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.
Any semi intelligent assessment of your claims always have the same result. Its getting boring busting you. You need some new material.
There is one thing I do enjoy about the Race Relations forum. I can certainly always count on the ad hominem trolls/flamers to keep my threads alive until someone with a more serious demeanor stops by.
Translation = I'm going to try reverse psychology to prevent being exposed as a fraud.
Sorry clown. That doesn't work on me.
There is one thing I do enjoy about the Race Relations forum. I can certainly always count on the ad hominem trolls/flamers to keep my threads alive until someone with a more serious demeanor stops by.
Translation = I'm going to try reverse psychology to prevent being exposed as a fraud.
Sorry clown. That doesn't work on me.
Frauds forgo pointing to evidence to back their claims, which is, exactly what you did.
That is correct. But this does not change the fact that there are more blacks out of work than working. When you take into account retirees and children you figure out that without the white population they could not sustain themselves. This is why white flight destroys cities as the tax base is eroded. The moment you get a large black population, crime goes up, whites move out, the minority becomes the majority, they elect black democrats, more white people get the hell out, and the city is destroyed. This is because there are more black people not working than working and they make up the highest welfare demographic. Detroit is the prime example. Blacks can prosper as a minority in a city. They cannot prosper as the majority. All of this information is in the op.
Where's the 55% stat? You quotes BLS statistics and I came back and showed you that the white labor force participation rate is 64 and the Black is 61.5. How are you coming up with the 55% that you originally quoted? The difference between them is 2.5, so what is your calculation (using the number provided) of the white unemployment rate the way you "calculated" it?
Simply add those not participating in the workforce to those unemployed and you have your answer. It is that simple. The unemployed are not counted as part of those not participating in the work force. The unemployed are included in the work force participation rate.
Whites have both a higher participation rate and lower unemployment. Therefore, unlike blacks, there are more whites working than not.
Pheonixops quoted the black unemployment rate at 16%. Now simply add those not in the labor force which amount to 38% among blacks.
16+38= 54%
Unemployed = participating in the labor force, eligible for work, and looking for work.
Labor force non-participation = eligible to work, not retired, not a child, not looking for work.
Where's the 55% stat? You quotes BLS statistics and I came back and showed you that the white labor force participation rate is 64 and the Black is 61.5. How are you coming up with the 55% that you originally quoted? The difference between them is 2.5, so what is your calculation (using the number provided) of the white unemployment rate the way you "calculated" it?
Simply add those not participating in the workforce to those unemployed and you have your answer. It is that simple. The unemployed are not counted as part of those not participating in the work force. The unemployed are included in the work force participation rate.
Whites have both a higher participation rate and lower unemployment. Therefore, unlike blacks, there are more whites working than not.
Pheonixops quoted the black unemployment rate at 16%. Now simply add those not in the labor force which amount to 38% among blacks.
16+38= 54%
Unemployed = participating in the labor force, eligible for work, and looking for work.
Labor force non-participation = eligible to work, not retired, not a child, not looking for work.
LOL, really? Let's use your calculation with the data provided, we won't single out "the Blacks":
White:64.0
When you made your calculations you took 100 and subtracted (in this case) 64 and came up with the difference 36. Then you took that number 36 and added the unemployment rate percentage to it, in this case for Whites it was 5.9%. So the answer for the White unemployment equals: 41.9% "unemployment".
Black: 61.5
Using your formula above (with accurate numbers): 100-61.5=38.5
38.5+11.6= 50.1 (not 55)
Asian: 63.9
100-63.9= 36.1
36.1+4.1=40.2
Hispanic: 66.4
100-66.4=33.6
33.6+8.3= 41.9
That shows that Asians have higher employment number than Whites,etc. It also demonstrates that only 58.1% of White people are working and you are touting that as some sort of "superiority"?
Where's the 55% stat? You quotes BLS statistics and I came back and showed you that the white labor force participation rate is 64 and the Black is 61.5. How are you coming up with the 55% that you originally quoted? The difference between them is 2.5, so what is your calculation (using the number provided) of the white unemployment rate the way you "calculated" it?
Simply add those not participating in the workforce to those unemployed and you have your answer. It is that simple. The unemployed are not counted as part of those not participating in the work force. The unemployed are included in the work force participation rate.
Whites have both a higher participation rate and lower unemployment. Therefore, unlike blacks, there are more whites working than not.
Pheonixops quoted the black unemployment rate at 16%. Now simply add those not in the labor force which amount to 38% among blacks.
