# Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians



## Dannyalcatraz

Right now, it seems as if some of my brothers & sisters in Christ can't tell the difference.

http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/a...punishes-kid-because-of-his-religious-beliefs

http://www.mintpressnews.com/tx-pub...ge-washington-to-promote-christianity/208376/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/air-force-academy-religion-proselytism_n_1678092.html

Yeah, we are called to spread the faith, but we should be doing it with respect, honesty and within the boundaries set forth in the laws of our homeland.  Stuff like this just makes us look like dishonest bullies, and that is no way to spread the message.

WWJD?  I think he'd be kicking a bunch of us out of the temple grounds right now...


----------



## Kramodlog

"By taking away my ability to take away your rights, you are oppressing me." 

This sort of sound like some Christians when it comes to homosexuals or just those who oppose civil rights to some minority for reasons for that matter.

The thing is, in the US at least, Christian's rights have been growing not shrinking. The Hobby Lobby ruling is a good example of such rights growing and in the most terrible fashion. I bet the Hobby Lobby ruling could be used by this university who says Jesus didn't like unions. http://gawker.com/christian-university-claims-unions-are-against-its-reli-1722210305


----------



## MechaPilot

Yeah, the Hobby Lobby ruling sucks.  It's not the only one though.  Citizens United sucks as well.  And there's a 6th circuit appeals court holding that gives undue deference to administrative pronouncements.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I was reading another article today which included a sentiment to the effect that the "illusion of Christian supremacy" in American culture was ending.  He wasn't speaking in favor of various decisions enforcing the separation of religion and government, but rather lamenting that American culture was becoming less Christian.

Ironic, considering more than 75% of Americans self-identify as Christian, most of the justices of the SCOTUS, most of our presidents, and the vast majority of our legislators have been Christian as well.


----------



## Umbran

Any Christian in the US who thinks they are, "persecuted," has lost perspective on what that really means.  

"I don't get everything I want," is not persecution.


----------



## trappedslider

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I was reading another article today which included a sentiment to the effect that the "illusion of Christian supremacy" in American culture was ending.  He wasn't speaking in favor of various decisions enforcing the separation of religion and government, but rather lamenting that American culture was becoming less Christian.
> 
> Ironic, considering more than 75% of Americans self-identify as Christian, most of the justices of the SCOTUS, most of our presidents, and the vast majority of our legislators have been Christian as well.




Well Church attendance is down generally speaking. 

I do have to say that in part due to the internet "attacks" on Christians are more noticed by attacks i mean attacks on what they* believe and how they go about sharing those beliefs.  And as a by product there are in some cases more attacks in of themselves. 


*they in a general sense




Umbran said:


> Any Christian in the US who thinks they are, "persecuted," has lost perspective on what that really means.
> 
> 
> "I don't get everything I want," is not persecution.




As a member of The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I would say that for us (LDS) the persecution has become mockery instead. I would go as far as to say that's the word I think that should be used instead of persecution.


----------



## Ryujin

It's rather comical when the group in power complains about "oppression" because they're losing their privileged position and becoming just regular citizens. I wonder if that's how white South Africans felt as Apartheid was coming to an end?


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I was reading another article today which included a sentiment to the effect that the "illusion of Christian supremacy" in American culture was ending.  He wasn't speaking in favor of various decisions enforcing the separation of religion and government, but rather lamenting that American culture was becoming less Christian.
> 
> Ironic, considering more than 75% of Americans self-identify as Christian, most of the justices of the SCOTUS, most of our presidents, and the vast majority of our legislators have been Christian as well.




The speaker may have been referring to a recent PEW survey - over the course of seven years (2007 to 20014) the percentage of folks identifying as Christian dropped by about 7.8% (from 78.4% to 70.6%).  "Unaffiliated" rose by 6.7%.  

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

At that rate of loss, they cease holding a clear majority inside of one generation.  That'd be a massive shift, and massive shifts are scary.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

The article I was reading was discussing how Christians should respond to recent legal events, not the survey on attendance.  It was clear he felt the American Flock was under attack.

Clearly, he has no concept of what REAL attacks on Christianity look like, despite readily available news coverage of foreign affairs...


http://www.christiantoday.com/article/india.five.attacks.on.christians.in.the.last.week/54168.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/24/world/terrorists-attacks-on-christianity/


----------



## was

With such a large number of Christian factions and independent churches, it seems ignorant to me when people, conservative or liberal, stereotype something as being a 'typical Christian' action or response.


----------



## William Bonney

I'm an agnostic atheist and do not identify as an antitheist by any means. I want people to be able to practice their own religions privately. The trend in the US seems to be the assumption that this is somehow a Christian nation - it feels like a burgeoning theocracy. The palingenetic ultranationalism that trails behind such fervent Christian advocacy is a bit disconcerting as well. Granted, I interact with many, many Christians who are well-mannered, open-minded, charitable, compassionate people. It's the militant faction that is getting louder, more aggressive, and more intolerant that I'm referring to.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

As noted, I'm a Catholic...and I agree.


----------



## tuxgeo

A couple of brief comments (yes, I'll keep them brief!): 

(1) The First Amendment to the US Constitution declares (among other things) that *Congress* shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion. (That's from memory; I may have messed up some of the words.) However, that Amendment does _not_ say that the separate States shall not -- though a similar prohibition might be found in the separate State Constitutions. (I haven't read them all.) Is the First _incorporated under the Fourteenth_? If not, then Utah (for example) could legally Establish LDS if desired, and if the Utah Constitution allows it.

(2) WWJD? He'd shine like a beacon of Heaven*, and in His presence each of us sinners would fully see the errors (plural) of our ways. He wouldn't have to kick anybody! We'd each repent of everything we could in His presence. 
(Prophecy of St. Malachy: Francis counts as the final Pope. Izzat true? If so, will JC return to earth after the papacy of Francis? If we keep witnessing events for a few more years, we should be able to see whether that comes about. . . .)

*_well, duh!_


----------



## Umbran

tuxgeo said:


> (1) The First Amendment to the US Constitution declares (among other things) that *Congress* shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion. (That's from memory; I may have messed up some of the words.) However, that Amendment does _not_ say that the separate States shall not -- though a similar prohibition might be found in the separate State Constitutions. (I haven't read them all.) Is the First _incorporated under the Fourteenth_?




Yes, it is.  This was established in Everson v. Board of Education, in 1947.

"In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). In the majority decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."



> (2) WWJD? He'd shine like a beacon of Heaven*, and in His presence each of us sinners would fully see the errors (plural) of our ways. He wouldn't have to kick anybody! We'd each repent of everything we could in His presence.




Theological question:  Why do you think that?  It isn't like each sinner saw the error of their ways and repented them when he was around the first time.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Beat me to it.

Here's the case:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/330/1.html


----------



## Ryujin

Umbran said:


> Theological question:  Why do you think that?  It isn't like each sinner saw the error of their ways and repented them when he was around the first time.




Well he is supposed to return when everything finally goes down the dumper and an awful lot of people suddenly find religion on their deathbeds


----------



## tuxgeo

Umbran said:


> Yes, it is.  This was established in Everson v. Board of Education, in 1947.
> 
> "In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). In the majority decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote: < snip >




Thanks for the reference; I guess I should memorize the name "Everson" so I can refer to it again. 
I had wondered about the date of the incorporation; that helps. 

On another topic, I wrote something about J.C. shining like a beacon of heaven, and all sinners repenting in His presence. 



> Theological question:  Why do you think that?  It isn't like each sinner saw the error of their ways and repented them when he was around the first time.




Mostly that's just a guess on my part. Back then, He had an unassuming form; people who didn't know Him might easily overlook Him on the street. 

Now, though, if He returns, it might be without the restrictions of a human form. He could be different. 
Theologically, going a bit ecumenical here and branching out from Christian theology: 
I was looking up the Muslim idea of a coming mortal to be called "el-Mahdi" (the guided one); and in the Wikipedia entry about that topic there are mentions of a couple of ideas that were largely new to me: (1) the Muslims call J.C. "Isa"; (2) when Isa returns, he is supposed to abolish the _jizya_ (tax on non-Muslims); and (3) His presence and teachings will be so obvious that the whole world will then follow Him. 

Not only was I "branching out" there, I was likely going out on a limb: since I'm no theologian, I have little business even trying to connect Christian prophecy with Muslim prophecy -- but I thought I'd take a shot at it anyway.


----------



## Sadras

William Bonney said:


> It's the militant faction that is getting louder, more aggressive, and more intolerant that I'm referring to.




Well from where I'm sitting, government and the media has a large role to play in that. Policies that are made into law as well as engineered or exclusive news coverage assists factions (sheep) towards a certain mentality.


----------



## Sadras

Ryujin said:


> It's rather comical when the group in power complains about "oppression" because they're losing their privileged position and becoming just regular citizens. I wonder if that's how white South Africans felt as Apartheid was coming to an end?




We were thinking South Africa is going to go the way of every other African country - and given recent years given the current status of the country, I dare say we were right. Also the BBBEE policies implemented are a joke with little or no foresight.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Sadras said:


> We were thinking South Africa is going to go the way of every other African country - and given recent years given the current status of the country, I dare say we were right. Also the BBBEE policies implemented are a joke with little or no foresight.




Care to clarify?


----------



## William Bonney

Sadras said:


> Well from where I'm sitting, government and the media has a large role to play in that. Policies that are made into law as well as engineered or exclusive news coverage assists factions (sheep) towards a certain mentality.



Please don't use the word 'sheep' in a serious post unless you're referring to _Ovis aries_, it's really pretentious and detracts from your position.

It's generally accepted that the inverse process is the most accurate - that policy and ideology are drawn from broader social movements rather than policy creating social movements. I may have misread your post; if I did, my mistake.


----------



## Sadras

William Bonney said:


> Please don't use the word 'sheep' in a serious post unless you're referring to _Ovis aries_, it's really pretentious and detracts from your position.




Fair enough.



> It's generally accepted that the inverse process is the most accurate - that policy and ideology are drawn from broader social movements rather than policy creating social movements. I may have misread your post; if I did, my mistake.




'Generally accepted' by whom?
Let us not forget it was the government that fed the media that fed the masses re 'Battle of Tonkin', Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, Calories is the Bad Guy not Sugar...etc So I very much disagree with your statement.
If a certain agenda needs to be pushed through - it does. The reason you have increasing militant Christians or right-wingers advocating loss of rights is because of this fear installed of the 'others'. And who exactly is instilling this fear?


----------



## Sadras

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Care to clarify?




Besides the series of embarrassing corruption/bribery charges over the last 15 years which have been levelled at the current and ex-president as well as their cabinets with no one being held accountable, the manufacturing industries have shrunk (and this is before the 2007/2008 economic meltdown) with the country going into bed with China in a big way - for little or no gain being realised for its needy people.
The above has helped weaken the currency - when the country became fully democratic in 1994 it was sitting at R3.60 to the 1$, 20 years on it is now R13 = R1.

They have people in the highest positions of power, who control the lives of the people they 'serve', who have neither been educated, nor do they have the experience. The current president has not even finished school. At what do we say, "Yup, we need one of the least educated to run a country."


Schooling has been dumbed down and instead of attempting to follow the education of the better countries, instead the country is adopting policies and curriculums of failed and poorly thought out systems. Recently they had university students throwing their excrement at old statues - and these students were acquitted of wrong doing. These are the bright minds we have to look forward to.   

And don't take my word for it about the education, take a South African black person's perspective. There are hundreds of articles such as these reflecting how badly the country is being run.
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/gover...barians-who-are-racist-and-sexist-jansen.html

The BBBEE policies refer only to black persons without differentiating if these blacks need to be South African or from any other African country. This is a huge problem, because you find that the companies will hire black people, to fill their BBBEE quota, from other African countries which are better educated/ with more experience than the natives, leaving the South African blacks in no better position than they were before. And the country is filled with African immigrants.

Then you have native Africans on non-native African clashes - were locals become jealous of the non-natives' success or ingenuity and either threaten/harm/kill the immigrants and/or destroy their properties.

A large percentage of the municipalities under the ANC do not receive clean audits.  

Monies are being spend needlessly in name-changing programmes 20 years on.

Furthermore in 1994 the country was generating more energy output for electricity than it is today. Why would that be, given that they wanted to put more people on the power grid? Its inefficient management and vision - which has led to 'load shedding'. For the last 5+ years the country as experienced planned electricity cuts (which never occurred before), which leads to a decrease in the countries output, decrease in foreign investments, lower GDP..etc
And there is a prediction that water shortages will be on their way. This is how it started in Zimbabwe.
So the ANC inherited a working infrastructure only to start dismantling it 20 years on...

I'm not saying good has not occurred with the fall of Apartheid, but certainly not nearly enough - and given the current 'fat cat' leaders of the ruling political party and their antics it is not looking promising for a country which is rather rich (gold, platinum, iron, copper, coal, diamonds, timber, agriculture, access to the ocean).


----------



## Umbran

William Bonney said:


> It's generally accepted that the inverse process is the most accurate - that policy and ideology are drawn from broader social movements rather than policy creating social movements.




I think modern media has gone a long way to enabling the creation of "movements" out of desired policy, rather than the other way around.


----------



## William Bonney

Sadras said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 'Generally accepted' by whom?
> Let us not forget it was the government that fed the media that fed the masses re 'Battle of Tonkin', Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, Calories is the Bad Guy not Sugar...etc So I very much disagree with your statement.
> If a certain agenda needs to be pushed through - it does. The reason you have increasing militant Christians or right-wingers advocating loss of rights is because of this fear installed of the 'others'. And who exactly is instilling this fear?




Accepted by modern sociologists. You're just making obtuse, conspiracy-theory-laden statements.


----------



## Umbran

William Bonney said:


> Accepted by modern sociologists. You're just making obtuse, conspiracy-theory-laden statements.




Not really.  Appeals to authority are problematic to begin with.  Vague, "everyone knows," authority is even worse.  At least now there is a framework around what you've asserted, and someone curious could double-check, go read up on some sociology, and see if it hangs together.


----------



## Sadras

William Bonney said:


> Accepted by modern sociologists. You're just making obtuse, conspiracy-theory-laden statements.




Look, do not take my word for it, my suggestion is for you to do some research about 'media manipulation' and see for yourself what results/articles come up.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Sadras said:


> They have people in the highest positions of power, who control the lives of the people they 'serve', who have neither been educated, nor do they have the experience. The current president has not even finished school. At what do we say, "Yup, we need one of the least educated to run a country."
> 
> Schooling has been dumbed down and instead of attempting to follow the education of the better countries, instead the country is adopting policies and curriculums of failed and poorly thought out systems. Recently they had university students throwing their excrement at old statues - and these students were acquitted of wrong doing. These are the bright minds we have to look forward to.
> 
> And don't take my word for it about the education, take a South African black person's perspective. There are hundreds of articles such as these reflecting how badly the country is being run.
> http://mybroadband.co.za/news/gover...barians-who-are-racist-and-sexist-jansen.html
> 
> The BBBEE policies refer only to black persons without differentiating if these blacks need to be South African or from any other African country. This is a huge problem, because you find that the companies will hire black people, to fill their BBBEE quota, from other African countries which are better educated/ with more experience than the natives, leaving the South African blacks in no better position than they were before. And the country is filled with African immigrants.



Well, to be honest, the education issues, and the President's lack of education are largely a consequence of your own making. They are a product of an apartheid education system. You reap what you sow, and all that good stuff.


----------



## Umbran

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Well, to be honest, the education issues, and the President's lack of education are largely a consequence of your own making. They are a product of an apartheid education system. You reap what you sow, and all that good stuff.




I have to agree with H_S here.  Apartheid ended only 20 years ago.  There then has to be generational change before people who were given horrible education previously will be up to speed.

You can't blame people for not instantaneously overcoming the results of institutional racism.


----------



## Ryujin

Umbran said:


> I have to agree with H_S here.  Apartheid ended only 20 years ago.  There then has to be generational change before people who were given horrible education previously will be up to speed.
> 
> You can't blame people for not instantaneously overcoming the results of institutional racism.




Yup, given that national level politicians tend to be in their late 40s or early 50s, at the youngest, they almost certainly would have been done with any schooling by the time that Apartheid ended. It'll likely be another 10 years, at best, before well educated Black South African politicians rise to the fore.


----------



## Umbran

Ryujin said:


> It'll likely be another 10 years, at best, before well educated Black South African politicians rise to the fore.




And that only if South Africa has a decent education system in place now.  The bootstrap from being really oppressed can take a while.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

10 years is optimistic even if the current system is top notch.  There are all kinds of societal/internalized attitudes to be overcome.  In the USA, we're 40 years out from our major societal civil rights reforms, and there is still a negative association in our community about education & "acting/talking white".


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Consider that the Bantu Act purposefully segregated blacks and forced on them a substandard education system designed to ingrain in them that they had no need for education; it's no wonder that education doesn't seem important to the current leaders that grew up in that system. Hendrik Verwoerd said “There is no place for [the Bantu] in the European community above the level of certain forms of labour … What is the use of teaching the Bantu child mathematics when it cannot use it in practice? That is quite absurd. Education must train people in accordance with their opportunities in life, according to the sphere in which they live.“

I wouldn't expect people who came out of such a grotesque educational system to value education enough to make any significant changes to it, much less know how to fix such a system if they were interested. 20 years is not enough. 40 years won't be enough. It will require a much longer period of time, and it will require other changes in society. Again, this is a consequence of apartheid.


