectual capabilities themselves... and there are physical differences that can lead to choices that can impact your intellectual performance.

Quote:Said simply, people who are especially gifted physically DO tend to rely on those physical gifts more than their intellectual ones.... whereas people who are not physically gifted do the opposite. They have the exact same mental capabilities, but they CHOOSE to develop, or not those capabilities more based on other factors. I believe that this is a demonstrable fact. WHat is not demonstrable... the part 'I don't know' is if the genetic differences between the races lead to physical (including things like susceptibility to skin cancer or sickle cell and not just 'taller or faster') differences that result in different choices. We can absolutely say that living in urban settings tends to lead to more participation in sports like basketball... while living in colder climates (which is part of a skin color adaptation) leads to more participation in sports like hockey or skiing. I think we can also say that the differences in the races in 2020 is much less than perhaps in 1820 and certainly 0020 based on increasing integration.... so maybe some of these things are now cultural more than genetic, but they potentially ORIGINALLY came about because of genetics.

Here is the vastly bigger question...

OO is pretty vehemently denying your charge... So, REGARDLESS of what you think he said or thinks, why do you continue to ignore his SPECIFIC denial of your accusation?? This is the real problem. What can he possibly say or do that would convince you that he doesn't believe what you seem to think he believes?? If 'That's not what I believe' isn't enough to convince you that isn't what he believes, what is??

What charge? That he brought up the possibility of mental differences? I don't think he is vehemently denying that. What exactly do you think he is vehemently denying?

Quote:

Quote:

(06-15-2021 12:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  He pointed out the physical differences and then talked about the possibility that there are other differences (e.g. mental) as well.

Not that you showed me. What you showed me is that he named some specific physical differences and talked about their being the possibility of other differences... which (because he wasn't specific) COULD include mental, hence I'm not saying you're crazy to read it this way... but I didn't see him say that. YOU assumed that. It's also possible that 'mental differences' are things like a tendency towards spatial reasoning or art as opposed to physical sciences... which is a difference, but NOT REMOTELY a 'superior/inferior' judgement which is what you're implying/alluding to.

Again... we were talking about admission and performance at elite colleges so...

Quote:I agree with this... though thousands of years of evolution has lessened it in most people. This isn't about better or worse as you seem to be concluding, merely about 'different'.... like blue eyed vs brown eyes people... and as you note, nobody wants to look up research that might try and prove or disprove that, risking hitting on something heinous. Similarly, any attempt to even SPECULATE on what those differences could be is wrought with risk...

So this is quite literally one of those situations where you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't... If you even IMPLY that there could be statistically significant (which doesn't mean the same thing as significant) differences in the races beyond the physical, you are immediately labeled as 'racist', even if the difference is an asset.

I never labelled him as a racist. I simply pointed out that he had brought up the possibility of differences in mental capacity on more than one occasion.

First, I didn't say you did. I was speaking in the generic... and pointing out why 'the right' reacts so aggressively to such things... because while I don't think YOU would do this sort of thing, it still happens a whole lot by those who seek to exploit things.

Second, I understand you think you HEARD that. I don't see that he SAID that. Maybe its me and I missed it so I'm not saying I'm right... so please don't feel like you need to prove it to me... I am not judging, just observing... the next line is vastly more important...

Third, He has since repeatedly denied believing what you heard... so why don't you notice that he's disagreed 'on more than one occasion' and much more aggressively i suspect than he ever 'brought up the possibility'??

(06-16-2021 10:07 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I can understand why you may disagree with said program, and that you think it isn't equitable. But I don't think it is racist because it is not negatively affecting someone who is ineligible for it - it just isn't providing "an edge" as you say.

If it isn't equitable and someone isn't eligible for it based solely on race, how is it not racist??

How is this different from a 'whites only' and 'blacks only' water fountain??

(06-16-2021 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Bringing up possible differences between black people and other races when it comes to college admissions seemed to me that intellectual differences were the topic at hand.

Quote:Still not sure what he has aggressively disagreed with.

(06-16-2021 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 08:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 08:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 08:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 07:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  disabled dairy farmer sues Biden Administration

“Plaintiff Adam P. Faust owns a dairy farm in Calumet County, near Chilton, in the Northern Division of the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Mr. Faust is a double-amputee. In addition to milking about 70 Holstein cows, Mr. Faust farms 200 acres for feed for his cows. Mr. Faust would be eligible for the loan forgiveness program in Section 1005 of ARPA, except he is white,” a lawsuit filed on his behalf states.

The law firm noted on its website that the Supreme Court has “rejected the interest in remedying societal discrimination because it had no logical stopping point.”

The race-obsessed Biden administration, in its larger mission to root out perceived systemic racism, branded Faust — a man who is by definition disabled — as privileged. As a result, he and other farmers are having to sue, because as his law firm rightly pointed out, the high court of the land has already ruled that reparations for perceived inequality have no stopping point.

I suspect that even Lad93 would agree that this provision of Biden's is racist. But I am not so sure that they would say it was wrong. After all, it follows in the general path of making up for past discrimination that they hold dear.

I have no problem saying it is wrong, and definitely racist.

I dont think he would. Without offense, both he and lad seem to be completely unable to fathom the very real secondary definition of 'racist'.

I guess is that if your belief system precludes it, one should just ignore those little points. Just use that 'magic marker' on it so to speak.

I wonder what they will decided is the now-proper term for making a decision based wholly or partly on race (whatever 'race' is, mind you). Or if that magic-marker simply crosses that issue out as well as the word describing it.