16+38= 54%
Unemployed = participating in the labor force, eligible for work, and looking for work.
Labor force non-participation = eligible to work, not retired, not a child, not looking for work.
LOL, really? Let's use your calculation with the data provided, we won't single out "the Blacks":
White:64.0
When you made your calculations you took 100 and subtracted (in this case) 64 and came up with the difference 36. Then you took that number 36 and added the unemployment rate percentage to it, in this case for Whites it was 5.9%. So the answer for the White unemployment equals: 41.9% "unemployment".
Black: 61.5
Using your formula above (with accurate numbers): 100-61.5=38.5
38.5+11.6= 50.1 (not 55)
Asian: 63.9
100-63.9= 36.1
36.1+4.1=40.2
Hispanic: 66.4
100-66.4=33.6
33.6+8.3= 41.9
That shows that Asians have higher employment number than Whites,etc. It also demonstrates that only 58.1% of White people are working and you are touting that as some sort of "superiority"?
Simply add those not participating in the workforce to those unemployed and you have your answer. It is that simple. The unemployed are not counted as part of those not participating in the work force. The unemployed are included in the work force participation rate.
Whites have both a higher participation rate and lower unemployment. Therefore, unlike blacks, there are more whites working than not.
Pheonixops quoted the black unemployment rate at 16%. Now simply add those not in the labor force which amount to 38% among blacks.
16+38= 54%
Unemployed = participating in the labor force, eligible for work, and looking for work.
Labor force non-participation = eligible to work, not retired, not a child, not looking for work.
LOL, really? Let's use your calculation with the data provided, we won't single out "the Blacks":
White:64.0
When you made your calculations you took 100 and subtracted (in this case) 64 and came up with the difference 36. Then you took that number 36 and added the unemployment rate percentage to it, in this case for Whites it was 5.9%. So the answer for the White unemployment equals: 41.9% "unemployment".
Black: 61.5
Using your formula above (with accurate numbers): 100-61.5=38.5
38.5+11.6= 50.1 (not 55)
Asian: 63.9
100-63.9= 36.1
36.1+4.1=40.2
Hispanic: 66.4
100-66.4=33.6
33.6+8.3= 41.9
That shows that Asians have higher employment number than Whites,etc. It also demonstrates that only 58.1% of White people are working and you are touting that as some sort of "superiority"?
Very good. You read me clearly. Now combine single parents, low education, violent crime, nonviolent crime, percentage of the population on welfare, and you have a disaster on your hands. Asians are the most successful demographic in the United States. The unemployment percentage of blacks was not based upon my assessment. If you follow the threads back you will figure this out. Any honest assessment of culture in the US will show that black culture is the number one reason blacks are prevented from advancement. See video below. No, seriously, WATCH IT!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu_bKJ11O0M]Thomas Sowell - Culture Matters - YouTube[/ame]
I fear I am ill equipped to celebrate, I don't have the necessary supplies. Off to the "stoe" to get sum 40's and a pack of Black and Mild's. Uh, ..... Wouldn't it be selling out the legacy of Dr. King if I actually paid for them though? ... ... ... But I don't want to steal merchandise, ... ... ... perhaps there is a middle ground? ... .. ... *SNAP*, I GOT IT! Do you know anyone with an EBT card? Gotta keep the legacy alive yo!
Simply add those not participating in the workforce to those unemployed and you have your answer. It is that simple. The unemployed are not counted as part of those not participating in the work force. The unemployed are included in the work force participation rate.
Whites have both a higher participation rate and lower unemployment. Therefore, unlike blacks, there are more whites working than not.
Pheonixops quoted the black unemployment rate at 16%. Now simply add those not in the labor force which amount to 38% among blacks.
16+38= 54%
Unemployed = participating in the labor force, eligible for work, and looking for work.
Labor force non-participation = eligible to work, not retired, not a child, not looking for work.
LOL, really? Let's use your calculation with the data provided, we won't single out "the Blacks":
White:64.0
When you made your calculations you took 100 and subtracted (in this case) 64 and came up with the difference 36. Then you took that number 36 and added the unemployment rate percentage to it, in this case for Whites it was 5.9%. So the answer for the White unemployment equals: 41.9% "unemployment".