----------



## Sadras

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Well, to be honest, the education issues, and the President's lack of education are largely a consequence of your own making. They are a product of an apartheid education system. You reap what you sow, and all that good stuff.




True, however it is not like there are no educated black people in South Africa, that is a big misconception to make. The three presidents before him (including the interim/acting president) were all educated. My contention being that he (the current president) was one of the least qualified, if not the least - out of the respective candidates.  



Ryujin said:


> Yup, given that national level politicians tend to be in their late 40s or early 50s, at the youngest, they almost certainly would have been done with any schooling by the time that Apartheid ended. It'll likely be another 10 years, at best, before well educated Black South African politicians rise to the fore.






Dannyalcatraz said:


> 10 years is optimistic even if the current system is top notch.  There are all kinds of societal/internalized attitudes to be overcome.  In the USA, we're 40 years out from our major societal civil rights reforms, and there is still a negative association in our community about education & "acting/talking white".




 @_*Dannyalcatraz*_ is most likely right on this - however we have had some amazing young black politicians enter the fore already. Unfortunately their voices are drowned out by the opposition and by keeping the masses 'dumb-down' which is an age old tactic to ensure votes do not go their way.  

20-30 years could work if there was no political corruption, essentially the ideal we all (perhaps naively) hope for.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Sadras said:


> True, however it is not like there are no educated black people in South Africa, that is a big misconception to make.



Well then it's a good thing I didn't assume that there were no educated black people in South Africa. My point was that the current President was a product of apartheid education. Even the people that voted him into the Presidency are a product of that system. 



> The three presidents before him (including the interim/acting president) were all educated. My contention being that he (the current president) was one of the least qualified, if not the least - out of the respective candidates.



South Africa isn't the first country to elect the least qualified candidate as President (or whatever title the leader has), and it won't be the last. That being said, why didn't the previous leaders make more significant changes to the educational system?    



> 20-30 years could work if there was no political corruption, essentially the ideal we all (perhaps naively) hope for.



There is no government on earth that is free of corruption. I'm thinking it's going to take you the better part of the next 100 years to get things in order.


----------



## Sadras

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Consider that the Bantu Act purposefully segregated blacks and forced on them a substandard education system designed to ingrain in them that they had no need for education; it's no wonder that education doesn't seem important to the current leaders that grew up in that system.




I do not agree with that assessment and sounds like it is going down a path of horrible excuses . Here is a quote from Nelson Mandela, a person that even the illiterate admire "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world."



> I wouldn't expect people who came out of such a grotesque educational system to value education enough to make any significant changes to it, much less know how to fix such a system if they were interested. 20 years is not enough. 40 years won't be enough. It will require a much longer period of time, and it will require other changes in society. Again, this is a consequence of apartheid.




You're mistaking greed for ignorance and it is common for those excusing all their current ills and crimes on Apartheid. It has become a joke in South Africa. No accountability whatsoever is what is eating at moral fibre of society, not just here - but everywhere.
We like to play the blame game - and if I were so inclined I would place it on Adam and he would in turn blame Eve and she would blame the serpent...and it would blame it on Apartheid.


----------



## Sadras

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Well then it's a good thing I didn't assume that there were no educated black people in South Africa. My point was that the current President was a product of apartheid education. Even the people that voted him into the Presidency are a product of that system...(snip)...There is no government on earth that is free of corruption. I'm thinking it's going to take you the better part of the next 100 years to get things in order.




Agreed and sadly true. It is in the nature of man to bitch though  



> That being said, why didn't the previous leaders make more significant changes to the educational system?




They have and they did and as I said before there are signs of progress, but the underprivileged are dealing with an archaic culture and traditions, an embedded gang life in their neighbourhoods, prevalent violent crime and many other life hardships. It is difficult to educate effectively under those conditions.


----------



## Umbran

Sadras said:


> You're mistaking ignorance with greed and it is common for those excusing all their current ills and crimes on Apartheid. It has become a joke in South Africa. No accountability whatsoever is what is eating at moral fibre of society, not just here - but everywhere.




Well, there is a question - who taught them to think that way?

It is not a sin to be a child of your environment.  What environment were they given?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I believe one relevant phrase would be "reaping what you sowed."

It is going to take time, and there WILL be further injustices.  Probably in both sides of the divide.

But things WILL get better if cooler heads prevail.


----------



## Sadras

Umbran said:


> Well, there is a question - who taught them to think that way?
> 
> It is not a sin to be a child of your environment.  What environment were they given?




At what point/age does one of a certain environment commit a sin? Stealing is bad in every culture I know. I can excuse the masses for voting a 'charismatic' person into power, but to make the argument that the president is sinless at the age of 70+ due to the apartheid environment which fell away when he was 50 is a bit of a stretch to me.

Imagine ML-King became president of USA and 15 years on another black man became president and was implicated as well as his cabinet in a number of corruption scandals with no real repercussions following, would you say that he is sinless because of having a previously disadvantaged background?

I can certainly see the point you are making, but to a limited degree.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Imagine ML-King became president of USA and 15 years on another black man became president and was implicated as well as his cabinet in a number of corruption scandals with no real repercussions following, would you say that he is sinless because of having a previously disadvantaged background?



Some people rise above the circumstances of their upbringing, some never do.

(Though I wouldn't call the latter "sinless"...)

Besides, remember, you're comparing Africans & Americans.  We- or at least, large subsections of our country-have done exactly that with old white racist politicians in the past.

It is going to take time- possibly 2-3 generations- before you're going to see a consistently better kind of politician rise up out of the oppressed underclass.  Not just because it takes that long for those people to become worthy of notice, but also to have the electorate recognize that those guys are better than the demagogues.  And even then, you're going to see spikes of nativism, racism (veiled or overt), isolationism, and all those "isms" that hold nations back.

Exhibit A: look at what is going on in American politics right now.


----------



## Umbran

Sadras said:


> At what point/age does one of a certain environment commit a sin? Stealing is bad in every culture I know.




Tell that to Jean Valjean and Javert (or Aladdin, if you want a cartoon reference).  Stealing is bad... unless you're starving.  

You're talking about folks who grew up in an abusive culture - you should expect them to continue forward as if they were abused.  And abuse survivors typically have problems.  For individuals, an abuse survivor can go to a therapist, and learn to manage their problems, and change.  There's no practical way to do that with an entire culture.


----------



## Sadras

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Exhibit A: look at what is going on in American politics right now.




Fair point.
Nepotism is another one of the big 'isms' we experience a lot of here in South Africa.



Umbran said:


> Tell that to Jean Valjean and Javert (or Aladdin, if you want a cartoon reference).  Stealing is bad... unless you're starving.
> 
> You're talking about folks who grew up in an abusive culture - you should expect them to continue forward as if they were abused.  And abuse survivors typically have problems.  For individuals, an abuse survivor can go to a therapist, and learn to manage their problems, and change.  There's no practical way to do that with an entire culture.




But that is exactly why it is ever more sinful, because those that are currently in power struggled with all those that were and are underprivileged and now they are currently the abusers hiding behind racism and the eternal excuse of blaming apartheid. Just remember my issues are with the management not the culture or people. 

One cannot just accept a whitewashing of the president and his cronies corruptness when there is so much that needs to be done to improve the lives of the masses. Stating that they are carrying the scars of abused children at the age of 50+ and 60+ and that apartheid mentality is still now enforcing their actions to steal from their own people, denying them decent basic needs, infrastructure, education, medical care...etc is a bit of a stretch for me.

If I were to extend that view to Iraq and Afghan...etc then you know what, why do we bother blaming the new governments there or the terrorists that threaten western society. They are children carrying the scars of their own environment. Sinless.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Nobody is actually whitewashing current Arabic regimes...because we know from past experience what whitewashing gets us there.  Yes, there is some minimizing going on, but that ALWAYS happens at certain points in matters of diplomacy.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> Fair point.
> Nepotism is another one of the big 'isms' we experience a lot of here in South Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> But that is exactly why it is ever more sinful, because those that are currently in power struggled with all those that were and are underprivileged and now they are currently the abusers hiding behind racism and the eternal excuse of blaming apartheid. Just remember my issues are with the management not the culture or people.
> 
> One cannot just accept a whitewashing of the president and his cronies corruptness when there is so much that needs to be done to improve the lives of the masses. Stating that they are carrying the scars of abused children at the age of 50+ and 60+ and that apartheid mentality is still now enforcing their actions to steal from their own people, denying them decent basic needs, infrastructure, education, medical care...etc is a bit of a stretch for me.
> 
> If I were to extend that view to Iraq and Afghan...etc then you know what, why do we bother blaming the new governments there or the terrorists that threaten western society. They are children carrying the scars of their own environment. Sinless.



In think you are confusing explanations with excuses. That is, people in this thread aren't saying they are "sinless", just that there are reasons for the "sins", and those reasons makes some posters less prone to out right condemnation.

But I'm curious, what solution do you propose to remedy the situation? You seem to think that black people in South Africa can't rule themselves and someone should do it for them.


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> In think you are confusing explanations with excuses. That is, people in this thread aren't saying they are "sinless", just that there are reasons for the "sins", and those reasons makes some posters less prone to out right condemnation.
> 
> But I'm curious, what solution do you propose to remedy the situation? You seem to think that black people in South Africa can't rule themselves and someone should do it for them.




This is funny. First you accuse me of misrepresenting what posters are saying and then you misrepresent what I am saying.

Perhaps when you visit South Africa and see for yourself the appalling conditions that some South Africans live in, you would care to condemn the current president and his cronies with the amount of obvious corruption and apathy that is going on. Either that or I might have to wait for the American media to paint him in a bad light (like North Korea's) before condemnation comes more willingly 

This is a first, I'd never thought I would have to defend myself to educated people about how bad politicians are - no matter what their background.


----------



## Ryujin

Sadras said:


> Fair point.
> Nepotism is another one of the big 'isms' we experience a lot of here in South Africa.




That's an issue everywhere.



> But that is exactly why it is ever more sinful, because those that are currently in power struggled with all those that were and are underprivileged and now they are currently the abusers hiding behind racism and the eternal excuse of blaming apartheid. Just remember my issues are with the management not the culture or people.
> 
> One cannot just accept a whitewashing of the president and his cronies corruptness when there is so much that needs to be done to improve the lives of the masses. Stating that they are carrying the scars of abused children at the age of 50+ and 60+ and that apartheid mentality is still now enforcing their actions to steal from their own people, denying them decent basic needs, infrastructure, education, medical care...etc is a bit of a stretch for me.
> 
> If I were to extend that view to Iraq and Afghan...etc then you know what, why do we bother blaming the new governments there or the terrorists that threaten western society. They are children carrying the scars of their own environment. Sinless.




It may not be right, but the desire for revenge is a natural one. When you've been under the boot for most of your life there's a definite motivation to try and apply a little of that boot yourself.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

...and is currently one of the biggest concerns in the current chaos of the Middle East.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> This is funny. First you accuse me of misrepresenting what posters are saying and then you misrepresent what I am saying.



More saying that you seem to misunderstand what people are saying. 



> Perhaps when you visit South Africa and see for yourself the appalling conditions that some South Africans live in, you would care to condemn the current president and his cronies with the amount of obvious corruption and apathy that is going on. Either that or I might have to wait for the American media to paint him in a bad light (like North Korea's) before condemnation comes more willingly
> 
> This is a first, I'd never thought I would have to defend myself to educated people about how bad politicians are - no matter what their background.



Not all politicians are the same, but that is another matter. 

To go back to my question, what do you suggest should be done to resolve the problem?


----------



## Sadras

Ryujin said:


> It may not be right, but the desire for revenge is a natural one. When you've been under the boot for most of your life there's a definite motivation to try and apply a little of that boot yourself.




Revenge sure, but being part of a struggle for liberation and when finally realising it, stealing from your very people that helped put you in power. No. That is just plain greed - which of course  you can argue is also a natural desire


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> More saying that you seem to misunderstand what people are saying.




That is your opinion.



> Not all politicians are the same, but that is another matter.




True. Nelson Mandela was exceptional and I did like USA's presidential candidate Ron Paul, pity he wasnt given the opportunity. And if the stories I've heard of JFK are to be believed (before my time) - then he too seemed destined for inspiring worthwhile changes. 



> To go back to my question, what do you suggest should be done to resolve the problem?




Simple really, for people in power be held accountable for their actions and when I mean held accountable - I mean prosecuted if they are deemed to be guilty by an independent organisation and pay for their crimes. 
Especially in instances when the current president claims not to have known or authorised the 16+ million dollars worth of security upgrades that were done at his home; and when the official in charge of the upgrades explains that the installation of the pool which was part of the 'security upgrades' is actually a 'fire-pool' in the case of fires...

And the above is just the tip of the iceberg...

But yeah, reserve your condemnation cause that makes sense.


----------



## Ryujin

Sadras said:


> Revenge sure, but being part of a struggle for liberation and when finally realising it, stealing from your very people that helped put you in power. No. That is just plain greed - which of course  you can argue is also a natural desire




There are always opportunists.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> That is your opinion.



Not that you're offering counter arguments. 



> Simple really, for people in power be held accountable for their actions and when I mean held accountable - I mean prosecuted if they are deemed to be guilty by an independent organisation and pay for their crimes.
> Especially in instances when the current president claims not to have known or authorised the 16+ million dollars worth of security upgrades that were done at his home; and when the official in charge of the upgrades explains that the installation of the pool which was part of the 'security upgrades' is actually a 'fire-pool' in the case of fires...
> 
> And the above is just the tip of the iceberg...
> 
> But yeah, reserve your condemnation cause that makes sense.



In this post you seem to be saying that the problems are more than just the accountability of the president. 







> They have people in the highest positions of power, who control the lives of the people they 'serve', who have neither been educated, nor do they have the experience. The current president has not even finished school. At what do we say, "Yup, we need one of the least educated to run a country."
> 
> Schooling has been dumbed down and instead of attempting to follow the education of the better countries, instead the country is adopting policies and curriculums of failed and poorly thought out systems. Recently they had university students throwing their excrement at old statues - and these students were acquitted of wrong doing. These are the bright minds we have to look forward to.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Then you have native Africans on non-native African clashes - were locals become jealous of the non-natives' success or ingenuity and either threaten/harm/kill the immigrants and/or destroy their properties.



http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...stians/page3&p=6685226&viewfull=1#post6685226

What do you propose for those?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Sadras said:


> I do not agree with that assessment and sounds like it is going down a path of horrible excuses .



you may have misunderstood my point. It's not an excuse for the things these people are doing. It's a reason why these particular people act in that manner. The point being, they are a product of a system designed to get them to act this way. apartheid education made it so that even amongst each other, the various groups that make up the non-white populations would distrust each other, be less likely to find economic stability due to lower education, believe they were lesser than the whites running the country, and generally be made to feel like children that required whites to help them survive like a parent does a child. Apartheid education succeeded in its goals. These people running the country, and the ones that voted for them are a product of that educational system. Basically, I'm just saying you shouldn't be surprised tat this is happening. 




> Here is a quote from Nelson Mandela, a person that even the illiterate admire "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world."



Oh, I completely agree with Mandela. Hell, I'm pretty sure that Hendrik Verwoerd would agree with Mandela. Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world. Verwoerd and the others responsible for apartheid used education as a weapon and significantly changed the world. They used apartheid education efficiently and effectively to brutalize non-whites. Say what you want about these men, but they were intelligent enough to realize the same thing that Mandela did. Education is a weapon. It is a devastating weapon. In the right hands it can make the world a better place. In the wrong hands, it can cripple or destroy a people to the point hat recovery is not even assured. 





> You're mistaking greed for ignorance and it is common for those excusing all their current ills and crimes on Apartheid. It has become a joke in South Africa. No accountability whatsoever is what is eating at moral fibre of society, not just here - but everywhere.



I'd argue that there isn't much, if any, "moral fiber" to eat away in a society that implemented apartheid. It's difficult to say that it was made worse when it allowed for the dehumanization of other human beings. 


> We like to play the blame game - and if I were so inclined I would place it on Adam and he would in turn blame Eve and she would blame the serpent...and it would blame it on Apartheid.



I'd rather blame God. That guy is a jerk. He gives you all these wonderful toys, and then he punishes you for playing with them. I mean, imagine you mom or dad got you a new car then beat you within an inch of your life for daring to drive it. Also, he gave us Scientology. Unforgivable.


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> Not that you're offering counter arguments.




Not willing to condemn those that are in the current seat of power and are greedy, especially in this country, for whatever reason is excusing them. You do not need an excuse like Apartheid to be greedy.       



> In this post you seem to be saying that the problems are more than just the accountability of the president.




My answer to you was specifically on the president, since the debate had filtered down to that at that point in the thread. 



> What do you propose for those?




Off the top of my head...