I'd call this a race-based program and not racist. That is much clearer in describing this program (it is based on race) and it doesn't add the additional baggage that using the term "racist" clearly does if someone doesn't believe the program is prejudice against those who do not have access to it.

And is completely race dependent itself, funny that.

If the farmers given an edge are black, it should be 'a race based program'. If the farmers given an edge agree white, it is racist (apparently).

Funny how your own definition fits your conundrum. Is your own attempt to redefine English a 'race based program' or 'racist'?

Godel would be impressed with your logic in this I would surmise. (literally a self-referential (pun intended) joke unto itself, for those unaware of the work of Godel)

If there was historical information indicating that white farmers had been discriminated against unfairly, then it would be an appropriate program.

You're gonna complain that I'm asking you to look at the context of the situation, but the real world rarely binary in the way you often make it out to be.

I do appreciate that you recognize that the program is about giving someone a leg up and not punishing someone else. It's not as if every single farmer has expected this program to support them and then the rug was pulled out like the GI Bill and black veterans.

I can understand why you may disagree with said program, and that you think it isn't equitable.

Quote:[quote]
But I don't think it is racist because it is not negatively affecting someone who is ineligible for it - it just isn't providing "an edge" as you say.

(06-16-2021 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Bringing up possible differences between black people and other races when it comes to college admissions seemed to me that intellectual differences were the topic at hand.

Again, what do you think the word "possible" means? It means we don't know. And you don't know either.

You say you "know" there is no difference. That sound to me like a Bible thumper saying he "knows there is a heaven. - it is a statement of FAITH.

If you have scientific proof that there is no difference, I would appreciate seeing it.

Quote:Still not sure what he has aggressively disagreed with.

You missed this?

"OK, twisting my words yet again. I never said I thought there were no differences between black people and white people in terms of intellectual performance. I SAID I DON'T KNOW. AND NEITHER DO YOU. You continually misstate my positions, and I begin to suspect it is willful." (post 1990)

(06-16-2021 10:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Before you are going to convince me that any sort of systemic racism exists, you need to show me that:

1) Blacks and other POC are significantly worse off in the USA than in other countries, including those run by Blacks and other POC, and
2) Blacks and other POC are significantly worse off in the USA than are whites, for reasons solely attributable to race.

I haven't seen much to prove either, particularly not 1).

I am a fervent opponent of racism in all its forms, but merely calling something racism doesn't make it racism.

(06-16-2021 10:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Before you are going to convince me that any sort of systemic racism exists, you need to show me that:

1) Blacks and other POC are significantly worse off in the USA than in other countries, including those run by Blacks and other POC, and
2) Blacks and other POC are significantly worse off in the USA than are whites, for reasons solely attributable to race.

I haven't seen much to prove either, particularly not 1).

I am a fervent opponent of racism in all its forms, but merely calling something racism doesn't make it racism.

(06-16-2021 10:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 08:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 08:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  [quote='tanqtonic' pid='17468611' dateline='1623848761']

I dont think he would. Without offense, both he and lad seem to be completely unable to fathom the very real secondary definition of 'racist'.

I guess is that if your belief system precludes it, one should just ignore those little points. Just use that 'magic marker' on it so to speak.

I wonder what they will decided is the now-proper term for making a decision based wholly or partly on race (whatever 'race' is, mind you). Or if that magic-marker simply crosses that issue out as well as the word describing it.

I'd call this a race-based program and not racist. That is much clearer in describing this program (it is based on race) and it doesn't add the additional baggage that using the term "racist" clearly does if someone doesn't believe the program is prejudice against those who do not have access to it.

And is completely race dependent itself, funny that.

If the farmers given an edge are black, it should be 'a race based program'. If the farmers given an edge agree white, it is racist (apparently).

Funny how your own definition fits your conundrum. Is your own attempt to redefine English a 'race based program' or 'racist'?

Godel would be impressed with your logic in this I would surmise. (literally a self-referential (pun intended) joke unto itself, for those unaware of the work of Godel)

If there was historical information indicating that white farmers had been discriminated against unfairly, then it would be an appropriate program.

You're gonna complain that I'm asking you to look at the context of the situation, but the real world rarely binary in the way you often make it out to be.

I do appreciate that you recognize that the program is about giving someone a leg up and not punishing someone else. It's not as if every single farmer has expected this program to support them and then the rug was pulled out like the GI Bill and black veterans.

I can understand why you may disagree with said program, and that you think it isn't equitable.

Quote:

Quote:But I don't think it is racist because it is not negatively affecting someone who is ineligible for it - it just isn't providing "an edge" as you say.

Fine, lets switch the terms 'socially disadvantaged people' in the program out for 'whites only'.

Per your own definition, it is not negatively affecting someone who isnt eligible for it. I guess you should be, at worst, agnostic on that change.

Using that line of reasoning above, one can morally (and legally) validate almost any Jim Crow era law out there if you give it a half-second (or less). Please stop with the thin veneer explanations.

And I find it rather hilarious when you complain about a 'binary' world view when, perhaps you arent self aware of it, your explanations are nothing but that. racial discrimination for blacks -- all good, not racist. Racial discrimination for whites -- all bad and racist. Now you add a stupid dimension of 'edge up'.

In that 'nuanced ' point of view where does 'racial discrimination against whites' fall? And yes, perhaps you arent self-aware, that 'giving an edge up' to any one subclass *is* 'providing an edge against' *from* any other subclass aside from that one you promote'.

But yet, it is the racial agnostic mind and proponent that is 'binary'. Rich. Actually, really and seriously gd rich.