Black: 61.5
Using your formula above (with accurate numbers): 100-61.5=38.5
38.5+11.6= 50.1 (not 55)
Asian: 63.9
100-63.9= 36.1
36.1+4.1=40.2
Hispanic: 66.4
100-66.4=33.6
33.6+8.3= 41.9
That shows that Asians have higher employment number than Whites,etc. It also demonstrates that only 58.1% of White people are working and you are touting that as some sort of "superiority"?
Very good. You read me clearly. Now combine under employment, part time employment, low wage low skilled employment, single parents, low education, violent crime, nonviolent crime, percentage of the population on welfare, and you have a disaster on your hands. Asians are the most successful demographic in the United States. The unemployment percentage of blacks was not based upon my assessment. If you follow the threads back you will figure this out. Any honest assessment of culture in the US will show that black culture is the number one reason blacks are prevented from advancement. See video below. No, seriously, WATCH IT!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu_bKJ11O0M]Thomas Sowell - Culture Matters - YouTube[/ame]
All cultures have both positives and negatives. Blacks have more negatives than most cultures in the US. Yes, there is a such thing as superior cultures. To say otherwise would be out of touch with honest reality. You disagree?
Note: Do not get this confused with racial superiority.
: the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time
LOL, really? Let's use your calculation with the data provided, we won't single out "the Blacks":
White:64.0
When you made your calculations you took 100 and subtracted (in this case) 64 and came up with the difference 36. Then you took that number 36 and added the unemployment rate percentage to it, in this case for Whites it was 5.9%. So the answer for the White unemployment equals: 41.9% "unemployment".
Black: 61.5
Using your formula above (with accurate numbers): 100-61.5=38.5
38.5+11.6= 50.1 (not 55)
Asian: 63.9
100-63.9= 36.1
36.1+4.1=40.2
Hispanic: 66.4
100-66.4=33.6
33.6+8.3= 41.9
That shows that Asians have higher employment number than Whites,etc. It also demonstrates that only 58.1% of White people are working and you are touting that as some sort of "superiority"?
Very good. You read me clearly. Now combine single parents, low education, violent crime, nonviolent crime, percentage of the population on welfare, and you have a disaster on your hands. Asians are the most successful demographic in the United States. The unemployment percentage of blacks was not based upon my assessment. If you follow the threads back you will figure this out. Any honest assessment of culture in the US will show that black culture is the number one reason blacks are prevented from advancement. See video below. No, seriously, WATCH IT!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu_bKJ11O0M]Thomas Sowell - Culture Matters - YouTube[/ame]
This goes back to how one defines so-called "Black culture". When you did that little post about "Getting some 40's yo, etc." regarding how "the Blacks" celebrate MLK day, you used the minority of Black people and the lowest element that you could conjure up to represent so-called "Black culture". Here's the actual post of yours:
I fear I am ill equipped to celebrate, I don't have the necessary supplies. Off to the "stoe" to get sum 40's and a pack of Black and Mild's. Uh, ..... Wouldn't it be selling out the legacy of Dr. King if I actually paid for them though? ... ... ... But I don't want to steal merchandise, ... ... ... perhaps there is a middle ground? ... .. ... *SNAP*, I GOT IT! Do you know anyone with an EBT card? Gotta keep the legacy alive yo!
The majority of "the Blacks" are not walking around and acting like the lowest element that you represented. You are having discussions with plenty of Black people on this forum, what percentage of "them" are typing that stuff here? How many of "them" said that they were celebrating Dr. Kings birthday like the way you described?
You have had historical discussions with us, political, social, etc. I am sure that NONE of us communicate with you that way and speaking for myself, many of us certainly aren't W.E.B. Duboise's Talented Tenth, though we may work and aspire to be that way. Your seem intelligent, but something is retarding your intellect when you try to make the minority represent the majority.
Some people try to take statistics and present them in a way that shines a negative light on the group they despise. For example; a person with an agenda against Black people can take a statistic like "50% of Black men are arrested", in order to project "Bad Blacks!, Bad Blacks!" while leaving out the rest of the story like this: "The authors found that by age 18, 30 percent of black men, 26 percent of Hispanic men and 22 percent of white men have been arrested. By 23, those numbers climb to 49 percent for black men, 44 percent for Hispanic men and 38 percent for white men.". Thus presenting a more complete picture. Add what's said in this video below and it gives one a more complete picture:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Cn4svUfd0]Busted! Ron Paul racist rant caught on tape! - YouTube[/ame]
There is certainly less cultural, political, and economic diversity within the black community than the white community. With a 70% out of wedlock birth rate, with over 50% of the black labor force not working, with only 47% of the black population graduating in their proper high school year, the problem isn't among a small minority. It is the majority. These numbers were supposed to get better after Jim Crow was over. In fact they have either gotten worse, stayed stagnant, or only somewhat improved. You would figure the end of Jim Crow and black political enfranchisement/empowerment would have unleashed some major barriers. In fact it did not.