Well, for starters don't adopt failed or poor education policies in schools. Governmental schools require much more funding to operate effectively, teachers need to be better evaluated and reimbursed; textbooks must not be delivered late to students; exam papers need to be secure and not be "stolen/misplaced"; an African language should be compulsory at least for the lower-middle grades; too many schools are being closed down - increasing the number of kids per teacher - this needs to be addressed); evaluated the school curriculum for worth and relevance; ensure one summer sport and one winter sport is compulsory for kids (unless child is medically unfit) - this was done away with; bring back cadets - kids are lacking in discipline; bring back corporal punishment.          

Ensure kids in school know how to open a bank account, use an ATM, operate a computer, register and complete their income tax affairs, enter into and understand a lease agreement, teach them the value of money, teach them about nature conservation, rules of the road, etiquette...etc Basically give them the knowledge and skills to function in the world, without punishing them later for ignorance.  

There is a movement to change the face of the majority of the deans, lecturers/professors at certain universities from white to black within a few years. Movements to change the educators from one race to another in such a short space of time is poor foresight. Professors/Deans and the like require a certain number of years of service in the field to reach that level in order to gain the comparative knowledge and experience. It is a process and therefore removing many with the required experience in a brief period 
could lead to a knowledge loss. Stupid racist policies such as this should be scrapped. 

The defacing of statues should be a punishable offence, expulsion at the very least.

Rework the BBBEE to cater for the local South Africans of colour as opposed to any African of colour. There are more problems with the revised BBBEE policy as it stands but the technicalities of each field/category within the policy is beyond my scope of knowledge.
It is better left for the experts.

With regard to the xenophobic attacks - accountability would have helped.
Refer to this article about the xenophobic remarks the Zulu King made - which seems to have led to the death of several non-native Africans. http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/xenophobia-fuelled-by-nation-s-leaders-1.1904789#.Vdu-I3kw_IU 

Presidents need to have a minimum level requirement of education.
Why do some trades and services require a certificate for finishing school, yet the highest post in the country is absent of this? It does not make any sense. There are plenty of black people with degrees and diplomas from universities and colleges.

Use the military to crack down on gangs and crime. We are not at war so our military is largely underused, despite sending some of the forces for peace-keeping missions in the rest of Africa.

Our criminals - use them to improve infrastructure - fix roads, water catch areas..etc

Do not give excessive performance bonuses to the top brass for those responsible for generation and distribution of electricity until they solve the shortage problem.

Accountability would certainly fix monies being 'stolen' and negligently spent at municipality and state level.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I just want to respond to this and this alone: 


> Use the military to crack down on gangs and crime. We are not at war so our military is largely underused, despite sending some of the forces for peace-keeping missions in the rest of Africa.



NOT a good idea.

While there is some overlap between military and police equipment and training, in all honesty, military personnel & tools are generally very bad for policing duties. Police get trained in a much wider variety of less-than-lethal techniques, equipment, and de-escalation strategies than do their military counterparts.

There's a reason why Iraqi museums got looted under the very noses of the Coalition forces in Desert Storm.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Back on point, an interesting article about aspects of progressive vs fundamentalist biblical interpretation, in the context of the American political climate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/derek...ible_b_8031106.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> Not willing to condemn those that are in the current seat of power and are greedy, especially in this country, for whatever reason is excusing them. You do not need an excuse like Apartheid to be greedy.



Like I said, it isn't that there is no will to condemn, just that it is a situation that is complex and that condemnation won't solve the problems of South Africa.       



> My answer to you was specifically on the president, since the debate had filtered down to that at that point in the thread.



But even then, if lack of education is so problematic, what will prevent the next president from having a lack of education? The problem seems systemic. 

On a side note, education can only go so far and intelligence is another thing. There is not always a correlation between the two. I'd say that being able to become president shows intelligence. At least social intelligence to a minimum, but I'd say more is required. A lot more. Judgement is another matter...



> Off the top of my head...
> 
> Well, for starters don't adopt failed or poor education policies in schools. Governmental schools require much more funding to operate effectively, teachers need to be better evaluated and reimbursed; textbooks must not be delivered late to students; exam papers need to be secure and not be "stolen/misplaced"; an African language should be compulsory at least for the lower-middle grades; too many schools are being closed down - increasing the number of kids per teacher - this needs to be addressed); evaluated the school curriculum for worth and relevance; ensure one summer sport and one winter sport is compulsory for kids (unless child is medically unfit) - this was done away with; bring back cadets - kids are lacking in discipline; bring back corporal punishment.
> 
> Ensure kids in school know how to open a bank account, use an ATM, operate a computer, register and complete their income tax affairs, enter into and understand a lease agreement, teach them the value of money, teach them about nature conservation, rules of the road, etiquette...etc Basically give them the knowledge and skills to function in the world, without punishing them later for ignorance.
> 
> There is a movement to change the face of the majority of the deans, lecturers/professors at certain universities from white to black within a few years. Movements to change the educators from one race to another in such a short space of time is poor foresight. Professors/Deans and the like require a certain number of years of service in the field to reach that level in order to gain the comparative knowledge and experience. It is a process and therefore removing many with the required experience in a brief period
> could lead to a knowledge loss. Stupid racist policies such as this should be scrapped.
> 
> The defacing of statues should be a punishable offence, expulsion at the very least.
> 
> Rework the BBBEE to cater for the local South Africans of colour as opposed to any African of colour. There are more problems with the revised BBBEE policy as it stands but the technicalities of each field/category within the policy is beyond my scope of knowledge.
> It is better left for the experts.
> 
> With regard to the xenophobic attacks - accountability would have helped.
> Refer to this article about the xenophobic remarks the Zulu King made - which seems to have led to the death of several non-native Africans. http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/xenophobia-fuelled-by-nation-s-leaders-1.1904789#.Vdu-I3kw_IU
> 
> Presidents need to have a minimum level requirement of education.
> Why do some trades and services require a certificate for finishing school, yet the highest post in the country is absent of this? It does not make any sense. There are plenty of black people with degrees and diplomas from universities and colleges.
> 
> Use the military to crack down on gangs and crime. We are not at war so our military is largely underused, despite sending some of the forces for peace-keeping missions in the rest of Africa.
> 
> Our criminals - use them to improve infrastructure - fix roads, water catch areas..etc
> 
> Do not give excessive performance bonuses to the top brass for those responsible for generation and distribution of electricity until they solve the shortage problem.
> 
> Accountability would certainly fix monies being 'stolen' and negligently spent at municipality and state level.



Corporal punishment, the army doing some policing, severe punishement for vandalism, putting a filter in place that excludes some people from the presidency, using criminals (who would be mostly black) as c"heap labor", to use a euthemism. There is an authoritarian vibe here.


----------



## Umbran

Sadras said:


> True. Nelson Mandela was exceptional and I did like USA's presidential candidate Ron Paul, pity he wasnt given the opportunity.




Ron Paul, and his son Rand, have some ideas... that are somewhat divorced from reality.  These guys are not the equivalent of a Mandela, or a Kennedy



> Simple really, for people in power be held accountable for their actions and when I mean held accountable - I mean prosecuted if they are deemed to be guilty by an independent organisation and pay for their crimes.




Yes, now, find an "independent" organization within your own government structure that is not tainted or influenced by the same politics and/or corruption that you're trying to prosecute.  Getting a fair trial in such a situation is extremely difficult.

In the US, we make it very difficult to prosecute a sitting President for a good reason - failure to make it difficult makes threat of prosecution a political tactic.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> Ron Paul, and his son Rand, have some ideas... that are somewhat divorced from reality.  These guys are not the equivalent of a Mandela, or a Kennedy.




Not sure I'd put Kennedy on the same pedestal as Mandela. His assassination made him a martyr and thus virtuous, but what it mostly did is prevent him from governing, which would have led him to be far more open to critics.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> Not sure I'd put Kennedy on the same pedestal as Mandela.




In terms of civil rights?  Kennedy proposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Martin Luther King, Jr. called President Kennedy's civil rights proposals, "the most sweeping and forthright ever presented by an American president." He went on to predict the legislation would, "take the Nation a long, long way toward the realization of the ideals of freedom and justice for all people".

And King was right about that.  It isn't perfection, but it can reasonably be considered to have been the largest step forward since the 14th Amendment.  And while it was passed only after his death, his role in making it real isn't questionable.  There wasn't anyone else in government at the time or soon after that had the will and ability to make it happen.  If he didn't do it, its like may not have come for decades.

His personal virtue, or lack thereof (the man was *not* a saint), isn't really relevant.


----------



## billd91

Umbran said:


> In terms of civil rights?  Kennedy proposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> 
> Martin Luther King, Jr. called President Kennedy's civil rights proposals, "the most sweeping and forthright ever presented by an American president." He went on to predict the legislation would, "take the Nation a long, long way toward the realization of the ideals of freedom and justice for all people".
> 
> And King was right about that.  It isn't perfection, but it can reasonably be considered to have been the largest step forward since the 14th Amendment.  And while it was passed only after his death, his role in making it real isn't questionable.  There wasn't anyone else in government at the time or soon after that had the will and ability to make it happen.  If he didn't do it, its like may not have come for decades.
> 
> His personal virtue, or lack thereof (the man was *not* a saint), isn't really relevant.




Sure, he deserves due credit for proposing the Civil Rights Act, but would he have even done it without the protests, particularly the Birmingham campaign? His administration had been pretty much shielding him from the issue until that point. Aside from some thorny foreign policy issues that he was stuck with from the Eisenhower administration (Cuba and stupid CIA operations all over the place), Kennedy often needed to be prodded into showing spine - a common issue with first term presidents fretting getting a second term.


----------



## billd91

Dannyalcatraz said:


> NOT a good idea.
> 
> While there is some overlap between military and police equipment and training, in all honesty, military personnel & tools are generally very bad for policing duties. Police get trained in a much wider variety of less-than-lethal techniques, equipment, and de-escalation strategies than do their military counterparts.
> 
> There's a reason why Iraqi museums got looted under the very noses of the Coalition forces in Desert Storm.




I totally agree. The military is oriented against outward threats to the state and its people. You don't want to put them in domestic policing roles or pretty soon the people start to be viewed as enemies of the state.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

billd91 said:


> Sure, he deserves due credit for proposing the Civil Rights Act, but would he have even done it without the protests, particularly the Birmingham campaign?



Sometimes, people do the right thing for less-than-noble purposes.  LBJ signed the CRA; Lincoln freed the slaves.  But if you look at the personal lives of each president, neither was what you'd call a real friend of black people.  Nonetheless, each made decisions putting them on the "right side of history." 

(JFK's rhetoric was also influential in the American space program's success.)


----------



## Umbran

billd91 said:


> Sure, he deserves due credit for proposing the Civil Rights Act, but would he have even done it without the protests, particularly the Birmingham campaign?




No.  But, do we only give credit for things that come out of the blue, without cause?  Did Mandela not also have a world filled with public notice of the issues around him?  

Kennedy was a man of privilege, sheltered from much of what was going on around him.  How many, when faced with reality, retreat?  Or offer minor changes that don't really help?  This was a major departure from what pretty much any other politician of the day would have done, taken on at no small personal risk.

I am not saying that he was some end-all, be-all of administrators.  I merely give credit where i think it was due.

If you don't think this deserves credit... well, consider that you get the leadership your own attitudes deserve.  If you will not give credit and support when someone does the right thing, why on Earth should anyone with any ideals at all try to serve your country?  

And that's all I have to say on the matter.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> In terms of civil rights?  Kennedy proposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> 
> Martin Luther King, Jr. called President Kennedy's civil rights proposals, "the most sweeping and forthright ever presented by an American president." He went on to predict the legislation would, "take the Nation a long, long way toward the realization of the ideals of freedom and justice for all people".
> 
> And King was right about that.  It isn't perfection, but it can reasonably be considered to have been the largest step forward since the 14th Amendment.  And while it was passed only after his death, his role in making it real isn't questionable.  There wasn't anyone else in government at the time or soon after that had the will and ability to make it happen.  If he didn't do it, its like may not have come for decades.
> 
> His personal virtue, or lack thereof (the man was *not* a saint), isn't really relevant.




All the three men you mentioned were adulterers, not that it matters, but Kennedy's greateness is blow out of proportion. 

I'm talking about scope of the caracters and the impact on their societies and the world. Mandela not only helped end apartheid, but he also help build a nation, went the way of reconciliation rather than punishement and fought racial stereotypes. Kennedy started the ball roling for the civil rights act, which is great, but is it the same in terms of scope? I think like his virtues, that is blow out of proportion because of his assassination.


----------



## Sadras

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I just want to respond to this and this alone:
> NOT a good idea.
> 
> While there is some overlap between military and police equipment and training, in all honesty, military personnel & tools are generally very bad for policing duties. Police get trained in a much wider variety of less-than-lethal techniques, equipment, and de-escalation strategies than do their military counterparts.




Perhaps, I freely admit I'm no expert on this. Although when you have time google the Marikana incident in South Africa (our police can be very deadly)



> There's a reason why Iraqi museums got looted under the very noses of the Coalition forces in Desert Storm.




I think I may be missing your point here. Are you saying the soldiers didn't possess the skills to monitor and prevent instances such as these?



goldomark said:


> Like I said, it isn't that there is no will to condemn, just that it is a situation that is complex and that condemnation won't solve the problems of South Africa.




Sure, but condemnation is a good start. I mean when a country or person does something bad - the rest of the governments (for good PR) condemn the bad/poor actions of said country or person. 



> But even then, if lack of education is so problematic, what will prevent the next president from having a lack of education? The problem seems systemic.




Do we have a lack of education/training in SA? Sure we do. Does that mean all people of colour never receive the opportunity. Not at all.



> On a side note, education can only go so far and intelligence is another thing. There is not always a correlation between the two. I'd say that being able to become president shows intelligence. At least social intelligence to a minimum, but I'd say more is required. A lot more. Judgement is another matter...




Agreed, it goes without saying.



> Corporal punishment, the army doing some policing, severe punishement for vandalism, putting a filter in place that excludes some people from the presidency, using criminals (who would be mostly black) as c"heap labor", to use a euthemism.




Okay here is the thing - enough people suffered corporal punishment (including myself) and we all were fine. I don't pander to the over protective PC crowd who doesn't lift a finger to kids. IMO, that is new age crap which has led somewhat to the deterioration of our society. 

Severe punishment for vandalism? Exactly how many cases of "excrement throwing" students do you expect to encounter in a year? More so than the 8000 Asian students which were expelled last year from the USA? 
Also please go google reasons for expulsion from universities - vandalism is listed as one of the criteria. 

Filter in place of presidency? Do you realise that the majority of nurses in South Africa are people of colour and one of their requirements is a grade 12 schooling certificate. Are you really calling it a filter or are you disguising another agenda here with me?

Using criminals period, because the systems employed currently in the USA or South Africa really rehabilitates criminals? This is not about a black or white thing, despite you trying very hard to make it one. This is about utilising the money tax payers pay in a productive way for the benefit of all.



> There is an authoritarian vibe here.




I'm not surprised you feel that way.



Umbran said:


> Ron Paul, and his son Rand, have some ideas... that are somewhat divorced from reality.  These guys are not the equivalent of a Mandela, or a Kennedy




I never said they were equal. As for Rand Paul, I think he is very different to his father. What I would classify as divorced from reality is anyone buying into the lucozade mainstream ideas of the current and previous USA presidents. In this, it looks like we certainly disagree.



> Yes, now, find an "independent" organization within your own government structure that is not tainted or influenced by the same politics and/or corruption that you're trying to prosecute.  Getting a fair trial in such a situation is extremely difficult.




Actually we did have an independent organization called the "Scorpians" under the NPA which was largely a successful idea and reality. It was sadly disbanded as soon as it started becoming a real threat to the cronies I have been talking about for the last couple of pages....
They (the cronies) then re-established/rebranded the organisation as the Hawks under the Police - and therefore ensuring its lack of independence to ensure that government could control/manipulate said organisation.


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> All the three men you mentioned were adulterers, not that it matters...(snip)




But you went that way anyways...



> I'm talking about scope of the caracters and the impact on their societies and the world. Mandela not only helped end apartheid, but he also help build a nation, went the way of reconciliation rather than punishement and fought racial stereotypes. Kennedy started the ball roling for the civil rights act, which is great, but is it the same in terms of scope? I think like his virtues, that is blow out of proportion because of his assassination.




My feeling is that if JFK had not gone down that route WHEN he did, Mandela might have died in prison and South Africa's history might have been bloodier or at least messier. So in answering your question in terms of impact on their societies and the world, I would say JFK had a much larger role to play being the President of the USA.

That is not to say I'm taking anything away from Nelson Mandela.


----------



## El Mahdi

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I just want to respond to this and this alone:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use the military to crack down on gangs and crime. We are not at war so our  military is largely underused, despite sending some of the forces for  peace-keeping missions in the rest of Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOT a good idea.
> 
> While there is some overlap between military and police equipment and training, in all honesty, military personnel & tools are generally very bad for policing duties. Police get trained in a much wider variety of less-than-lethal techniques, equipment, and de-escalation strategies than do their military counterparts.
> 
> There's a reason why Iraqi museums got looted under the very noses of the Coalition forces in Desert Storm.
Click to expand...





billd91 said:


> I totally agree. The military is oriented against outward threats to the state and its people. You don't want to put them in domestic policing roles or pretty soon the people start to be viewed as enemies of the state.




