Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
I dont jump through hoops for racists. If you dont think she is talking about a "racial caste system" you are more delusional than I thought.
She is indeed, talking about what she calls a "racial caste system." But she does not assess that racism is the cause of it. She simply argues that a racial caste system is the result of the laws we have. She never challenged whether the laws we have were by design to promote racism.
You are more delusional than I thought. What possessed you to think that a racial caste system is not the very definition of racist and racism. Racism is a system based on race. Look up "ism" or do you need me to do that for you?
Hating people for their race is never reasonable. Calling an ass backwards culture and ass backwards culture is completely reasonable. For some odd reason, race and culture have become synonymous so as to make an accusation of racism when race wasn't challenged.
Calling a culture ass backwards and pretending you are not racist is bizarre behavior. The very thought is racist as it presumes you actually inhabit a position of superiority.
You believe in cultural relativism? And yes, some cultures are superior to others.
Calling a culture ass backwards and pretending you are not racist is bizarre behavior. The very thought is racist as it presumes you actually inhabit a position of superiority.
You believe in cultural relativism? And yes, some cultures are superior to others.
You would have a seriously hard time convincing me that you could prove that.
She is indeed, talking about what she calls a "racial caste system." But she does not assess that racism is the cause of it. She simply argues that a racial caste system is the result of the laws we have. She never challenged whether the laws we have were by design to promote racism.
You are more delusional than I thought. What possessed you to think that a racial caste system is not the very definition of racist and racism. Racism is a system based on race. Look up "ism" or do you need me to do that for you?
My observations are clear. A simple citation would clear this up. you and I both have the book. Now simply back your claim up with her words. Once again, she argues the results of our current laws are The New Jim Crow. She did not argue that these laws had race in mind. She may have implied it, but she did not argue it. I can only assume you did not read the book.
You believe in cultural relativism? And yes, some cultures are superior to others.
You would have a seriously hard time convincing me that you could prove that.
Well, what is your standard of a superior culture? If you don't believe in superior cultures then you believe in cultural relativism. Which one is it?
You are more delusional than I thought. What possessed you to think that a racial caste system is not the very definition of racist and racism. Racism is a system based on race. Look up "ism" or do you need me to do that for you?
My observations are clear. A simple citation would clear this up. you and I both have the book. Now simply back your claim up with her words. Once again, she argues the results of our current laws are The New Jim Crow. She did not argue that these laws had race in mind. She may have implied it, but she did not argue it. I can only assume you did not read the book.
But she did. How do you keep missing it if you have the book? You missed the whole premise of the book being a new system of racism targeted at incarcerating men of color (specifically Black and Latino) and hiding it under the pretence of the war on crime and drugs. You must be slower than I thought to miss this Pubic.
My observations are clear. A simple citation would clear this up. you and I both have the book. Now simply back your claim up with her words. Once again, she argues the results of our current laws are The New Jim Crow. She did not argue that these laws had race in mind. She may have implied it, but she did not argue it. I can only assume you did not read the book.
But she did. How do you keep missing it if you have the book? You missed the whole premise of the book being a new system of racism targeted at incarcerating men of color (specifically Black and Latino) and hiding it under the pretence of the war on crime and drugs. You must be slower than I thought to miss this Pubic.
Your speaking again of an assessment of results. Not of intent. Do you not understand the difference between the two? She is making a dispirit impact argument which ignores intent and judges results. Even the DOJ understands dispirit impact analysis as a flawed means of judicial reasoning else they wouldn't be trying so hard to keep it out of the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, and once again, she is arguing that the result of our current laws are The New Jim Crow. She does not argue that those laws had the intent to subjugate a race in mind when they were passed. If she did she would need to blame the Congressional Black Caucus for the War on Drugs. Do you not understand the difference between argument of intent and an argument of results?
Here, read it and weep!
Race, Genes, Intelligence - Facts Are Facts
Site Description
Provides UFO talk and political intrigue all seven nights a week along with special guests.
You would have a seriously hard time convincing me that you could prove that.
Well, what is your standard of a superior culture? If you don't believe in superior cultures then you believe in cultural relativism. Which one is it?
Thats not important. Prove to me one culture is superior to another.
But she did. How do you keep missing it if you have the book? You missed the whole premise of the book being a new system of racism targeted at incarcerating men of color (specifically Black and Latino) and hiding it under the pretence of the war on crime and drugs. You must be slower than I thought to miss this Pubic.
Your speaking again of an assessment of results. Not of intent. Do you not understand the difference between the two? She is making a dispirit impact argument which ignores intent and judges results. Even the DOJ understands dispirit impact analysis as a flawed means of judicial reasoning else they wouldn't be trying so hard to keep it out of the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, and once again, she is arguing that the result of our current laws are The New Jim Crow. She does not argue that those laws had the intent to subjugate a race in mind when they were passed. If she did she would need to blame the Congressional Black Caucus for the War on Drugs. Do you not understand the difference between argument of intent and an argument of results?
I think what we have here must be a cultural communication issue. She spells out in her book that the intent is to control Black people. I dont think you have the book or if you do you have not read it. Please take a picture of the top of page 66 with a scarp of paper with todays date or something like I just did for you.
Well, what is your standard of a superior culture? If you don't believe in superior cultures then you believe in cultural relativism. Which one is it?
Thats not important. Prove to me one culture is superior to another.
I cannot until you establish a few definitions.
