44 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
Well, if he or his sympathizers try to eradicate me
they might find the reverse will occur.
(NT) To many drugs maybe? Stupid idiot!
What made you think of drugs? Do you feel the same way about the KKK members? Have they had too many drugs too?
Better to assume drugs
than to think that this guy is some sort of racist wacko... drugs is a kinder criticism.
Perhaps just a racist idiot? I can't be sure.
What made you think of drugs?
He?s a college professor so chances are he wasn?t born an idiot, but he talks like a racist idiot and association with various drugs over extended periods of time can bring forth the type of non-sense he?s blurting out.
Do you feel the same way about the KKK members? Have they had too many drugs too?
I don?t feel that way about KKK members, not that I know a KKK member. However, certain drugs may help some of those people, but I can?t be sure of that either. Many of them were simply born idiots in the first place.
Maybe Farrakhan will make him his Minister Of Idiots, in Farrakhan's new and upcoming ''black nation.''
What was someone saying about ...
... what our tax dollars subsidize? LOL
Enlighten us and provide a link please!
Academic freedom. Ain't it great? Just send the tuition
(NT) and hes probolly tenured
One evening an old Sioux told his grandson about a battle that goes on,inside people.
He said, My son, the battle is between two "wolves" inside us all.
One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance,self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, unforgivness,superiority, and ego.
The other is Good. It is joy, peace, unconditional love, forgiveness, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith."
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather:
"Which wolf wins?"
The old Sioux simply replied, "The one you feed."
Easy to tell which is being fed here in Speakeasy....
(NT) Children must be carefully taught
Totally outrages but...
I remember a thread on this forum where many argued that when William Bennett made a similar statement about aborting black babies reducing crime that his statement was protected under the auspices of "Free Speech" along with being quantitatively "true".
Now look here... I don't support this guy at all. For an "educator" he seems to be forgetting recent historical events like the genocide in Rwanda 10 years ago where it was tribal group against tribal group. I think this is as racist a remark as the one made by Bill Bennett (although many of you will vehemently disagree with me here).
I personally hate the idea that this man goes around promoting racist ideas under the guise of education. I also wonder what the reaction was by the young people he was speaking to. I condemned Mr. Bennett for his statement and I condemn this guy for his but they make much the same argument (both faulty) which is killing off a group of people because of the color of their skin will solve a problem. The only difference is this guy didn't say "That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do..."
Free speech... good or bad, you got to support it.
The difference is..
That Bennett was NOT advocating the killing of anyone, in spite of what you claim, and this guy IS. World of difference.
Your right Ed
Bennett did tag his "But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could..." statement with a disclaimer, and I did point this out.
I did not "claim" that Bennett advocated killing black children. I stated that Bennett had made a comment that premised - if you do this then that will happen - eg. "you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down" and then added a disclaimer.
Kambon said "We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem." but did not add a disclaimer.
What I said was " they make much the same argument (both faulty) which is killing off a group of people because of the color of their skin will solve a problem." You are totally right in that Bennett did not advocate killing of anyone because he added that disclaimer, right?
So where am I claiming that Bennett does advocate killing anyone? I simply said their arguments were much the same and as distasteful as these arguments are that they have every right to say them as was the consensus on the other thread I mentioned.
That's the impression you left me...
...on the other thread with all your blather about eugenics, etc. And there's this:
The only difference is this guy didn't say "That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do..."
That's NOT the only difference is it?
Both statements were racist
That they have in common. Bennett put his forth as more of a theory and then backed off it, trying to have it both ways ("This would work but of course I don't advocate it"); Kambon came closer to incitement. Whether he crossed that line legally I don't know.
Bennett's was not racist. He didn't
"back off" ; he was illustrating a point.
(NT) Exactly what non-racist point was he illustrating?
The point he was illustrating,...
as has been pointed out previously, was the flaws present in the "solutions" advocated by "Freakonomics" which was what the discussion was about. An illustration that stats could be abused and twisted to arrive at an irrefutable conclusion. ONLY if he had gone on to say that THE ONLY abortions that would have that effect of reducing crime would be black abortions could anyone with any integrity arrive at a conclusion of racism.
Vote fraud could be reduced by orders of magnitude if all babies of all liberals were aborted too. That is absolutely true and not racist, sexist (not even if it was "female liberals"), sectist, genocidal, nor even partisan, simply true--it may grate on your nerves but it is true.
Substitute white or brown or red or yellow for black and the first is still true and still not racist.
Substitute conservative, or libertarian, or green for liberal and the second still remains true.
Leave out color or political affiliation completely and both are still true BUT arguable on the grounds that total abortion would eliminate humans completely rather than simply reducing any specific problem.
That, Josh, was the "point" of his comment.
Nice cheap shot Mr. O'Daniel
You can't simply say "I disagree" or "Prove your point". No, instead you have to Question peoples "integrity" with a veiled insult.
Why get personal? Why get insulting... why insult someone who uses their freedom of speech. Why be mean?
I tend to call a spade a spade rather than a handy, dandy shovel.
Knowing that there are people without integrity I won't hesitate to mention which would tend to see what isn't there.
Which one is your dog?
(NT) Very logical, Josh.
(NT) That is not an answer to my question
YOU asserted his statement was racist...
therefore the burden is on YOU to demonstrate that it is. Not on me to demonstratre that it isn't, which is trying to prove a negative.
What part of his statement was non-racist? All of it. Show me otherwise..
That's NOT the only difference is it?
I'm sure there are lots of differences between Kambon and Bennet as individuals, their accomplishments and beliefs. Take these 2 statements and put them side by side though and I personally don't see much difference between the idea behind both statements. May be I'm missing something here but i see both statements saying...
1... these social problems are caused by a group of people defined by the color of their skin.
2... if we get rid of these people, we then get rid of the threat they represent and/or are responsible for.
Bennett then said that to really carry through with that logic is immoral BUT the logic was true. Kambon said that his idea was valid as well but added no disclaimer.
from Merriam-Webster online
which are obvious, are that Bennett was making a point about ABORTION and he happened to use facts which, though uncomfortable are facts nonetheless. As I poinbted out before more than once, he was making an argument AGAINST abortion.
On the other hand, Kambon is engaging in a racist polemic which is based on the faulty idea that the problems of black people are caused by white people. If he could get his wish and eliminate all white people he would quickly find out that the problems would remain. because the problems of black people are caused largely BY black people.
Until this home truth is accepted, progress will be stunted.
Eugenics has nothing to do with any of it, but we must have our little obsessions I suppose.
You raised the Eugenics issue Ed
not I. I simply said that there was a similarity in the statements and that per the previous discussion, as distasteful and misguided as the man appears to be, we can't put him down for speaking out in a public forum.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)