Absolutely.  This is why we have the _Posse Comitatus Act_.




Sadras said:


> I think I may be missing you point here. Are you saying the soldiers didn't possess the skills to monitor and prevent instances such as these?




I won't speak for Danny, but speaking for myself and with my own military experience: Yes, soldiers - or at least the majority of soldiers - do not possess the training or skills for such things.

With the exception of soldiers trained for Law Enforcement - law enforcement _within_ the military, not outside the military - the necessary skills are just not part of military training.  Security Forces trained military personnel (including Law Enforcement trained personnel) are a relatively small percentage of the military.  There are simply not enough of them to replace the Police Forces of an entire nation, and even then they aren't trained the same way as civilian Police Forces (Laws and Rights are a little different within the military as opposed to the nation at large - and even more different when you start dealing with foreign countries and cultures).

Soldiers are primarily trained not in defusing situations, enforcing laws, or protecting things and people, but instead trained to locate, identify, fight, and *eliminate* threats - the very opposite of what a Police Force does (or at least _should_ do).


----------



## Sadras

Thanks for the explanation. Coming from an area of complete naivety I've always wondered why crime/gang lords and their organisations can so easily embed themselves in our societies and governments appear (at least to me) incapable of routing them out when they have the entire army as their resource.
Just send in a battalion of Vic Mackeys to deal with the problem (have been watching too much of The Shield of late)!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Pretty much covered before I got back to the discussion, but yeah: even though _our _police can be quite deadly and have some mil-spec gear, they're not soldiers and do not use force the same way as soldiers do.

Likewise, while our soldiers can be quite diplomatic and gentle, that isn't the training they get.  The vast bulk of their gear is for conns, comms, and kills.  Training in things like crowd control, community outreach anti-crime patrol, etc. is minimal.

The museums got looted because nothing in them was of military strategic import, and thus, was not guarded.  

And if they HAD been, the looters would have been kept away with pistols, machine guns & grenades as opposed to batons, mace, rubber rounds, etc.  Headlines would have been VERY different...VERY negative.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> I mean when a country or person does something bad - the rest of the governments (for good PR) condemn the bad/poor actions of said country or person.



Depends on interests. 



> Do we have a lack of education/training in SA? Sure we do. Does that mean all people of colour never receive the opportunity. Not at all.



It isn't just a question of excluding black people from office. It is about everyone being able to hold office. It is about equality of chance. Putting arbitrary hoops to jump through excludes a lot of people. Not to mention that it raises the question of who decides what hoops are used. Of course reality is a bit more complex. There are plenty of hoops to jump through to get into politics, like raising money, but institutional ones should be at a minimum. 



> Okay here is the thing - enough people suffered corporal punishment (including myself) and we all were fine.



Personal anecdotes are non sequiture. 

Physical violence is just not acceptable. It is abuse period. It causes more problems than it solves and is a vicious circle that is hard to break. We still have problems with domestic violence even if it has been outlawed for some time. Sbusing kids just means they'll grow up to be adults who abuse kids. Like the weight of apartheid, domestic violence doesn't go away just with legislative change. 



> Severe punishment for vandalism? Exactly how many cases of "excrement throwing" students do you expect to encounter in a year?



The right to an education is more important than the cleanliness of inanimate objects. 



> Does More so than the 8000 Asian students which were expelled last year from the USA?



For vandalism?



> Also please go google reasons for expulsion from universities - vandalism is listed as one of the criteria.



Heh, you aren't in Québec. Here students stay in university even if they indulged in what the authorities call "assault". This student leader hasn't been kicked out of university as far as I know. http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/uqam-protester-finally-out-of-jail-pending-trial-1.2353960



> Filter in place of presidency? Do you realise that the majority of nurses in South Africa are people of colour and one of their requirements is a grade 12 schooling certificate. Are you really calling it a filter or are you disguising another agenda here with me?



Yes, I disguise my agenda because I'm a shame of all the kittens on it. I just loooooove that kitten that say "I hate mondays"! 

As for the presidency, I already said what I thought about exclusion above. 



> Using criminals period,



Who are mostly black, no?



> because the systems employed currently in the USA or South Africa really rehabilitates criminals?



The US aren't a model when it comes to its judicial and penal systems. I'm thinking Norway. *stars in eyes*



> This is not about a black or white thing, despite you trying very hard to make it one.



It just the facts. Most criminals people in prison are black, no? Most people who lack an education, by your standards, and who would be excluded from the presidency are black, no? 



> This is about utilising the money tax payers pay in a productive way for the benefit of all.



Nah. It is about exploitation. I'd say the same thing if they were mostly white people. 



> I'm not surprised you feel that way.



I'm not surprised you like authoritarianism.


----------



## billd91

Umbran said:


> No.  But, do we only give credit for things that come out of the blue, without cause?  Did Mandela not also have a world filled with public notice of the issues around him?
> 
> Kennedy was a man of privilege, sheltered from much of what was going on around him.  How many, when faced with reality, retreat?  Or offer minor changes that don't really help?  This was a major departure from what pretty much any other politician of the day would have done, taken on at no small personal risk.
> 
> I am not saying that he was some end-all, be-all of administrators.  I merely give credit where i think it was due.
> 
> If you don't think this deserves credit... well, consider that you get the leadership your own attitudes deserve.  If you will not give credit and support when someone does the right thing, why on Earth should anyone with any ideals at all try to serve your country?
> 
> And that's all I have to say on the matter.




The problem is Kennedy is one of those presidents who gets altogether too much credit for some of the things he did without people understanding the cynicism and dysfunction within his administration and surrounding his political career. And that's largely because he and his presidency have been romanticized by the tragedy of his assassination. On topics of civil rights, I'm willing to give Johnson a lot more credit because I think he clearly understood what the long term political results would be of some of his key legislation like the Voting Rights Act.


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> It isn't just a question of excluding black people from office. It is about everyone being able to hold office. It is about equality of chance.




Education should be free - that covers your criteria. As for the equality of chance - it is more about connections than it is about a school certificate so please don't spout that it is some kind of filter when it is absolutely not. 



> Putting arbitrary hoops to jump through excludes a lot of people.




So do you feel that it is arbitrary for nurses and other professions? I mean exactly its not like a nurse needs grade 12 history, geography to do her nursing...
One of the primary reasons it IS important is for languages, you want your nurse as you want your president to be able to speak, comprehend and write in a manner that is befitting someone educated. Although to be fair the 'Bushisms' do a lot to hurt what I'm saying.



> Not to mention that it raises the question of who decides what hoops are used.




What is that supposed to mean? National certificate requirement and you are spouting it is some kind of racist agenda. Good god and I thought I liked conspiracy theories. 



> Physical violence is just not acceptable. It is abuse period. It causes more problems than it solves and is a vicious circle that is hard to break. We still have problems with domestic violence even if it has been outlawed for some time. Sbusing kids just means they'll grow up to be adults who abuse kids. Like the weight of apartheid, domestic violence doesn't go away just with legislative change.




25+ years without corporal punishment and I do not see an improvement but a deterioration in kids. We are dealing with rape, murder and drugs on a hourly basis. Soft touches are just not working. 



> The right to an education is more important than the cleanliness of inanimate objects.




You do realise there are a number of things one can do, to get fired - all of which pale when I make the statement "The right to work and provide for ones family is more important than x" 
And the right to an education after school is not a right - it is a choice. We are talking about varsity kids.



> For vandalism?




No, but cheating it way more endemic and a much more common problem than vandalism, yet apparently expelling 1 kid for the throwing of excrement and defacing a statue is more important than the expulsion of 8,000+? 



> Who are mostly black, no?




Have you looked at the percentages of black people in comparison to other demographics in South Africa. Does this surprise you? 



> The US aren't a model when it comes to its judicial and penal systems. I'm thinking Norway. *stars in eyes*




Norway is great for Norway and other countries similar to Norway. South Africa is not Norway in too many ways.



> It just the facts. Most criminals people in prison are black, no? Most people who lack an education, by your standards, and who would be excluded from the presidency are black, no?




Exactly how many blacks do you think don't finish school these days? I think perhaps you need to do some research. As for our prisoners - we are not talking Canadian hard core crimes like throwing gum on the ground... you do get that right?



> Nah. It is about exploitation.




It is about building a better tomorrow with the thugs of today. 

Here is a conspiracy theory for you, perhaps you want South Africa to flounder around aimlessly for 100 years or so, blaming Apartheid, when in fact hard changes can be made to rapidly improve the country NOW. But that doesn't serve your purposes because you don't want a successful South Africa because then you cant exploit the black man for a couple more years raping them of their country's diamonds, gold, agriculture...etc like the white man did during Apartheid but in a bad PR sought of way. How does that grab you? It is a little too much of a western ideology for you? Bad Canada, bad, bad...


*SHAME!* 
*SHAME!* *SHAME!* ​


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> It is about building a better tomorrow with the thugs of today.




In that sentence lies the potential for a pretty dark movie...


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In that sentence lies the potential for a pretty dark movie future...



I'd say 40 years wouldn't be enough to change for the better. With that type of ideology, I'd say in 40 years things would have gotten worse... far worse.


----------



## Sadras

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I'd say 40 years wouldn't be enough to change for the better. With that type of ideology, I'd say in 40 years things would have gotten worse... far worse.




Let us see how the next 5 years turn out as they are currently going...


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> Education should be free



I agree. 



> - that covers your criteria.



Um, no. 



> As for the equality of chance - it is more about connections than it is about a school certificate so please don't spout that it is some kind of filter when it is absolutely not.



It is true, networking plays a big role in politics, but what I was saying is that your education requirement is a filter that will keep some people out without preventing corruption and incompetence.

You agreed that intelligence and judgement are not always linked with academics. I'll go on a limb and say you think the same about competence and morality. So, what would an education requirement really do, aside from preventing some moral, competent, intelligent people from office?



> So do you feel that it is arbitrary for nurses and other professions? I mean exactly its not like a nurse needs grade 12 history, geography to do her nursing...



Your making a false analogy.



> One of the primary reasons it IS important is for languages, you want your nurse as you want your president to be able to speak, comprehend and write in a manner that is befitting someone educated. Although to be fair the 'Bushisms' do a lot to hurt what I'm saying.



That is a rather elitist view of who should be in office. As much as it pains me to say it, Bush jr. was smart. Smart enough to know that voters will connect with him if he speaks like them and doesn't sound like a member of the elite (even if he is part of it). I do not have to like this sort of electoral strategy to think it is a legitimate one or that it is legitimate for voters to identify with their _representatives_ in a _representative democracy_. 



> What is that supposed to mean?



It means who gets to decide what is the right education needed to become president? The politico-economic elites will want people like it to represent it. So most likely a university degree will be required. That cuts off a lot of people who could make good elected officials, but did not have the socio-economic background to attend university. And it wouldn't garanty that competent morale people would get elected. All it would do is make sure that a certain elite stays in power. 



> 25+ years without corporal punishment and I do not see an improvement but a deterioration in kids. We are dealing with rape, murder and drugs on a hourly basis. Soft touches are just not working.



That is a world view anchored in the strick father model. A child's "sins", to use your vocabulary, is the parents' fault because it didn't enforce violent punishement to correct behavior. That violence is the way to foster civic virtues. It ignores external factors, like say the impact of aparteid, and the problem of domestic violence. But I guess apartheid was just being strick with a population that like children wasn't mature enough to govern itself.



> You do realise there are a number of things one can do, to get fired - all of which pale when I make the statement "The right to work and provide for ones family is more important than x"



Again, a false analogy.


> And the right to an education after school is not a right - it is a choice. We are talking about varsity kids.



University is education. In a world were automation and low skills jobs are very mobile and do not pay well, university is more than ever a right.



> No, but cheating it way more endemic and a much more common problem than vandalism, yet apparently expelling 1 kid for the throwing of excrement and defacing a statue is more important than the expulsion of 8,000+?



Cheating is a problem. It does raise the question of whether memorisation for a test is education at all. But I digress. I'm less familiar with the issue of Chinese plagiarism in the US, but whether is it wrong or right to expel them, I still can critic your proposition to expel vandals in SA. Althought, from what you said there does seem to be elements of free speech in what they did. 



> Have you looked at the percentages of black people in comparison to other demographics in South Africa. Does this surprise you?



Thanks for demonstrating my point. Also, is the percentage of white prisoner the same as in the general population?



> Norway is great for Norway and other countries similar to Norway. South Africa is not Norway in too many ways.



Maybe if it had more policies like Norway it would be more like Norway. 



> Exactly how many blacks do you think don't finish school these days?



So, black people would be disproportionately affected by your education requirement for the presidency, no? 



> As for our prisoners - we are not talking Canadian hard core crimes like throwing gum on the ground... you do get that right?



Heh. Ethnic stereotypes aren't arguements. 



> It is about building a better tomorrow with the thugs of today.



You're not denying it is exploitation. You also do not mind that using prisoners takes away paying jobs for the general population. And, if black people are over represented in prisons, that they would be more exploited in your prefered system.  



> Here is a conspiracy theory for you, perhaps you want South Africa to flounder around aimlessly for 100 years or so, blaming Apartheid, when in fact hard changes can be made to rapidly improve the country NOW.



Oy.



> But that doesn't serve your purposes because you don't want a successful South Africa because then you cant exploit the black man for a couple more years raping them of their country's diamonds, gold, agriculture...etc like the white man did during Apartheid but in a bad PR sought of way. How does that grab you? It is a little too much of a western ideology for you? Bad Canada, bad, bad...



I'm a Québécois who says that Canada fosters discrimination against my nation. Your attack missed its target. 

That being said, I agree with you that capitalism is a system based on violence, exploitation and inequality. The problem is that your solutions foster violence, exploitation and inequality. 



> *SHAME!* View attachment 69949*SHAME!* View attachment 69949*SHAME!* View attachment 69949​



Ringing bells are synonymous with shame? Is that an Afrikaner meme?


----------



## Umbran

billd91 said:


> The problem is Kennedy is one of those presidents who gets altogether too much credit for some of the things he did without people understanding the cynicism and dysfunction within his administration and surrounding his political career.




I know about the cynicism and dysfunction within his administration.  There is cynicism and dysfunction within *EVERY* administration.  If we require there to be no cynicism or dysfunction for a Presidency to be good, then there's no such thing as a good Presidency.  So, I submit these are unavoidable and irrelevant - they are about how the sausage is made, not about whether the sausage is good.

I'm often a practical person - I care mostly about results.  So long as they cynicism and dysfunction remain internal to the administration, and the output is actually good for the people, my sweating of the details will be somewhat limited.  To be honest, if Kennedy were personally a racist pig, and only put forth the Civil Rights Act for purposes of getting re-elected, I'd still say, hey, we got the CRA!  Awesome!


----------



## Umbran

Sadras said:


> Okay here is the thing - enough people suffered corporal punishment (including myself) and we all were fine.




Not as many are as "fine" as you might think.  Or, perhaps it is better to say, if you are fine now, you might be even better if corporal punishment were not a regular part of your childhood discipline.

A 2009 study defined harsh corporal punishment as at least one spanking a month for more than three years, frequently done with objects such as a belt or paddle. Researchers found children who were regularly spanked had less gray matter in certain areas of the prefrontal cortex that have been linked to depression, addiction and other mental health disorders, the study authors say.

A 2010 study found that frequent spanking when a child was 3 was linked to an increased risk for higher levels of child aggression when the child was 5.

Yet another study: "Harsh physical punishment in the absence of child maltreatment is associated with mood disorders, anxiety disorders, substance abuse/dependence, and personality disorders in a general population sample. "

And, more broadly, it is well-established in behavioral science that use of negative stimulus generally doesn't work the way folks think it does.  Yes, the child (or other animal) will stop the undesirable behavior, but not out of *understanding*, which means the application of corporal punishment does not usually generalize to other behaviors, and the fear reaction leaks out into other behaviors instead.

If your dog poops in the house, showing anger and rubbing their nose in it, or swatting them with a rolled-up newspaper are empirically a really ineffective way to house-train them.  Why, then, do we figure that swatting a kid will do any better?


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> It is true, networking plays a big role in politics, but what I was saying is that your education requirement is a filter that will keep some people out without preventing corruption and incompetence. So, what would an education requirement really do, aside from preventing some moral, competent, intelligent people from office?




It will provide someone with the same background in education whom I feel comfortable with in being a president and has a level of education that I can at least respect. 
In South Africa many African tribes mutilate their young boys with traditional circumcision at the age of 16+/-. Our president, a Zulu, wasn't afforded that luxury so many Xhosa and other black tribes do not view our current president as a Man. We all have our requirements.

Will it help curb corruption. No.
Will it help curb incompetence. I don't know.
Will it help bring a modicum of respect to the position: Yes it will.



> Your making a false analogy.



 Please elaborate how this is a false analogy.



> That is a rather elitist view of who should be in office.