1) What constitutes a superior culture by YOUR standard. Remember, your asking me to convince you. In order to do so I must know your standard for a superior culture.
or
2) If you do not believe in superior cultures then you believe in cultural relativism. Cultural relativism asserts that all cultures are equal because they are subject toward their own understandings of justice, happiness, lifestyle, and etcetera. In other words, a standard of poverty for one culture may be a standard of virtue for another, and thus, a cultural relativist would argue that both cultures are equal because both cultures are living by their own standards that make them happy.
I could show establishments, educational attainment/values, propensity for advancement, propensity for respect toward the rule of law, respect for human life, and etcetera. I could go into every category of what makes a culture superior to another. That is exactly what you want me to do, and along the way, you will likely change your own standard so as to fit your original claim. I will not play by that rule. I will not allow you to jerk me around by not establishing what you first believe to be the virtues of a superior culture. I likewise will not argue the same way with a cultural relativist as I would someone who believes in cultural superiority/inferiority. You must establish one or the other before we can continue, or else, you are arguing in bad faith.
Your speaking again of an assessment of results. Not of intent. Do you not understand the difference between the two? She is making a dispirit impact argument which ignores intent and judges results. Even the DOJ understands dispirit impact analysis as a flawed means of judicial reasoning else they wouldn't be trying so hard to keep it out of the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, and once again, she is arguing that the result of our current laws are The New Jim Crow. She does not argue that those laws had the intent to subjugate a race in mind when they were passed. If she did she would need to blame the Congressional Black Caucus for the War on Drugs. Do you not understand the difference between argument of intent and an argument of results?
I think what we have here must be a cultural communication issue. She spells out in her book that the intent is to control Black people. I dont think you have the book or if you do you have not read it. Please take a picture of the top of page 66 with a scarp of paper with todays date or something like I just did for you.
page 66
lines 1-2
...questions when confronted by the police. As federal Judge Prentiss Marshall explained, "The average person encountered will feel obliged to stop and re-...
Thats not important. Prove to me one culture is superior to another.
I cannot until you establish a few definitions.
1) What constitutes a superior culture by YOUR standard. Remember, your asking me to convince you. In order to do so I must know your standard for a superior culture.
or
2) If you do not believe in superior cultures then you believe in cultural relativism. Cultural relativism asserts that all cultures are equal because they are subject toward their own understandings of justice, happiness, lifestyle, and etcetera. In other words, a standard of poverty for one culture may be a standard of virtue for another, and thus, a cultural relativist would argue that both cultures are equal because both cultures are living by their own standards that make them happy.
I could show establishments, educational attainment/values, propensity for advancement, propensity for respect toward the rule of law, respect for human life, and etcetera. I could go into every category of what makes a culture superior to another. That is exactly what you want me to do, and along the way, you will likely change your own standard so as to fit your original claim. I will not play by that rule. I will not allow you to jerk me around by not establishing what you first believe to be the virtues of a superior culture. I likewise will not argue the same way with a cultural relativist as I would someone who believes in cultural superiority/inferiority. You must establish one or the other before we can continue, or else, you are arguing in bad faith.
No. I'm not asking you to convince me. I'm saying you would have a hard time doing it. How did you miss that? in order to establish definitions we would need to agree there is a superior culture. Who do you think you are talking to?
I think what we have here must be a cultural communication issue. She spells out in her book that the intent is to control Black people. I dont think you have the book or if you do you have not read it. Please take a picture of the top of page 66 with a scarp of paper with todays date or something like I just did for you.
page 66
lines 1-2
...questions when confronted by the police. As federal Judge Prentiss Marshall explained, "The average person encountered will feel obliged to stop and re-...
Thats correct even though you probably looked it up online since you did not provide the proof I did. So one explanation is you are stupid and have a hard time with reading comprehension. The other is you have decided to convince yourself that a racial caste system purposely brought about by our political system to incarcerate Blacks and Latinos is not racism. Is this a valid assessment of your position?
I cannot until you establish a few definitions.
1) What constitutes a superior culture by YOUR standard. Remember, your asking me to convince you. In order to do so I must know your standard for a superior culture.
or
2) If you do not believe in superior cultures then you believe in cultural relativism. Cultural relativism asserts that all cultures are equal because they are subject toward their own understandings of justice, happiness, lifestyle, and etcetera. In other words, a standard of poverty for one culture may be a standard of virtue for another, and thus, a cultural relativist would argue that both cultures are equal because both cultures are living by their own standards that make them happy.
I could show establishments, educational attainment/values, propensity for advancement, propensity for respect toward the rule of law, respect for human life, and etcetera. I could go into every category of what makes a culture superior to another. That is exactly what you want me to do, and along the way, you will likely change your own standard so as to fit your original claim. I will not play by that rule. I will not allow you to jerk me around by not establishing what you first believe to be the virtues of a superior culture. I likewise will not argue the same way with a cultural relativist as I would someone who believes in cultural superiority/inferiority. You must establish one or the other before we can continue, or else, you are arguing in bad faith.
No. I'm not asking you to convince me. I'm saying you would have a hard time doing it. How did you miss that? in order to establish definitions we would need to agree there is a superior culture. Who do you think you are talking to?
Ok, put me to that test. But the test is to convince you, and in order to do so , I must know what YOUR definition of a superior culture entails. I need not agree with it, I just need to know what it is. I will then show why one culture or another achieves YOUR standards better or worse than the other. But I still don't know whether you are a cultural relativist or not. If you are then you are sending me on a fools errand.
