What Was Your Impression of the Debate 9-7-11

So I guess I have proven that you did not know what the definition of cohort is. You just won't admit it. I will tell you what. It you admit you are wrong and apologize to CoinOKC, I will tell you. Sincerity is a must in this case.

 

I object to the term "minority folks". Are you basing your assertion on the color or shading of a person's skin? Their hair color? Their facial features? I assume you're referring to persons of determinedly darker pigmentation or melanin in their skin. Is my assumption correct? If that's the case, please tell us how a person's skin color determines his or her heritage.

If you adhere to accepted modern science, then you'll agree that hominids and hominins (forebears of modern man) began in Africa. All humans are of the same heritage; there is no distinction of a "minority" unless you discriminate by basing your assertion on skin color, etc. All humans are descended from Africa (according to accepted science) unless you wish to somehow dispute that. Therefore, anyone in the United States (or from the American continent) can refer to themselves as "African-American" just as anyone from the European continent can refer to themselves as "African-European" or simply "African" (which, according to science remember, we all are).

Now, you've previously referred to certain persons as "black people". Are you making a discrimination between these so-called "black people" and other people with less melanin in their skin? Or perhaps no melanin whatsoever? When you say "minority folks" are you referring to people who are less tanned than others? Perhaps people with red hair instead of blonde hair? People with more body fat than others? People who are shorter than others?

Forgive me for going on about this, but I'm just trying to find out how you discriminate one person from another and what factors you use as a basis for your discrimination.

 

I have MSNBC blocked. I can't stand to even see it as I am flipping though the channels. It makes me feel like I need to shower just to post about it.

 

mmmm.. Stujoe, I agree that I feel "icky" after watching MSNBC, but don't be like other folks here and completely tune out the opposition. Listen to both sides and make a reasonable judgment.

 

It was a joke. I actually forgot it was on and only caught the last 10 minutes of the debate. I do watch MSNBC...but typically only when they have that show Lockup on. But I would have watched the debate if I had remembered it.

 

Hey, my challenge is open to anyone here not just our local sociopathic lair. I'll accept Asians, Hispanics, Philippinos or anyone that doesn't look Caucasian. Please find one in either audience and point them out to me. The reasons for this have already been spelled out. I don't believe that the Republican Party represents anyone but the white wealthy American. I'm sure that there must be some minorities in the audience somewhere but trying to spot one is harder than finding Waldo. Contrast that with any democrat event and you can see the stark difference between who is represented and who isn't in each party. Again, the challenge is extended to anyone.

 

So you are that pig-headed that you will not even admit that you made a mistake. Since you did not watch it anyway, I find it hard to believe that you saw anything. After all, "I don't listen to anyone on the Right".

 

Again, I'll ask how you can tell someone's heritage simply by their appearance. Obviously, you're discriminating based on skin color which is, well, discrimination. How else are you able to discern a "minority"?

 

How about any obvious minority. If you need the definition of minority, just ask.

 

Age, Gender and Ethnic Factors.

Polls taken during the election showed that youth aged 18-25 overwhelmingly rejected the Conservatives. Women too, though not to the same extent. Nor was there any of the much-touted “breakthrough” among “ethnic” groups. The real basis of Conservative support consists of white men over age 50, Micheal Moore's “Stupid White Men.” There is much sense to this rejection by youth, women and minorities. When these Stupid White Men are rotting in their graves, today's youth will be suffering the dire consequences of all the cut-backs and piratizations, not to mention climate change and peak oil. Women are generally raised to have empathy and are thus not so attracted to the sociopathic concept that only corporations matter and people don't. People of colour would be fools to support the party that contains most of Canada's racists, even though they pretend not to be.