I know right. I mean I'm being really outrageous asking for this. It is true the Academy for Butlers in Canada asks applicants for a transcript that proves graduation from high school as does the US Mail Service, but I'm really taking it to the next level requiring a president of a country have this as a requirement. It is simply mad! Too ludicrous for words.   



> It means who gets to decide what is the right education needed to become president? The politico-economic elites will want people like it to represent it. So most likely a university degree will be required...(snip)




You were just rambling here so I cut you off, cause I know we were only discussing about a high school certificate not a degree...just ensuring straw men are kept to a minimum.  



> A child's "sins", to use your vocabulary,



 Umbran's originally actually.



> is the parents' fault because it didn't enforce violent punishement to correct behavior. That violence is the way to foster civic virtues.




It can enforce discipline in kids, that is my stance. Can it be abused - sure, but I don't see us banning guns, alcohol and sugar. I also don't see us banning Catholic Priests.



> It ignores external factors, like say the impact of apartheid...(snip)



 You do realise that I never said it does, but I feel he is coming, I can feel it.... 



> But I guess apartheid was just being strick with a population that like children wasn't mature enough to govern itself.




And here he is!!! 10 feet of pure unadulterated straw man!



> Again, a false analogy.



 Again, elaborate.



> University is education...(snip)



 Good of you to notice, but I feel the need to rail you in a little because you really love these straw men, my punishment was for varsity kids. Adults in terms of South Africa. 



> Althought, from what you said there does seem to be elements of free speech in what they did.




As long as there is no destruction of public and heritage property which there was...  



> Thanks for demonstrating my point.



 Correction, I answered your question. 




> Also, is the percentage of white prisoner the same as in the general population?




Absolutely no idea. I feel I need to point out that in South Africa the term 'coloured' is a mix-breed between a black and a white person which is a racial group on its own and is almost on par in terms of numbers with Whites. Cape Malays fall into that coloured group. But the composition of the various categories in jail - is in the hands of google.



> Maybe if it had more policies like Norway it would be more like Norway.




You expect to integrate a society into Western Culture over night or even over 10 years. You have no idea the baggage we have - never mind white vs black, we have coloured vs black, coloured vs white, black vs black and 13 official languages, African culture which includes believing in muti medicine (google it), and the political structure/society/laws of the tribal kings/chiefs...etc
Nevermind the socio-political-economic messup that Apartheid caused.



> So, black people would be disproportionately affected by your education requirement for the presidency, no?




No.



> You're not denying it is exploitation.




No. But why don't you go enjoy our rape statistics and let me know who exactly is being exploited. Is it these men, or is it our women that are being exploited.



> You also do not mind that using prisoners takes away paying jobs for the general population.




It really wouldn't. It would be allowing the government to spend more on education, healthcare, housing...etc and of course corruption.



> And, if black people are over represented in prisons, that they would be more exploited in your prefered system.




Sure. But I don't see colour, I see criminals - that is the difference between you and I.

Here is a startling statistic about Canadian prisons: "9.5 per cent of federal inmates today are Black (an increase of 80 per cent since 2003/04), yet Black Canadians account for less than three per cent of the total Canadian population. Aboriginal people represent a staggering 23 per cent of federal inmates yet comprise 4.3 per cent of the total Canadian population.” - 

We had Apartheid, what was your excuse? I'm curious as to what kind of programmes are you running over there, that are assisting your black people with their civic duties?



> That being said, I agree with you that capitalism is a system based on violence, exploitation and inequality. The problem is that your solutions foster violence, exploitation and inequality.




Well we aren't going to agree and that is fine. 



> Ringing bells are synonymous with shame? Is that an Afrikaner meme?




No. Its a modern cultural reference.

But to add, that your country, along with UK, New Zealand and Australia are becoming the havens of the Afrikaners and other whites and even coloureds as things become progressively worse in South Africa.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> It will provide someone with the same background in education whom I feel comfortable with in being a president and has a level of education that I can at least respect.



There is a process called elections were you can cast a vote to express that opinion.



> You were just rambling here so I cut you off, cause I know we were only discussing about a high school certificate not a degree...just ensuring straw men are kept to a minimum.



I was talking about what the politico-economic elite might want. But a high school degree still excludes people.   



> It can enforce discipline in kids, that is my stance.



And there is not garanty of success. There are garanties of problems, as Umbran showed. 







> Can it be abused - sure, but I don't see us banning guns, alcohol and sugar. I also don't see us banning Catholic Priests.



There are laws to control the first two, and sugar is coming along. Domestic violence as been going down since we made it illegal and had campaigns denouncing it. 



> Good of you to notice, but I feel the need to rail you in a little because you really love these straw men, my punishment was for varsity kids. Adults in terms of South Africa.



Adults still get a right to education. Generally it is university level...



> As long as there is no destruction of public and heritage property which there was...



Dung destroys property? I thought is just made it dirty.



> Absolutely no idea. I feel I need to point out that in South Africa the term 'coloured' is a mix-breed between a black and a white person which is a racial group on its own and is almost on par in terms of numbers with Whites. Cape Malays fall into that coloured group. But the composition of the various categories in jail - is in the hands of google.



Ignorance is bliss, it would seem. 



> You expect to integrate a society into Western Culture over night or even over 10 years.



No, I do not. I'm saying change needs to start somewhere and there are good models out there. 



> No.



How wouldn't they? Don't black people have less high school degrees than say white people in SA? 



> No. But why don't you go enjoy our rape statistics and let me know who exactly is being exploited. Is it these men, or is it our women that are being exploited.



Two wrongs do not make a right. 



> It really wouldn't.



Sure it would. It would mean less low skill jobs would be out there for people who need them to make ends meet. 



> Sure. But I don't see colour, I see criminals - that is the difference between you and I.



You see black people as criminals? 



> Here is a startling statistic about Canadian prisons: "9.5 per cent of federal inmates today are Black (an increase of 80 per cent since 2003/04), yet Black Canadians account for less than three per cent of the total Canadian population. Aboriginal people represent a staggering 23 per cent of federal inmates yet comprise 4.3 per cent of the total Canadian population.” -
> 
> We had Apartheid, what was your excuse?



Colonialism. Cultural genocide. Institutionalized racism. General indifference from the non-Aboriginale majority. Those are the explanations for that sad statistic. Aboriginales are really that the low end of the social pyramid in Canada.



> I'm curious as to what kind of programmes are you running over there, that are assisting your black people with their civic duties?



Canadians and there government aren't doing enough, that is for sure. So?



> Well we aren't going to agree and that is fine.



What? You want to smack children, exploite prisoners and exclude people, mostly black people, from political participation. Why should I agree?



> No. Its a modern cultural reference.



First time I heard of it. 



> But to add, that your country, along with UK, New Zealand and Australia are becoming the havens of the Afrikaners and other whites and even coloureds as things become progressively worse in South Africa.



Damn it! It is the invasion of the Loyalists all over again!


----------



## Janx

Umbran said:


> I know about the cynicism and dysfunction within his administration.  There is cynicism and dysfunction within *EVERY* administration.  If we require there to be no cynicism or dysfunction for a Presidency to be good, then there's no such thing as a good Presidency.  So, I submit these are unavoidable and irrelevant - they are about how the sausage is made, not about whether the sausage is good.
> 
> I'm often a practical person - I care mostly about results.  So long as they cynicism and dysfunction remain internal to the administration, and the output is actually good for the people, my sweating of the details will be somewhat limited.  To be honest, if Kennedy were personally a racist pig, and only put forth the Civil Rights Act for purposes of getting re-elected, I'd still say, hey, we got the CRA!  Awesome!




Along that line, I recall that Johnson himself had said some racist stuff.  Yet he clearly came down on the side of intregration and equality when you look at what he got done


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Kudos to the City attorney and a couple of council members for saying & doing the right thing, even if the majority was _*ahem*_ hellbent on this misguided course of action.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...es_for_christian_only_prayers_aclu_warns.html

Really tired of American theocrats.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

> After Hudelson moved to amend the resolution to permit only Christian prayer, city attorney Denis Fitzgibbons explained that this would violate the Constitution. “That would complicate things,” Fitzgibbons jumped in: “The council would then be establishing Christianity (as the religion).”
> 
> No matter. Lewis seconded the amendment, and it passed.



Why do they even have a city attorney if they're not going to listen to him?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

To advise them when the inevitable occurs.












...which they'll ignore.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Right, so why have a lawyer if you're going to ignore his legal advice? You'd think conservatives would want to save the taxpayers money. City attorney is an expense this city can cut.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

They don't care about the legalities because they think they're:

1) taking a stand for their persecuted faith

OR

2) showing God's majesty by exercising secular power.

...and are wrong on both counts.

BUT...

When they lose the lawsuit that can't help but happen, they can point at the verdicts as proof of persecution.

...which is wrong, of course.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Isn't reducing the size of government, and saving taxpayers money a religious belief among conservatives?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

When 2 beliefs are in conflict, one will eventually give.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

That doesn't seem to be a problem for conservatives.


----------



## Umbran

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Isn't reducing the size of government, and saving taxpayers money a religious belief among conservatives?




Yes.  Now ask yourself how often people and organizations live up to their professed doctrines.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Umbran said:


> Yes.  Now ask yourself how often people and organizations live up to their professed doctrines.



Conservatives don't have a problem with that.


----------



## Umbran

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Conservatives don't have a problem with that.




The issue is not limited to political conservatives.  

Heck, there's even a neurological explanation for part of the issue - in humans, judging the moral and ethical ramifications of your own actions excites different areas of the brain than judging others.  You literally judge yourself and other people differently.  So, when you take an action, it is justified, but when someone else takes an action, it isn't.


----------



## Istbor

They abandoned the proposal, wisely, after receiving a warning that it would be unconstitutional. 

I cannot relate to these people.  I would totally listen to a prayer offered be another religion.  Mostly out of curiosity.  Maybe even participate in the spirit of the prayer at least.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Umbran said:


> The issue is not limited to political conservatives.
> 
> Heck, there's even a neurological explanation for part of the issue - in humans, judging the moral and ethical ramifications of your own actions excites different areas of the brain than judging others.  You literally judge yourself and other people differently.  So, when you take an action, it is justified, but when someone else takes an action, it isn't.



Yes, I know all that. My point is that conservatives don't have any problem with doing it. Although it doesn't only apply to political conservatives, the article is about conservatives, so I limited my post to them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Istbor said:


> They abandoned the proposal, wisely, after receiving a warning that it would be unconstitutional.




So they have!  Apparently, the city attorney's words- and the criticism they got- went off like a time bomb...it took a while for the implications to be fully realized.
http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2015...ons-proposal-to-only-allow-christian-prayers/



> I cannot relate to these people.  I would totally listen to a prayer offered be another religion.  Mostly out of curiosity.  Maybe even participate in the spirit of the prayer at least.




I have done.  I went to a friend's bar mitzvah, for one.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Yes, I know all that. My point is that conservatives don't have any problem with doing it.




To be fair, it isn't all conservatives, either.  There are several who are speaking out about this kind of thing.  They're just being drowned out by the others.

There is some media fault in this, in that they're mostly covering the ones causing the stir, and not reporting so often on those cooler heads who are warning their own against the backlash.  Same thing happens with news coverage of Islam: you see in-depth reports of the daily horrors and a ousts committed in its name, but you seldom see the words & actions of the liberal and moderates who push back against the tide of radicalism.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Umbran said:


> Not as many are as "fine" as you might think.  Or, perhaps it is better to say, if you are fine now, you might be even better if corporal punishment were not a regular part of your childhood discipline.
> 
> A 2009 study defined harsh corporal punishment as at least one spanking a month for more than three years, frequently done with objects such as a belt or paddle. Researchers found children who were regularly spanked had less gray matter in certain areas of the prefrontal cortex that have been linked to depression, addiction and other mental health disorders, the study authors say.
> 
> A 2010 study found that frequent spanking when a child was 3 was linked to an increased risk for higher levels of child aggression when the child was 5.
> 
> Yet another study: "Harsh physical punishment in the absence of child maltreatment is associated with mood disorders, anxiety disorders, substance abuse/dependence, and personality disorders in a general population sample. "
> 
> And, more broadly, it is well-established in behavioral science that use of negative stimulus generally doesn't work the way folks think it does.  Yes, the child (or other animal) will stop the undesirable behavior, but not out of *understanding*, which means the application of corporal punishment does not usually generalize to other behaviors, and the fear reaction leaks out into other behaviors instead.
> 
> If your dog poops in the house, showing anger and rubbing their nose in it, or swatting them with a rolled-up newspaper are empirically a really ineffective way to house-train them.  Why, then, do we figure that swatting a kid will do any better?




I am curious, have they examined the difference between if the mother and the father is the one issuing the punishment? I don't condone corporal punishment, as I knew far too many kids who were on the receiving end of its excesses growing up. I knew kids who lived in fear of their fathers (I mean serious, bruising belt whippings on what seemed a far too regular basis). But my mom employed a certain amount of corporal punishment as well. However I never really feared her or developed negative feelings around the issue (I was a difficult to manage and my father had to be away from home a lot for his work, so she would slap me, pinch my ears or mouth to keep in line). It never felt terribly violent. Just an effective way to snap me out of not listening to her rules. Again, I wouldn't condone that now, given what I know. But I am curious if they've looked at these different gradations of punishment and compared them (and if the person giving the punishment is at all relevant to the outcome).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Lordy gracious!  Mike Huckabee fires a broadside:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/23/politics/mike-huckabee-barack-obama-christian/index.html

A few things:

1) Huckabee's assertion is ad odds with Rev. Wright's that Obama and his family have been -admittedly sporadic- churchgoers in his flock since the 1990s, got married in his church and even baptized their kids there.  If he's pretending, he's playing the _long_ game.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rev-wright-obamas-church-not-their-thing

2) though the Obama family's attendance was sporadic, Wright does not doubt their belief.  And honestly, I'm a Catholic, and there are people I only see in church when they show up for Christmas & Easter.  Attendance is no measure of faith.

As for this:


> I'm disappointed if someone says, 'I'm a Christian,' but you invite the pope into your home and then you invite a whole bunch of people who are at odds with the Catholic Church policy. I think there's something very unseemly about that," he added.




If he wants to be consistent, here, virtually the entire GOP would have to skip out.  I'm not being a pro-Democratic Party partisan, I'm just drawing on historically verifiable facts, like how the general tenor of modern GOP policies towards the poor and underprivileged has been at odds with Catholicism for some time.  This was made abundantly clear in 2012 when, despite the Church's clashes with Obama, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called out the Romney/Ryan budget plan as failing to meet the moral criteria of protecting the poor.

And other Catholic theologians & activists stated "this budget is morally indefensible and betrays Catholic principles of solidarity, just taxation and a commitment to the common good."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news.../catholic-bishops-paul-ryan-budget/54361480/1

And of course, there was nothing new in the character of the Romney/Ryan budget; nothing at odds or new in comparison to GOP budgetary priorities of the past couple of decades.

IOW, if Huckabee really means what he says about those invitees, he should demand no less of his colleagues than the same non participation he expects of others on the guest list.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To be fair, it isn't all conservatives, either.  There are several who are speaking out about this kind of thing.  They're just being drowned out by the others.There is some media fault in this, in that they're mostly covering the ones causing the stir, and not reporting so often on those cooler heads who are warning their own against the backlash.  Same thing happens with news coverage of Islam: you see in-depth reports of the daily horrors and a ousts committed in its name, but you seldom see the words & actions of the liberal and moderates who push back against the tide of radicalism.



I'll just do what conservatives do to Muslims and ignore the non-crazy Christian conservatives.


----------



## Umbran

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Yes, I know all that. My point is that conservatives don't have any problem with doing it. Although it doesn't only apply to political conservatives, the article is about conservatives, so I limited my post to them.




And, in so doing, delivered statements that did not make it clear that you knew all that, that carried a fairly accusative implication that would tend to generate argument from conservatives who felt you were being unfair.

Which, I take you already knew, of course?  That would make it an interesting choice of presentation....

Luckily, we have clarified that the issue is not actually one-sided, so no argument will be forthcoming.  That's a fine outcome, I think, and we can move on.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Isn't reducing the size of government, and saving taxpayers money a religious belief among conservatives?



No, they aren't.  Conservatives are not monolithic and tend to largely subdivide into fiscal and social conservatives.  Even fiscal conservatives differ, with the one most common tenet being 'the budget should be balanced' although what 'balanced' means is even up for debate in some circles.  Conservatism is a big tent word, much like liberal, and there aren't "religious" beliefs in either.  Perhaps, if you don't understand the positions of others, you could ask instead of making blanket, insulting generalizations?  



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I'll just do what conservatives do to Muslims and ignore the non-crazy Christian conservatives.



Like this.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Ovinomancer said:


> No, they aren't.  Conservatives are not monolithic and tend to largely subdivide into fiscal and social conservatives.  Even fiscal conservatives differ, with the one most common tenet being 'the budget should be balanced' although what 'balanced' means is even up for debate in some circles.  Conservatism is a big tent word, much like liberal, and there aren't "religious" beliefs in either.  *Perhaps, if you don't understand the positions of others, you could ask instead of making blanket, insulting generalizations?*
> 
> 
> Like this.