There is certainly less cultural, political, and economic diversity within the black community than the white community. With a 70% out of wedlock birth rate, with over 50% of the black labor force not working, with only 47% of the black population graduating in their proper high school year, the problem isn't among a small minority. It is the majority. These numbers were supposed to get better after Jim Crow was over. In fact they have either gotten worse, stayed stagnant, or only somewhat improved. You would figure the end of Jim Crow and black political enfranchisement/empowerment would have unleashed some major barriers. In fact it did not.
You're a Racist !
Why do Republicans care about black people. If they did, they would know some. Or even stop practicing "voter suppression".
Deanie, I like you but in this instance you're no better than the racists here with your myopic generalizations and stereotyping.
Just got back from AZ yesterday and I'd say the state of the Black Union is making significant strides. Black businessmen and women as far as the eye could see. Several of us got together after the event and discussed issues of import to our communities and ways to disseminate information. We are creating multiple leaders so others cannot identify just one or two to target. There are going to be some disappointed racists in the forthcoming years.
There is certainly less cultural, political, and economic diversity within the black community than the white community. With a 70% out of wedlock birth rate, with over 50% of the black labor force not working, with only 47% of the black population graduating in their proper high school year, the problem isn't among a small minority. It is the majority. These numbers were supposed to get better after Jim Crow was over. In fact they have either gotten worse, stayed stagnant, or only somewhat improved. You would figure the end of Jim Crow and black political enfranchisement/empowerment would have unleashed some major barriers. In fact it did not.
You're a Racist !
I do not believe that whites are genetically superior to blacks. Therefore I cannot be a racist. If you can find a statement where I said that white people are genetically superior I will do us all a favor and never post in this forum again.
There is certainly less cultural, political, and economic diversity within the black community than the white community. With a 70% out of wedlock birth rate, with over 50% of the black labor force not working, with only 47% of the black population graduating in their proper high school year, the problem isn't among a small minority. It is the majority. These numbers were supposed to get better after Jim Crow was over. In fact they have either gotten worse, stayed stagnant, or only somewhat improved. You would figure the end of Jim Crow and black political enfranchisement/empowerment would have unleashed some major barriers. In fact it did not.
You're a Racist !
I do not believe that whites are genetically superior to blacks. Therefore I cannot be a racist. If you can find a statement where I said that white people are genetically superior I will do us all a favor and never post in this forum again.
Why do Republicans care about black people. If they did, they would know some. Or even stop practicing "voter suppression".
Deanie, I like you but in this instance you're no better than the racists here with your myopic generalizations and stereotyping.
Myopic generalizations and stereotyping? You mean like what Republicans say about blacks?
Or maybe you believe voter suppression isn't "real"?
Why do Republicans care about black people. If they did, they would know some. Or even stop practicing "voter suppression".
Deanie, I like you but in this instance you're no better than the racists here with your myopic generalizations and stereotyping.
Myopic generalizations and stereotyping? You mean like what Republicans say about blacks?
Or maybe you believe voter suppression isn't "real"?
You're a Racist !
I do not believe that whites are genetically superior to blacks. Therefore I cannot be a racist. If you can find a statement where I said that white people are genetically superior I will do us all a favor and never post in this forum again.
Racism has also been defined as "The belief that some races are inherently superior (physically, intellectually, or culturally) to others and therefore have a right to rule or dominate them."
I am not going to make the statement that you are blatantly racist, and I will give you recognition for being intellectually superior to most of those who post here who in fact are undoubtedly racist.
However, I will state that you appear to be duplicitous, and exceedingly egotistical, and in fact do harbor a resentment towards the black population in general, which is evident in some of the thinly veiled statements that you have made in some of your "threads", which makes you much more typical than what many often interpret as actually being "racist".
You are that outwardly innocuous person who would probably smile at the average black person that you encounter and say "I'm not a racist, I listen to Motown music and have black friends".
I think that you have a fascination with interpreting and manipulating statistics and what you refer to as "trends" to present what you want other posters to believe are "intelligent debate topics", but in reality are just regurgitated copy and paste jobs from external sites.