A Couple of Fallacies to Clear Up

The Conservative support from the over-fifties seems to clash with the vision of the “radical Sixties Generation.” Some pundits will trot this fact out as an example of how people supposedly become conservative in their old age. But this is not the case at all, since the counter-culture and New Left radicals were only a minority of their generation. The vast majority of 60s rads are still there in the social movements or at least support them. Since the radicals got all the attention (and had all the fun) the conservative wing of the Sixties Generation has never forgiven its left-wing cohorts. Part of the present attack can be seen as a kind of revenge of the losers.

We will undoubtedly be told that today's NDP-supporting, anti-Conservative youth will go right when they get older. This ignores the fact that politics are based upon deeply-held values. These values, such as empathy or the lack of it, tend, in the case of the former, to direct one to a progressive stance, and the latter to reactionary politics. Furthermore, your moral compass is usually permanently aligned by about age 18 or 20. Thus, if you have empathy at 18, you are most likely to have empathy at age 50. If as a youth, you regard selfishness as a virtue, you are likely to do so in old age as well.

 

So you are trying to tell me that "youth aged 18-25" have a better knowledge and worldly experience than "white men over age 50". I was brought up to believe exactly the opposite. Somehow I think 50 years of experience would teach a fellow much better than 18 years.

BTW, I am still waiting for that apology. Next, I am waiting for you to "show me one time I have failed to 'agree that we are a hardworking people'". So far you are an exemplar of;

 

You can not discriminate against a person by commenting on there skin tone in regards to there possible ethnic background, you discriminate by refusing to give them the same rights or respect as the rest of the population.
A person with white skin will more than likely trace there ancestery back to Northern Europe while a person with Black skin will most likely trace therse back to Africa and a person with Yellow skin to Asia
That is not been racialy discriminating but simply anthropologicaly true

 

No, you're definitely inadequate as a dictionary. I'll use standard sources, thank you.

 

Where did the "white skin" people come from before they migrated to Northern Europe? Where did the "yellow skin" people come from before they migrated to Asia? How far back in time do you want to trace heritage? Just to Northern Europe or Asia? You may as well say that you just want to trace your heritage back to London or some such...

Anyway, just by looking at a group of people, how can anyone discriminate and base a person's heritage simply on skin color? And the argument here is that just by looking at a crowd of people, an observer is able to determine a person's heritage, thereby placing him into a minority compared with the others in the crowd. First of all, that thought process is rather prejudicial. Secondly, it's not scientific. I can't speak for the UK, but here in the U.S., we have a populace with very diverse skin colorization; everything from black to white with every color in between.

My point is that it is impossible for a casual observer to look at a group of people and attempt to determine their heritage. Doing so indicates that the observer has pre-judged the group's heritage by placing them into one category or another without any facts other than skin colorization.

 

An yet in this society, we seem to have no problem making ethnic distictions when it benefits our position. Funny how that works.

 

Boehner looks to have darker skin than Biden or Obama.



As an aside, I never realized how much Biden can look like Frankenstein. Just needs a couple of spark plugs on his neck!

 

I know of only one person who makes ethnic distinctions when it benefits his position. Back to validating your blog;
"Our emotions bias us in advance. This works for everyone, progressive or reactionary."

And, BTW, my daughter is probably the only one with any connections here to truly be an African. How interesting that her skin is what you call white.

 

Who are you referring to when you say "society"? Businesses? Schools? Government? Neighbors? Community Organizations? Churches? Or that ever-changing, nebulous entity known as "everyone"?

Just who is benefiting from making "ethnic distinctions"? What benefit are they receiving?

 

I think Biden is in the minority in this photo. He's the one wearing the purple tie, the others aren't.

 

Most likely high blood pressure. I see that in a lot of people who eventually have a stroke or heart attack. But I might be discriminating by saying that. ...or maybe he's just sun-burned (sunlight absorbtion discrimination! ) ...or maybe he ordered the house lights dimmed in his vicinity so he could catch some sleep... in any case he's toast (grain-discrimination? ) 'cause Obama's ideas have to be considered in the Congress instead of dismissed outright.