Perhaps if you'd realized I was being sarcastic, you wouldn't get upset an make incorrect assumptions that I don't understand "the positions of others," but would rather just joke about it, like in the second post you quoted.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Umbran said:


> And, in so doing, delivered statements that did not make it clear that you knew all that, that carried a fairly accusative implication that would tend to generate argument from conservatives who felt you were being unfair.



I can live with that. 



> Which, I take you already knew, of course?



Yes.  







> That would make it an interesting choice of presentation....
> 
> Luckily, we have clarified that the issue is not actually one-sided, so no argument will be forthcoming.  That's a fine outcome, I think, and we can move on.



I can live with that as well.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> No, they aren't.



If the conservative base was as diverse as you say, the policies the conservative politicians propose to the base that votes for them would more diverse.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

goldomark said:


> If the conservative base was as diverse as you say, the policies the conservative politicians propose to the base that votes for them would more diverse.




Actually, Ovinomancer's destination is basically accurate, at least in terms of US politics.  While the GOP isn't as diverse as the Democratic party's political demographics, there is a profound distinction between the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives*.  That philosophical divide is a BIG part of why John McCain railed for years about the GOP avoiding extensive entanglement with the religious right...until he needed their money & influence in 2008.

The GOP, thus, became a party that has held together by winning.  But their victories are diminishing in quality and quantity.  Even as GOP candidates took seats in the legislature over the past few election cycles, more of the winning policy proposals that went to the ballot in those years were essentially in accord with the philosophies espoused by the Democrats.  Simply put, people voted for Republican lawmakers but Democratic laws.










* there are also key- albeit overlapping- divisions within the social conservatives as well, notably between mainstream religious conservatives and the racists brought into the party via the Southern Strategy.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Perhaps if you'd realized I was being sarcastic, you wouldn't get upset an make incorrect assumptions that I don't understand "the positions of others," but would rather just joke about it, like in the second post you quoted.




The defense of "you didn't get my sarcasm" when your just being insulting is of little worth.  It's still insulting.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Ovinomancer said:


> The defense of "you didn't get my sarcasm" when your just being insulting is of little worth.  It's still insulting.



Men, doesn't bother me.


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> If the conservative base was as diverse as you say, the policies the conservative politicians propose to the base that votes for them would more diverse.



No, because the national party must aggregate and attempt to hit a set of positions that most of the party can swallow.  The policies of the Democrat party are similarly unrepresentative of the breadth of the member's positions.  Further, as noted, there's a lot of anger in the base against the establishment as being unrepresentative (a problem in Democrat circke as well, as my very liberal friend are increasingly upset with the party).  This is why Trump and Sanders are doing so well -- they speak against the establishment line(s). Neither, however, are the least bit popular with the other base (the Donald does better than Bernie on this, though).

Look at the front runners of the Republican field right now, three outsiders and Rubio.  The three outsiders are not saying the same things (theres overlap, but it's not uniform) as each other and that's not the same as Rubio, who himself is somewhat distant from the establishment.  The establishment candidate, Bush, is doing okay, but not leading.  All of this is a clear sign that the party isn't monolithic and that there are deep divides on issues.  

The only really unifying tenet among Republicans is that they don't like Democrat policies slightly more than they don't like the Republican policies.


----------



## Umbran

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Perhaps if you'd realized I was being sarcastic, you wouldn't get upset an make incorrect assumptions that I don't understand "the positions of others," but would rather just joke about it, like in the second post you quoted.




"Perhaps" goes both ways.  Perhaps, if you'd remembered Poe's Law, and realized that your sarcasm was a poor fit for a discussion where folks were seriously engaged with the subject matter, he'd have not had a chance to miss your intent.

Given how much you could have done to avoid the misunderstanding, it isn't appropriate for you to push the blame for it onto others.  If you continue with the politics and religion conversations, please note that we will have very little tolerance for argumentative, disrespectful, or thoughtless behavior.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

*Mod Edit:* Someone has forgotten that you don't argue with moderation in-thread.   ~Umbran


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> No, because the national party must aggregate and attempt to hit a set of positions that most of the party can swallow.



Exactly, and among those positions there are reducing the size of guberment and taxes like HS said. Those are some of the policies that rally conservatives. And if those are aggregators, there is nothing wrong with saying those are what conservatives (in general) want. Don't get mad at those who point it out. 

When there will be Republican presidential candidates who want to increase the funding of planned parenthood, create a carbon tax, regulate the price of pills, etc, we'll be able to talk about a diverse base.


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> Exactly, and among those positions there are reducing the size of guberment and taxes like HS said. Those are some of the policies that rally conservatives. And if those are aggregators, there is nothing wrong with saying those are what conservatives (in general) want. Don't get mad at those who point it out.
> 
> When there will be Republican presidential candidates who want to increase the funding of planned parenthood, create a carbon tax, regulate the price of pills, etc, we'll be able to talk about a diverse base.




When was the last time a Republican government reduced the size of government?  That's a TEA party initiative, not a Republican one.  Republicans are fine with big government, they just differ with Democrats as to where government needs to be bigger.

As for your latter argument, that boils down to "when Republicans want to enact Democratic policies, only then can you claim to be diverse.". That seems a high bar, no?


----------



## Ryujin

Ovinomancer said:


> When was the last time a Republican government reduced the size of government?  That's a TEA party initiative, not a Republican one.  Republicans are fine with big government, they just differ with Democrats as to where government needs to be bigger.
> 
> As for your latter argument, that boils down to "when Republicans want to enact Democratic policies, only then can you claim to be diverse.". That seems a high bar, no?




You're right about that, though the Tea Party's take on government reduction is not what I would call a _reasoned _reduction. I would also say that while actual reduction in government isn't a Republican priority, it most definitely is one of their oft-stated bullet points.


----------



## Kramodlog

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, Ovinomancer's destination is basically accurate, at least in terms of US politics.  While the GOP isn't as diverse as the Democratic party's political demographics, there is a profound distinction between the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives*.  That philosophical divide is a BIG part of why John McCain railed for years about the GOP avoiding extensive entanglement with the religious right...until he needed their money & influence in 2008.
> 
> The GOP, thus, became a party that has held together by winning.  But their victories are diminishing in quality and quantity.  Even as GOP candidates took seats in the legislature over the past few election cycles, more of the winning policy proposals that went to the ballot in those years were essentially in accord with the philosophies espoused by the Democrats.  Simply put, people voted for Republican lawmakers but Democratic laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * there are also key- albeit overlapping- divisions within the social conservatives as well, notably between mainstream religious conservatives and the racists brought into the party via the Southern Strategy.




It comes back to the argument we were making about Republican politicians trying to get the votes of racist. Not all Republicans are racist, but buy doing nothing about politicians who try to get votes from racists, there is a certain level of endorsement of racism. Neoliberals might want low taxes, less government regulations and same sex-marriage, but if they do not really do anything about candidates who oppose sex-marriage, on some level they are endorsing it and are making the policy theirs as much as social conservatives are.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> When was the last time a Republican government reduced the size of government?/quote]It is still what the party, its politicians and the base have been proposing for decades. And they make a lot of cuts in taxes and services based on those ideas.
> 
> The Republican party, its politicians and base have been opposed to abortions for quite some time with variable results, but because they haven't managed to completely outlaw it accross the US, does it mean they are for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a TEA party initiative, not a Republican one. Republicans are fine with big government, they just differ with Democrats as to where government needs to be bigger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tea partiers aren't that different. A poll showed that 70% are against cuts to social security and medicare. http://thinkprogress.org/health/201...ters-oppose-cuts-to-medicare-social-security/ It isn't that surprising considering that that TPers are generally older folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for your latter argument, that boils down to "when Republicans want to enact Democratic policies, only then can you claim to be diverse.". That seems a high bar, no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There can be Democratic policies, tied to Democrates I imagine, but not conservative policies? Is the problem you have with that more rooted in how conservative and Republican are often used interchangeably?
Click to expand...


----------



## Ovinomancer

Ryujin said:


> You're right about that, though the Tea Party's take on government reduction is not what I would call a _reasoned _reduction. I would also say that while actual reduction in government isn't a Republican priority, it most definitely is one of their oft-stated bullet points.



It's clearly reasoned, you just disagree either with the premises or the conclusions.  We all do ourselves a disservice when we mistake disagreement with perfidy.


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> It comes back to the argument we were making about Republican politicians trying to get the votes of racist. Not all Republicans are racist, but buy doing nothing about politicians who try to get votes from racists, there is a certain level of endorsement of racism. Neoliberals might want low taxes, less government regulations and same sex-marriage, but if they do not really do anything about candidates who oppose sex-marriage, on some level they are endorsing it and are making the policy theirs as much as social conservatives are.



This returns to the fallacy that because I did not decry an action this time, I must support it.  I believe this is a major argument used against the depiction of Muslims as supportive of extremist Islam?  Why should it apply to conservatives, but not Muslims?  NOTE:  I do not support this argument against Muslims, I'm only using it for rhetorical purposes.


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> It is still what the party, its politicians and the base have been proposing for decades. And they make a lot of cuts in taxes and services based on those ideas.
> 
> The Republican party, its politicians and base have been opposed to abortions for quite some time with variable results, but because they haven't managed to completely outlaw it accross the US, does it mean they are for it?
> 
> Tea partiers aren't that different. A poll showed that 70% are against cuts to social security and medicare. http://thinkprogress.org/health/201...ters-oppose-cuts-to-medicare-social-security/ It isn't that surprising considering that that TPers are generally older folks.
> 
> There can be Democratic policies, tied to Democrates I imagine, but not conservative policies? Is the problem you have with that more rooted in how conservative and Republican are often used interchangeably?




I think that's a bit of a misunderstanding of the "reduction of government" planks of the Republican party.  They want to reduce some aspects of government while increasing others.  Usually it's military and business spending at the expense of social welfare programs.  The net result isn't a reduction of government, but a realigning of it.

Libertarians, on the other hand, want less government, period, and aren't well liked by Republicans.

And there usually is an issue with the interchange of conservative and Republican.  I don't mind, and usual assume that the speaker means them interchangeably, even though there are differences and divisions of conservatives and Republicans alike.  There is no monolithic block of conservatives or Republicans, but it's often assumed that way.

Speaking to what I perceive is the largest gist of your argument, I'm not arguing that there aren't demonstrably conservative or Republican policies, but that belief in those is not monolithic or religious.  Those policies are the middle ground of many subclasses and shouldn't be taken to be dogma for anyone.  However, most of the time I see these arguments, dogma is what's being implied, usually in an attempt to dismiss the entire set of political thought on a pretext like failing to argue sufficiently vociferously against presumed racists.


----------



## Ryujin

Ovinomancer said:


> It's clearly reasoned, you just disagree either with the premises or the conclusions.  We all do ourselves a disservice when we mistake disagreement with perfidy.




The actions taken in your House, of recent years, would beg to differ. Simply blocking government funding isn't a reasoned response; it's a spasm.



Ovinomancer said:


> This returns to the fallacy that because I did not decry an action this time, I must support it.  I believe this is a major argument used against the depiction of Muslims as supportive of extremist Islam?  Why should it apply to conservatives, but not Muslims?  NOTE:  I do not support this argument against Muslims, I'm only using it for rhetorical purposes.




It's also used in the, "If you aren't with us then you're with the terrorists" sort of rhetoric. In the instance Goldomark cited it's more than that. It's actively profiting from such activity, by turning a blind eye to it.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> I think that's a bit of a misunderstanding of the "reduction of government" planks of the Republican party.  They want to reduce some aspects of government while increasing others.  Usually it's military and business spending at the expense of social welfare programs.  The net result isn't a reduction of government, but a realigning of it.




In campaign rhetoric, GOP candidates frequently claim they want outright reduction of government.  You have to do an analysis of proposed budgets and tax policies, or look at the historical results of past GOP administrations, to find out the actuality.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Ryujin said:


> The actions taken in your House, of recent years, would beg to differ. Simply blocking government funding isn't a reasoned response; it's a spasm.
> 
> 
> 
> It's also used in the, "If you aren't with us then you're with the terrorists" sort of rhetoric. In the instance Goldomark cited it's more than that. It's actively profiting from such activity, by turning a blind eye to it.



Yes, blocking a government action can very well be a trained action.  If be fairly certain that you aren't against the Democrat blocking currently going on and would consider it very reasonable.  I submit that your agreement with the reasoning is active factor.

You'll have to walk me through how another candidate getting votes is a benefit to the first.


----------



## Ryujin

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, blocking a government action can very well be a trained action.  If be fairly certain that you aren't against the Democrat blocking currently going on and would consider it very reasonable.  I submit that your agreement with the reasoning is active factor.
> 
> You'll have to walk me through how another candidate getting votes is a benefit to the first.




Please note that I said "your House." I'm Canadian. It doesn't matter to me whether it's a Democratic or Republican act. If it's not thought out, it's nothing more than a political spasm.

It's a pretty short walk. If the _Party_ gains votes, then it benefits.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Ryujin said:


> Please note that I said "your House." I'm Canadian. It doesn't matter to me whether it's a Democratic or Republican act. If it's not thought out, it's nothing more than a political spasm.
> 
> It's a pretty short walk. If the _Party_ gains votes, then it benefits.




Yeah, I had gathered you weren't Merkin, and I would have guessed Canadian due to the use of idiom (Your English is flawless for a foreigner, btw).  I made my points with that in mind.

And, since we're not a Parliamentary system, the Party doesn't gain votes.  Typically, if jack@#$ candidate one solicits racist votes via racist rhetoric, those aren't normally transferrable to non-jack@#$ candidate two who doesn't use the rhetoric and doesn't court that vote.  If those voters vote for him, it's likely they would have without candidate one at all.

But, again, this construct puts the onus onto the non-jack@#$s to spend most of their time repeatedly denying the jack@#$s.  You postulate that the non-jack@#$ gets a benefit from not spending his time though, but it's just a postulate -- you haven't shown this to be true in even a cursory way.  Yet you insist that the proper behavior is to spend the time to constantly and loudly decry.  It's a no-win situation if you accept the premise.  By the by, the Donald is having great success by refusing to play by those premises, and that's one of the reasons he's popular right now -- because he doesn't play the game according to the rigged rules.  I'm not a fan, but I can respect that.


----------



## Ryujin

Ovinomancer said:


> Yeah, I had gathered you weren't Merkin, and I would have guessed Canadian due to the use of idiom (Your English is flawless for a foreigner, btw).  I made my points with that in mind.
> 
> And, since we're not a Parliamentary system, the Party doesn't gain votes.  Typically, if jack@#$ candidate one solicits racist votes via racist rhetoric, those aren't normally transferrable to non-jack@#$ candidate two who doesn't use the rhetoric and doesn't court that vote.  If those voters vote for him, it's likely they would have without candidate one at all.
> 
> But, again, this construct puts the onus onto the non-jack@#$s to spend most of their time repeatedly denying the jack@#$s.  You postulate that the non-jack@#$ gets a benefit from not spending his time though, but it's just a postulate -- you haven't shown this to be true in even a cursory way.  Yet you insist that the proper behavior is to spend the time to constantly and loudly decry.  It's a no-win situation if you accept the premise.  By the by, the Donald is having great success by refusing to play by those premises, and that's one of the reasons he's popular right now -- because he doesn't play the game according to the rigged rules.  I'm not a fan, but I can respect that.




True enough; I've posted an assumption on my part rather than a supported theory. My only supporting evidence for it is anecdotal, which for all intents and purposes is none at all.

And your take on my "spasm" comment?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Ryujin said:


> True enough; I've posted an assumption on my part rather than a supported theory. My only supporting evidence for it is anecdotal, which for all intents and purposes is none at all.
> 
> And your take on my "spasm" comment?




Difference of opinion.  It appears spasmish because the Republican party is currently deeply divided, with the small TEA party contingent actively chaffing under the establishment.  Agree or disagree with the reasoning, the tactics used were sound and those using them did so with consideration and intent.  Personally, as an American and with appreciation for our rather uniquely built system of government, I'm all for gridlock as a standard.  There are too many laws already, and no effective mechanisms that cause their review or adjustment, so we just keep passing more on top of the existing set of failures (and successes).  No one bothers to try to understand the history and/or just focus on the benefits side of the cost/benefit analysis.  NO one does a risk evaluation, let alone a risk mitigation plan for legislation.  They just pass it, get the sound bite for their next campaign, and roll.  So not doing anything is often, to me, a better occurance than the continued passage of badly flawed legislation (the ACA, for instance -- without even touching on its intended purpose the law as written is horrid-bad, largely due to the way it was passed and the failure to adequately understand the ramifications of the law).