I chose initially to engage in a "debate" with you in one of your threads, namely,
"The State of The Black Union", which if you go back and refer to it, you will note where it was left. With the ball in your court, and me waiting for you to respond to my last point.
Since then, I have chosen to watch what you post from a distance, and you follow a distinct pattern, one that I have seen in countless Internet race relations forums over many years.
You post a topic that is usually guaranteed to attract predictable attention and responses from opposing sides, then you sit back and watch the flaming, while interjecting the same personal interpretations of selected statistics and trends to keep the thread alive, and offer no new or original thoughts.
Or, you will introduce the same interpretations of statistics and trends into a thread that was not started by you, and then you sit back and watch the flaming.
Finally, I for one hope that you DO NOT leave this forum, as I think you are an excellent example to learn from for some of the younger posters here who may not have encountered your type of subtle understated tactics in an anonymous forum like this or more so in real life. You are much more typical than different.
Racism has also been defined as "The belief that some races are inherently superior (physically, intellectually, or culturally) to others and therefore have a right to rule or dominate them."
I am not going to make the statement that you are blatantly racist, and I will give you recognition for being intellectually superior to most of those who post here who in fact are undoubtedly racist.
However, I will state that you appear to be duplicitous, and exceedingly egotistical, and in fact do harbor a resentment towards the black population in general, which is evident in some of the thinly veiled statements that you have made in some of your "threads", which makes you much more typical than what many often interpret as actually being "racist".
You are that outwardly innocuous person who would probably smile at the average black person that you encounter and say "I'm not a racist, I listen to Motown music and have black friends".
I think that you have a fascination with interpreting and manipulating statistics and what you refer to as "trends" to present what you want other posters to believe are "intelligent debate topics", but in reality are just regurgitated copy and paste jobs from external sites.
I chose initially to engage in a "debate" with you in one of your threads, namely,
"The State of The Black Union", which if you go back and refer to it, you will note where it was left. With the ball in your court, and me waiting for you to respond to my last point.
Since then, I have chosen to watch what you post from a distance, and you follow a distinct pattern, one that I have seen in countless Internet race relations forums over many years.
You post a topic that is usually guaranteed to attract predictable attention and responses from opposing sides, then you sit back and watch the flaming, while interjecting the same personal interpretations of selected statistics and trends to keep the thread alive, and offer no new or original thoughts.
Or, you will introduce the same interpretations of statistics and trends into a thread that was not started by you, and then you sit back and watch the flaming.
Finally, I for one hope that you DO NOT leave this forum, as I think you are an excellent example to learn from for some of the younger posters here who may not have encountered your type of subtle understated tactics in an anonymous forum like this or more so in real life. You are much more typical than different.
Then that definition is wrong. Culture is not even in the same ballpark as race. I could take a black child and give him to some white parents and he is all but guaranteed to grow up with the same speech patterns, values, and culture of his white parents.
If I were to grant you for no other reason but for the sake of argument that I hold resentment toward the black population, then you must grant that being accused of having such ill-intent is not refuting the arguments I make.
With respect to your (smile/black friend comment), I am in an inter-racial marriage and is no predominant race in the US that I have not dated. Nonetheless, they have all had one thing in common. They culturally the opposite of what I would describe as mainstream black culture. Excuse me for not granting an immediate definition.
My threads do come from information from external sources, however, every thing we write must be justified as such. There is nothing worse than a claim without anything to back it up. Certainly, there is no academic publication or book that does not cite sources so as to present other arguments and the validity of the information provided. Attacking sources are a legitimate critique, however, attacking me for using sources is not. Likewise, attacking me for debating the arguments of others is not a legitimate critique.
Flaming does not help my case. Of course, it does keep my threads alive when they otherwise would have seeped into darkness. No, I legitimately wish to argue, that is to say, make a claim and support it with facts and see what others have to say on the issue. I don't generally get caught up in the emotion of the argument although I do sometimes respond to flamers so as to, well, see above.
I have made these arguments before in academic and public settings where I was certainly in the minority. However, I will grant you a 100% certainty that I do not go about it there as I would here.[
Of course thère is no point in wasting productive tine splitting hairs with you over how I see you and you see yourself. So I was not expecting a response. I simply made a casual observation about you, as you have been doing about
"the blacks".
I did not personally create the definition of "racist" that I compared you to, so therefore it is not incumbent upon me to dispute that which I did not create, therefore it is your prerogative to sidestep the obvious similarities in yourself to that definition.