----------



## Ryujin

Ovinomancer said:


> Difference of opinion.  It appears spasmish because the Republican party is currently deeply divided, with the small TEA party contingent actively chaffing under the establishment.  Agree or disagree with the reasoning, the tactics used were sound and those using them did so with consideration and intent.  Personally, as an American and with appreciation for our rather uniquely built system of government, I'm all for gridlock as a standard.  There are too many laws already, and no effective mechanisms that cause their review or adjustment, so we just keep passing more on top of the existing set of failures (and successes).  No one bothers to try to understand the history and/or just focus on the benefits side of the cost/benefit analysis.  NO one does a risk evaluation, let alone a risk mitigation plan for legislation.  They just pass it, get the sound bite for their next campaign, and roll.  So not doing anything is often, to me, a better occurance than the continued passage of badly flawed legislation (the ACA, for instance -- without even touching on its intended purpose the law as written is horrid-bad, largely due to the way it was passed and the failure to adequately understand the ramifications of the law).




From that point of view I much prefer our Parliamentary system, in a minority government situation. It tends to force co-operation and sober thought.

Stopping your budget from passing, as a tactic, strikes me as being an (word I probably shouldn't use here) type of behaviour. Your government needs to continue day-to-day operation. If the real problem is packing the bill that becomes that budget with other crap then that needs to be fixed, but not paying your Federal workers is a stupid thing to do.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> And, since we're not a Parliamentary system, the Party doesn't gain votes.  Typically, if jack@#$ candidate one solicits racist votes via racist rhetoric, those aren't normally transferrable to non-jack@#$ candidate two who doesn't use the rhetoric and doesn't court that vote.  If those voters vote for him, it's likely they would have without candidate one at all.




You seem to forget that legislation these days is heavily influenced by caucuses and voting blocks.  Jack winning his election helps his entire party.  When both Jack and non-Jack get into the legislative chambers, and non-Jack totally gets support from Jack, non-Jack, and the party, is benefiting from those Jack votes.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> You seem to forget that legislation these days is heavily influenced by caucuses and voting blocks.  Jack winning his election helps his entire party.  When both Jack and non-Jack get into the legislative chambers, and non-Jack totally gets support from Jack, non-Jack, and the party, is benefiting from those Jack votes.




So because one person is a slime, the whole party is a slime if they don't throw that one person out?  That's an interesting premise, and I'm not sure you really want to follow it through to conclusion, given the number of politicians on both sides that have and are bad actors in many areas and yet still hold positions.  The better option sounds like you don't endorse the slimeball or his positions but, since he's elected and you can't toss him entirely, you hold your nose on the good causes and move forward.  Not supporting his crazy seems enough in an elected house, but the argument here is that repudiation in the extreme is necessary.  Again, not sure everyone here really wants to follow that through, they just want the other side to do it.


----------



## billd91

Ovinomancer said:


> So because one person is a slime, the whole party is a slime if they don't throw that one person out?




I don't think that's what he's saying. Rather, the voter can't absolve himself from supporting a party and its leadership when he votes for a member of that party. The fact that we don't have the same parliamentary system as many other countries doesn't change the fact that a vote for a particular congressman or senator is also a show of support for the group with which they caucus and its policies.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> So because one person is a slime, the whole party is a slime if they don't throw that one person out?




I think you're driving the argument to an extreme.  

Both ends - "the whole party is 'slime' if one person is slime," and "the party bears no responsibility for that done in its name" - are unreasonable.  

The issue at hand is that there isn't just one Jack.  There's *lots* of them.  There comes a point where enough of the party holds unacceptable positions that supporting the party is no longer ethical.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> I think you're driving the argument to an extreme.
> 
> Both ends - "the whole party is 'slime' if one person is slime," and "the party bears no responsibility for that done in its name" - are unreasonable.
> 
> The issue at hand is that there isn't just one Jack.  There's *lots* of them.  There comes a point where enough of the party holds unacceptable positions that supporting the party is no longer ethical.



Are you saying we've reached that point with a particular party, or is this a hypothetical based on a counterfactual?  I'm now confused, as the original comment that sparked this seemed accusatory.  Perhaps it's drifted into speculation or I misunderstood initially, so clarifying this would be appreciated.  

If it is a hypothesis, I think it's trivially true (in the logical sense of trivial) that a party that widely supports unpleasant policies benefits from people that agree with the unpleasant policies.  How that can be applied to the broader discussion, though, leaves me somewhat uncertain of what premises are being used, it what the point of making that observation is.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> Are you saying we've reached that point with a particular party, or is this a hypothetical based on a counterfactual?




I do feel there is a party that I cannot vote for at this time, due to the extreme positions of many of its members, and elements of its platform in general.  While it may be hypothetically possible that other parties field individuals who are so bad that I am forced to reconsider, but that scenario seems extremely unlikely.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> I do feel there is a party that I cannot vote for at this time, due to the extreme positions of many of its members, and elements of its platform in general.  While it may be hypothetically possible that other parties field individuals who are so bad that I am forced to reconsider, but that scenario seems extremely unlikely.



So, it's not a hypothetical, then, you're using it in practice.  You are, of course, aware that most of the people that vote for that party feel the exact same way about the party you vote for?  What convinces you that you have the correct moral answer?


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> This returns to the fallacy that because I did not decry an action this time, I must support it.  I believe this is a major argument used against the depiction of Muslims as supportive of extremist Islam?  Why should it apply to conservatives, but not Muslims?  NOTE:  I do not support this argument against Muslims, I'm only using it for rhetorical purposes.



Muslims are usually born into a faith. A person choses to join the racists of the Republican party.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> I think that's a bit of a misunderstanding of the "reduction of government" planks of the Republican party.  They want to reduce some aspects of government while increasing others.  Usually it's military and business spending at the expense of social welfare programs.  The net result isn't a reduction of government, but a realigning of it.
> 
> Libertarians, on the other hand, want less government, period, and aren't well liked by Republicans.
> 
> And there usually is an issue with the interchange of conservative and Republican.  I don't mind, and usual assume that the speaker means them interchangeably, even though there are differences and divisions of conservatives and Republicans alike.  There is no monolithic block of conservatives or Republicans, but it's often assumed that way.
> 
> Speaking to what I perceive is the largest gist of your argument, I'm not arguing that there aren't demonstrably conservative or Republican policies, but that belief in those is not monolithic or religious.  Those policies are the middle ground of many subclasses and shouldn't be taken to be dogma for anyone.  However, most of the time I see these arguments, dogma is what's being implied, usually in an attempt to dismiss the entire set of political thought on a pretext like failing to argue sufficiently vociferously against presumed racists.



The argument seems ridiculus. It is like critiquing me for saying the NRA is against gun control, because I'm talking to someone who is for gun control and a member of the NRA. 

The Republican party has a platform. It has politicians who promote those policies and get elected on those policies by a base that is for those policies. When a person decides to join the Republican party, it choses among other things to be associated with those policies. If some is against those policies, that person is an exception, not the norm. And I wonder what she is doing with the Republican party in the first place.


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> Muslims are usually born into a faith. A person choses to join the racists of the Republican party.



Right, because no one is born into a social situation that fosters racism, nor is there any racism on the Democrat side.

I've chosen to take your remark as constructively as possible, but frankly it's little better than a broad, insulting generalization.  Thankfully, I'm not a Republican, so I'm not personally offended.


goldomark said:


> The argument seems ridiculus. It is like critiquing me for saying the NRA is against gun control, because I'm talking to someone who is for gun control and a member of the NRA.
> 
> The Republican party has a platform. It has politicians who promote those policies and get elected on those policies by a base that is for those policies. When a person decides to join the Republican party, it choses among other things to be associated with those policies. If some is against those policies, that person is an exception, not the norm. And I wonder what she is doing with the Republican party in the first place.




Here's the current Republican Party platform on "Reforming the Government":



> *Reforming Government to Serve the People*
> 
> Saving Medicare for Future Generations
> Strengthening Medicaid in the States
> Security For Those Who Need It: Ensuring Retirement Security
> Regulatory Reform: The Key to Economic Growth
> Protecting Internet Freedom
> A Vision for the Twenty-First Century: Technology, Telecommunications and the Internet
> Protecting the Taxpayers: No More “Too Big to Fail”
> Judicial Activism: A Threat to the U.S. Constitution
> Restructuring the U.S. Postal Service for the Twenty-First Century
> Protecting Travelers and their Rights: Reforming the TSA for Security and Privacy
> The Rule of Law: Legal Immigration
> Honoring Our Relationship with American Indians
> Preserving the District of Columbia
> Modernizing the Federal Civil Service
> America’s Future in Space: Continuing this Quest
> Honoring and Supporting Americans in the Territories




Nothing in there about shrinking the size of government.  This is easily available on the Republican party website, so there's little excuse in asserting it says something that it doesn't actually say.

ETA:  also, you should really judge people and groups on what they do, not what they say.  The Republicans may occasionally throw out a smaller government bone to appease some elements of the base, but their actions grow the government.


----------



## MechaPilot

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If he wants to be consistent, here, virtually the entire GOP would have to skip out.  I'm not being a pro-Democratic Party partisan, I'm just drawing on historically verifiable facts, like how the general tenor of modern GOP policies towards the poor and underprivileged has been at odds with Catholicism for some time.  This was made abundantly clear in 2012 when, despite the Church's clashes with Obama, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called out the Romney/Ryan budget plan as failing to meet the moral criteria of protecting the poor.




Yeah, that's true.  Of course, you gotta love how they can give themselves an out by quoting the biblical reference that the poor will always be with us.  That's become the default, knee-jerk response from some of the more affluent people that I've met in response to statements about doing more for the poor.

Of course, the real shame of America is our homeless.  A large percentage of our homeless are veterans.  It's sad-funny to see conservatives talk about supporting our troops in one sentence and then crapping on the poor with their next.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> Right, because no one is born into a social situation that fosters racism,



And that makes Republican racism ok?



> nor is there any racism on the Democrat side.



Heh. That is trying to change the subject with a strawman. 



> I've chosen to take your remark as constructively as possible, but frankly it's little better than a broad, insulting generalization.



When the Republican party won't try to pander to racists and homophobes, I'll shed a tear to them being unjustly categorized. Honestly, if there are so many Republicans who aren't racist, sexist, homophobes and science deniers, they should take back control of the party. Right now that silent majority isn't in control and it doesn't seem to mind much. It is hard now to find a presidential candidate that doesn't endorse a racist, homophobic or anti-science position. 

By all accounts Paul and Carson are brilliant doctors, yet they refused to back vaccines unequivocally. Carson even said that evolution is satanic! http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/09/24/ben_carson_anti_science.html

Jeb Bush wants to black people to feel welcomed in the Republican party. Cool. Black people, or any other minority for that matter, shouldn't back just one political party as they will be taken for granted and won't see their situation improve. In many ways, Democrates talk a lot about black people's condition, but do not do much about it. But then Bush goes into racial stereotypes about "free stuff". http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/25/jeb-bush-free-stuff-mitt-romney-black-voters

So, where is that candidate backed by pro-science Republicans who agree that there is institutional racism in the US and it needs to change because that is a drag on black people's "American Dream"? Where is that candidate who says that birth control pills help combat abortion and lets women get an education and good paying jobs? Where is that candidate that says that people not vaccinating their kids is a public health problem? Or that climate change is a economic and social problem that will only get worse?

Maybe that candidate isn't there this round because there aren't many Republicans who think that. Or care much about science, women and minority issues. 



> Here's the current Republican Party platform on "Reforming the Government":
> 
> Nothing in there about shrinking the size of government.  This is easily available on the Republican party website, so there's little excuse in asserting it says something that it doesn't actually say.



Who is against virtue? The thing is, you ignore _how_ they say they will achieve those goals. Cuts, deregulation and privatization are what is proposed, and those go against the stated goals. Judicial activism is funny, as the solution is to nominate more conservative activist judges. 



> ETA:  also, you should really judge people and groups on what they do, not what they say.  The Republicans may occasionally throw out a smaller government bone to appease some elements of the base, but their actions grow the government.



What they say is very important. It tells us who they want votes and money from. Do you think we should separate politicians from who they want to get votes and money from?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Firstly, this is a lovely gish gallop, but I'm game.



goldomark said:


> And that makes Republican racism ok?



Whoa, there, slow those goalposts down.  You made the point that Muslims are born into their prejudices and values while racists choose it, and I pointed out that most racists are, in fact, born into their prejudices and values.  That was a fair point on my behalf, and not a defense of racism, Republican or otherwise.  The argument isn't to make racism okay, it's to point out the double standard often present within the argument, and I think you've done an admirable job of illustrating that here.

For the record, I have zero interest in defending racism -- I'm not going to even engage arguments that start by asking if I defend racism.



> Heh. That is trying to change the subject with a strawman.



Nope, at worst it's a tu quoque, in the middle it's a red herring, but at best it was an attempt to dismiss claims that the Republican party has a monopoly on racism, which is heavily implied by your arguments since that's all you're focusing on.



> When the Republican party won't try to pander to racists and homophobes, I'll shed a tear to them being unjustly categorized. Honestly, if there are so many Republicans who aren't racist, sexist, homophobes and science deniers, they should take back control of the party. Right now that silent majority isn't in control and it doesn't seem to mind much. It is hard now to find a presidential candidate that doesn't endorse a racist, homophobic or anti-science position.



You assert that the Republican party panders to racists and homophobes but you don't provide concrete examples.  Again, looking to the platform, I don't see any racism.  Homophobia, in the broad, overly used sense, probably exists in the defense of traditional marriage.  However, that definition isn't really homophobia, it's part of the ongoing shift in culture.  Twenty years ago, the nation had DADT and DOMA, and there wasn't a chance of homosexual marriage becoming the law of the land.  Much has changed, but you seem to think that since not everyone changed that rapidly that they must be haters and horrid people.  That's a fantastic way to alienate people and continue the cycle of hate.  This use of homophobia is rather blatantly a rhetorical attack that allows ignoring an entire argument unheard on the basis of an ad hom.  I don't agree with the traditional guys, but I also don't automatically assume that they believe the way they do because they hate gays.  Some disappoint me and do, but most are just advocating their sincere beliefs and have nothing against homosexuals.  Now, you can argue that, but it's better to ask than insult.



> By all accounts Paul and Carson are brilliant doctors, yet they refused to back vaccines unequivocally. Carson even said that evolution is satanic! http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/09/24/ben_carson_anti_science.html



Goalposts moving again -- racism and homophobia wasn't enough, so we pivot to another metric?

Okay.  As to your first point, a quick google turns up quotes from Carson that no one should be allowed to exempt from mandatory vaccinations, that vaccinations are the best method to eradicate communicable diseases there is.  So, I'm very confused as to what you mean here, as the evidence seems to disagree.  I haven't bothered to look up Paul, as I generally don't think I need to do the homework to find evidence to back up anyone else's points.

As for your link about evolution, I'm going to say something very controversial:  so what?  Evolution is totally pointless to anyone not an evolutionary biologist or in another, very narrow, very specialized profession.  It's just not impactful in any way.  It's used as some kind of litmus test for being 'anti-science' but being anti-science is nonsense -- it's like saying someone is anti-screwdriver.  Science is a toolset for finding truths about the natural world.  It's not the only toolset available, and it's utterly silent on many other kinds of truths (morality, philosophy, politics, etc.).  Someone can be an excellent brain surgeon and not believe in evolution, because it's not necessary to believe in evolution to do that job well.  Carson's an excellent example of this.  

Personally, I rather like evolution.  Not the Darwinian version that most people think evolution is, but the really edgy stuff being studied right now.  I'm not a fan of creationism -- it falls flat for me.  But I'm also a fan of how cellphones work (I'm an EE specializing in communications work) -- it's what I love and it's pretty damn cool, especially some of the proposed next gen stuff.  However, believing in how cell phones work (or even knowledge of it) is totally useless to the vast majority of people, and I'm okay with that.  Evolution is even less useful knowledge, and I fail to understand why it's become the lightening rod it has.  No, scratch that, I do understand -- it's a proxy for the war against religion.  Religion is something I don't have, but I also don't feel the need to go take it away from others.



> Jeb Bush wants to black people to feel welcomed in the Republican party. Cool. Black people, or any other minority for that matter, shouldn't back just one political party as they will be taken for granted and won't see their situation improve. In many ways, Democrates talk a lot about black people's condition, but do not do much about it. But then Bush goes into racial stereotypes about "free stuff". http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/25/jeb-bush-free-stuff-mitt-romney-black-voters



The spin on that comment was from the outrage brokers, and totally not the spirit with which it was said.  It's a non-story, and certainly not indicative of racism as Jeb was outlining a constructive and respectful interest in engaging with black voters.  Jeb's not the most articulate speaker, and all this is is an attack against a slightly inarticulate statement.

Which bring up the point the Biden referred to Obama with "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" without much comment, and that's far less articulate than what Jeb said.  Do you have some opprobrium for that?



> So, where is that candidate backed by pro-science Republicans who agree that there is institutional racism in the US and it needs to change because that is a drag on black people's "American Dream"? Where is that candidate who says that birth control pills help combat abortion and lets women get an education and good paying jobs? Where is that candidate that says that people not vaccinating their kids is a public health problem? Or that climate change is a economic and social problem that will only get worse?



Ah, the heart of the gish gallop.  As I said, I'm game.