As far as me "attacking you", I am not doing any such thing. As I stated, I do not think you are blatantly racist, and give you credit for a higher level of fluid intelligence than the majority of the hard core racists here possess, however I do believe that you fit a profile and a pattern of behavior that I have encountered on multiple occasions in my 60+ years of living.
That being said, please do continue with your armchair sociologists analysis of "black culture".
It has been quite entertaining thus far.
When I feel compelled to comment on something that I have not heard 100 times before, I may.
You have indeed made a casual observation and I was happy to split the hairs with you so as to clarify a few things. This has been accomplished and we are both the better for it. Well, at least I am, I cannot speak for you.
If my behavior has demonstrated anything it is that I am seriously debating the subjects I post, which, you have recognized. Perhaps it may be a pattern you recognize but this does not mean that it isn't worth debating; an observation, I know, you did not assert or imply.
I aim to entertain. Knowledge, if for nothing else other than to understand another way of thinking, is entertaining. Thank you for your time and serious/legitimate/on topic responses.
I do not believe that whites are genetically superior to blacks. Therefore I cannot be a racist. If you can find a statement where I said that white people are genetically superior I will do us all a favor and never post in this forum again.
Racism has also been defined as "The belief that some races are inherently superior (physically, intellectually, or culturally) to others and therefore have a right to rule or dominate them."
I am not going to make the statement that you are blatantly racist, and I will give you recognition for being intellectually superior to most of those who post here who in fact are undoubtedly racist.
However, I will state that you appear to be duplicitous, and exceedingly egotistical, and in fact do harbor a resentment towards the black population in general, which is evident in some of the thinly veiled statements that you have made in some of your "threads", which makes you much more typical than what many often interpret as actually being "racist".
You are that outwardly innocuous person who would probably smile at the average black person that you encounter and say "I'm not a racist, I listen to Motown music and have black friends".
I think that you have a fascination with interpreting and manipulating statistics and what you refer to as "trends" to present what you want other posters to believe are "intelligent debate topics", but in reality are just regurgitated copy and paste jobs from external sites.
I chose initially to engage in a "debate" with you in one of your threads, namely,
"The State of The Black Union", which if you go back and refer to it, you will note where it was left. With the ball in your court, and me waiting for you to respond to my last point.
Since then, I have chosen to watch what you post from a distance, and you follow a distinct pattern, one that I have seen in countless Internet race relations forums over many years.
You post a topic that is usually guaranteed to attract predictable attention and responses from opposing sides, then you sit back and watch the flaming, while interjecting the same personal interpretations of selected statistics and trends to keep the thread alive, and offer no new or original thoughts.
Or, you will introduce the same interpretations of statistics and trends into a thread that was not started by you, and then you sit back and watch the flaming.
Finally, I for one hope that you DO NOT leave this forum, as I think you are an excellent example to learn from for some of the younger posters here who may not have encountered your type of subtle understated tactics in an anonymous forum like this or more so in real life. You are much more typical than different.
Then that definition is wrong. Culture is not even in the same ballpark as race. I could take a black child and give him to some white parents and he is all but guaranteed to grow up with the same speech patterns, values, and culture of his white parents.
If I were to grant you for no other reason but for the sake of argument that I hold resentment toward the black population, then you must grant that being accused of having such ill-intent is not refuting the arguments I make.
With respect to your (smile/black friend comment), I am in an inter-racial marriage and is no predominant race in the US that I have not dated. Nonetheless, they have all had one thing in common. They culturally the opposite of what I would describe as mainstream black culture. Excuse me for not granting an immediate definition.
My threads do come from information from external sources, however, every thing we write must be justified as such. There is nothing worse than a claim without anything to back it up. Certainly, there is no academic publication or book that does not cite sources so as to present other arguments and the validity of the information provided. Attacking sources are a legitimate critique, however, attacking me for using sources is not. Likewise, attacking me for debating the arguments of others is not a legitimate critique.
Flaming does not help my case. Of course, it does keep my threads alive when they otherwise would have seeped into darkness. No, I legitimately wish to argue, that is to say, make a claim and support it with facts and see what others have to say on the issue. I don't generally get caught up in the emotion of the argument although I do sometimes respond to flamers so as to, well, see above.
I have made these arguments before in academic and public settings where I was certainly in the minority. However, I will grant you a 100% certainty that I do not go about it there as I would here.