There are plenty of Republicans that agree that there is institutional racism and it needs to be addressed.  You can usually find these kinds of comments in smaller venue interviews, where there's time to get into that kind of issue.  You seem to want Republicans to speak to your pet issues instead of their pet issues first before you'll withdraw your charges.  I'm not sure that's very fair.

The second sentence is so trivially obvious that I'm not sure it needs to be said.  There aren't any candidates arguing against contraceptives that I'm aware of, so why would this even come up?  I don't hear it from Democrats, either, because it's obvious and not controversial for either mainstream.  The only Republicanesque point on contraception that might come up is the belief that people shouldn't be forced to pay for other people's contraceptives if they have religious or moral objections.  

Carson said people not vaccinating their kids is a problem.  Christie said it.  This isn't even an issue among the candidates -- they'll all agree to this.  

Let's not touch climate change, as that's a very charged issue that does not brook middle positions, like that the Earth is warming, mankind has a hand in it, but that mitigation is a losing game.  Bjorn Lomborg is a good example of this position.  Suffice it to say that we'd disagree on this, not on the science, but on the likelihood of long tail warming and the usefulness of mitigation.



> Maybe that candidate isn't there this round because there aren't many Republicans who think that. Or care much about science, women and minority issues.



It rather looks like that's true of the distorted image of Republicans you seem to have.



> Who is against virtue?



Sorry, I dislike sentence level fisking, but I don't understand this question because I can't see what it refers to.



> The thing is, you ignore _how_ they say they will achieve those goals. Cuts, deregulation and privatization are what is proposed, and those go against the stated goals. Judicial activism is funny, as the solution is to nominate more conservative activist judges.



Yes, when you realign government, you cut some things, deregulate others, and privatize still others.  The Democrats want to reduce military spending.  They plan to use cuts to do so.  They also plan to deregulate some aspects of business.  Does this mean that Democrats want to shrink the size of government?  No, no it doesn't.

Look, obviously we're never going to agree on this topic - I've cited the platform that doesn't say shrink the size of government and you've totally ignored that in favor of even smaller arguments of how they plan to do realigning with tools that can also be used if you wanted to shrink the size of government.  I don't think anything I say will matter in the least, so let's agree to disagree and move on.



> What they say is very important. It tells us who they want votes and money from. Do you think we should separate politicians from who they want to get votes and money from?



I don't understand your question, it seems to be a non sequitur.  But for your statement, yes, of course they want money from people that think things.  However, we're talking about what Republicans believe, and that shows in what they do, not what they say.  They don't shrink the government, even if they occasionally pander to people that do.  The doing is indicative of what they believe, not the saying part -- that's just indicative of who they think they can get to give them money and votes.

But, again, I don't think I can say or show you anything that would ever change the concept of racist Republicans trying to shrink government and deny women rights, so I'm not going to try anymore.  You're more than welcome to take that as a win, if you'd like.


----------



## Bedrockgames

I am a democrat but know plenty of republicans who are not racists. That said, I do think the party has an issue when it comes to certain groups, both in terms of the party's reputation and in terms of policy. I can speak directly to the immigrant issue as my wife has a green card. One thing I don't think they understand is that most legal immigrants see attacks on illegal immigrants as attacks on them as well. So while the party may try to emphasize they are speaking about illegal immigrants, to members of the community, that doesn't matter, it feels like an attack on them and it attacks people they know and love. These are very mixed communities and there are people within them with mixed status. Some of this has to do with tone, some of it actual policy. It presently very hard to bring family members here. The process is slow. And people who are here legally often have a lot of trouble updating their status. When you have folks who have been here for decades and have roots, kicking them out has an enormous ripple affect that effects not just legal immigrants, but people born in this country with ties to them. A little more empathy and lot less fear mongering would go a long way. Just from a practical point of view, the party is clearly losing major demographics by pandering to the "they take our jobs" wing.


----------



## gamerprinter

In Roman times Christians were persecuted, at least until Constantine came along, after that, IMO, Christian persecutions is a non-thing. In my experience, I see regularly instances of Christians persecuting non-Christians or persecuting other Christian faiths. Christians being the subject of persecution, is something I haven't generally witnessed. Every now and again Christian missionaries see misfortune, but I consider that more a situation of non-locals imposing their belief systems to a local populace often in a socially troubled area, and not really a Christian problem per se.


----------



## cmad1977

Ovinomancer said:


> Yeah, I had gathered you weren't Merkin, and I would have guessed Canadian due to the use of idiom (Your English is flawless for a foreigner, btw).




This must be a joke


----------



## billd91

gamerprinter said:


> In Roman times Christians were persecuted, at least until Constantine came along, after that, IMO, Christian persecutions is a non-thing. In my experience, I see regularly instances of Christians persecuting non-Christians or persecuting other Christian faiths.




This definitely sets the tone. Once Christianity was legalized, persecution turned on the pagans and heretics (like Arius) who may have been Christian but differed from the orthodoxy being established.


----------



## Bedrockgames

gamerprinter said:


> In Roman times Christians were persecuted, at least until Constantine came along, after that, IMO, Christian persecutions is a non-thing. In my experience, I see regularly instances of Christians persecuting non-Christians or persecuting other Christian faiths. Christians being the subject of persecution, is something I haven't generally witnessed. Every now and again Christian missionaries see misfortune, but I consider that more a situation of non-locals imposing their belief systems to a local populace often in a socially troubled area, and not really a Christian problem per se.




It doesn't happen in the US. But it does happen in other parts of the world. There was a very serious one in Sudan not too long ago and in places like Isis controlled territory there are very real Christian persecutions going on. People make too much noise about that word here and in Europe where it doesn't apply (people saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas isn't persecution) but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there are Christians in other places who are persecuted.


----------



## Henry

Bedrockgames said:


> It doesn't happen in the US. But it does happen in other parts of the world. There was a very serious one in Sudan not too long ago and in places like Isis controlled territory there are very real Christian persecutions going on. People make too much noise about that word here and in Europe where it doesn't apply (people saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas isn't persecution) but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there are Christians in other places who are persecuted.



I can imagine it's quite a different story in places like Iran for, say, the Armenian Christian minorities. And good luck if you are, say, an Iranian woman who converted from Islam to Christianity. Having your civil rights violated might be the least of your worries. I make no claims it's a widespread situation (maybe a few ten thousand?) but you can't say it's All X or all Y.

I'm just tired of people being dicks to one another day in, day out because they have the Truth on their side. And yes, I'm fully aware it's a pointless thing to be tired of by myself.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> You made the point that Muslims are born into their prejudices and values while racists choose it,



No, that is a strawman. I did not say that people chose to be racist, althought that isn't impossible for someone to do this. I said that people decide to join a organization that is racist or contains racist members, in this case the Republican party. That was different from being born in a religion. 



> it was an attempt to dismiss claims that the Republican party has a monopoly on racism,



Another strawman. I never claimed they had such a monopoly and that was never my point. Quote me if I did. Trying to make this about other parties is a distraction that is often used in this type of conversation.



> You assert that the Republican party panders to racists and homophobes but you don't provide concrete examples.



Do I have to prove that water is wet? The real question is do you really deny that they pander to racists and homophobes or are you just playing devil's advocate?



> Goalposts moving again -- racism and homophobia wasn't enough, so we pivot to another metric?



No, just adding examples to stenghten my point. Pandering to a certain anti-science crowd is also a Republican thing. 



> It's a non-story, and certainly not indicative of racism as Jeb was outlining a constructive and respectful interest in engaging with black voters.



Saying black people are just interested in free stuff is a racial stereotype rooted in a lot of racism. It reminds me of Santorum singling out black people as welfare recipients. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/santorum-targets-blacks-in-entitlement-reform/ Why are black people the only recipients of free stuff or other people's money? Are they even the majority of recipients of government programs? If not, why single them out as beneficiaries? Could it be they are talking to a base who see black people as lazy moochers? Could they see black people as lazy moochers?



> It rather looks like that's true of the distorted image of Republicans you seem to have.



It is the image they give out to appeal to their base. Not my fault. 



> Yes, when you realign government, you cut some things, deregulate others, and privatize still others.



Not necessarely. Those are just some of the things you can do when realigning government. What you mentioned are things proned by neoliberal ideology, the ideology that guides Republican policies when it comes to economics. 



> I don't understand your question, it seems to be a non sequitur.



Well, what I'm saying is that in a representative democracy, politicians and political parties do not exist in a vacuum. They try to appeal to segments of the population to get their support in the form of votes, money, volonteer work, etc. So, when you have candidates who say homophobic stuff, racist stuff, anti-science stuff, etc, well, it is because they are trying to get support from people who believe that stuff. 

A few radical and marginal candidates should be expected in any political party. However, they shouldn't necessarely be taken as a tell-tale sign of racism, to name one issue, in a party. The problem with the Republicans is that those views are rampant among candidates, not marginal, and the politicians who have some of the most radical views are the ones leading in polls. My argument is that listening to Republican politicians will tell you a lot about the Republican base.

That doesn't mean every Republican shares those views. But how rampant those views are and the lack of moderate candidates could indicate either two things that aren't necessarely mutually exclusive. Either the segment of the base who opposes these views is too small for politicians to try to appeal to them, or part of the base just doesn't care about issues like racism and homophobia. This indifference just means that those who have racist and homophobic agendas get a freepass to push their hateful policies. 

When someone joins an organisation where racists and homophobes have a freepass to push their agenda, why shouldn't that person be judged by the people she decided to associate with? I won't judge all Muslim because ISIS is a Muslim organisation, but I'll judge people who joins ISIS.


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> No, that is a strawman. I did not say that people chose to be racist, althought that isn't impossible for someone to do this. I said that people decide to join a organization that is racist or contains racist members, in this case the Republican party. That was different from being born in a religion.
> 
> Another strawman. I never claimed they had such a monopoly and that was never my point. Quote me if I did. Trying to make this about other parties is a distraction that is often used in this type of conversation.
> 
> Do I have to prove that water is wet? The real question is do you really deny that they pander to racists and homophobes or are you just playing devil's advocate?
> 
> No, just adding examples to stenghten my point. Pandering to a certain anti-science crowd is also a Republican thing.
> 
> Saying black people are just interested in free stuff is a racial stereotype rooted in a lot of racism. It reminds me of Santorum singling out black people as welfare recipients. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/santorum-targets-blacks-in-entitlement-reform/ Why are black people the only recipients of free stuff or other people's money? Are they even the majority of recipients of government programs? If not, why single them out as beneficiaries? Could it be they are talking to a base who see black people as lazy moochers? Could they see black people as lazy moochers?
> 
> It is the image they give out to appeal to their base. Not my fault.
> 
> Not necessarely. Those are just some of the things you can do when realigning government. What you mentioned are things proned by neoliberal ideology, the ideology that guides Republican policies when it comes to economics.
> 
> Well, what I'm saying is that in a representative democracy, politicians and political parties do not exist in a vacuum. They try to appeal to segments of the population to get their support in the form of votes, money, volonteer work, etc. So, when you have candidates who say homophobic stuff, racist stuff, anti-science stuff, etc, well, it is because they are trying to get support from people who believe that stuff.
> 
> A few radical and marginal candidates should be expected in any political party. However, they shouldn't necessarely be taken as a tell-tale sign of racism, to name one issue, in a party. The problem with the Republicans is that those views are rampant among candidates, not marginal, and the politicians who have some of the most radical views are the ones leading in polls. My argument is that listening to Republican politicians will tell you a lot about the Republican base.
> 
> That doesn't mean every Republican shares those views. But how rampant those views are and the lack of moderate candidates could indicate either two things that aren't necessarely mutually exclusive. Either the segment of the base who opposes these views is too small for politicians to try to appeal to them, or part of the base just doesn't care about issues like racism and homophobia. This indifference just means that those who have racist and homophobic agendas get a freepass to push their hateful policies.
> 
> When someone joins an organisation where racists and homophobes have a freepass to push their agenda, why shouldn't that person be judged by the people she decided to associate with? I won't judge all Muslim because ISIS is a Muslim organisation, but I'll judge people who joins ISIS.




Unless and until you actually provide specifics about what policies and positions you're using to label a party that represents a third of the country as racist, I see no value in continuing a conversation that seems to only exist so that you can continue to make insults.  

If you decide to do so, linking the party platform positions would be extremely useful.  Failing that, a sufficed good pointer to where the policies was expounded or stated would be sufficient. That way, we can ask be on the same page and discuss without confusion.


----------



## Sadras

gamerprinter said:


> In Roman times Christians were persecuted, at least until Constantine came along, after that, IMO, Christian persecutions is a non-thing. In my experience, I see regularly instances of Christians persecuting non-Christians or persecuting other Christian faiths. Christians being the subject of persecution, is something I haven't generally witnessed. Every now and again Christian missionaries see misfortune, but I consider that more a situation of non-locals imposing their belief systems to a local populace often in a socially troubled area, and not really a Christian problem per se.




You might want to familiarise yourself with the Coptic Christians specifically of Egypt and the history of the Armenians in Turkey....there is plenty more of that in other parts of the Middle East as well as Africa.


----------



## Ryujin

Sadras said:


> You might want to familiarise yourself with the Coptic Christians specifically of Egypt and the history of the Armenians in Turkey....there is plenty more of that in other parts of the Middle East as well as Africa.




One of my subordinates, in a previous position, was a Coptic Catholic who fled Egypt, because his life was endangered merely because of his religion. He was an industrial process engineer, who spoke 4 languages, and couldn't get a job in Egypt. He detailed the way that people of his faith would catch "casual beatings" in much the same way someone in North America might think of gay bashing occurrences.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> Unless and until you actually provide specifics about what policies and positions you're using to label a party that represents a third of the country as racist, I see no value in continuing a conversation that seems to only exist so that you can continue to make insults.
> 
> If you decide to do so, linking the party platform positions would be extremely useful.  Failing that, a sufficed good pointer to where the policies was expounded or stated would be sufficient. That way, we can ask be on the same page and discuss without confusion.



Ok. 







> From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the N-word vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more N-word who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the N-wordphobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Sounds pretty clear to me. Not to you?

PCism might prevent such frankness nowadays, but something can be PC and still be racist. But even some minorities can't get hypocritical political correctness. Carson said something very racist when he said Muslims shouldn't become president of the US. Sadly, 45% of Republicans agree with him. Since then, Carson's numbers in polls have increased, not dropped. Trump also said some pretty racist things about Mexicans. Add his poll numbers to Carson and you are close to 50%. Still not enough to say there is a racism problem within the Republican party? 

Santorum singling out black people are on welfare in 2012 was racist. That racist comment that he made to the base didn't stop him from being a close second in the Republican primaries of 2012. There was a lot of people who voted for his racist ass during the primaries. If Republican primary voters weren't racist, they certainly didn't mind voting for a racist. No?

I mean, Republican candidates keep talking about abolishing abortions and defunding planned parenthood. Would you say that isn't a sign that the Republican party and its base aren't against abortions?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Standby, past prematurely submitted, writing on completion.



goldomark said:


> Ok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
> 
> Sounds pretty clear to me. Not to you?



And during that same period led the nation in passing the civil rights act.  Quoting things from fifty plus years ago that have been since repudiated publicly by the party is in no way supportive of your clans that the party is racist now.
[Quite]
PCism might prevent such frankness nowadays, but something can be PC and still be racist. But even some minorities can't get hypocritical political correctness. Carson said something very racist when he said Muslims shouldn't become president of the US. Sadly, 45% of Republicans agree with him. Since then, Carson's numbers in polls have increased, not dropped. [/quote]
In trying to cast Carson's remarks about a religion as racist you're the one that's actually ended up making a racist statement as you've attributed the massively racially diverse set of Muslims as a single race.  Ironic, no?

Carson's remarks are not based on anything remotely racist.  You can disagree with him, and you can characterize his comments as bigoted, but they're not racist.  The fact that he limits his comments only to the point that a devout Muslim that honors sharia law and points out that such belief is in opposition to several foundational doctrines if the Constitution may or may not get past the knee jerk reaction of saying something poorly of Islam, but it's most definitely not racist.  Sound might even consider that a valid, if very uncomfortable point.  I'm not a fan of sharia law, and I would be against anyone that believes in sharia law having any political power over me.  Granted, I would exercise that by voting against then, and I would care in the least what their skin tone was, not would I have any particular problem with working with then as a colleague or having our kids in the same subset team.  That's the general extent of Carson's statement.

Although, given your source, I'm not surprised at your statement (not a comment on washpo in general, but specific to this article).  Try the CNN coverage of the same -- it expounded on more than the gotcha sound bite and covers some of his further remarks.



> Trump also said some pretty racist things about Mexicans. Add his poll numbers to Carson and you are close to 50%. Still not enough to say there is a racism problem within the Republican party?



As much as I want to day that trunk is a clown and could just as easily be running as a Democrat and that he's hardly indicative of the Republican party, he is the front runner as a Republican so it does reflect on the party.

Trump is bombastic, and overstates his case, but he resonates with far more than just the Republican party base when he talks about illegal immigraagain,   His proposals poll very well, even pulling in a respectable block of Democratic voters.  Some issues skew more right in the polls, but his entire immigration policy set evokes greater than half (often better than sixty percent) of the country's approval.  So, if we're going to accept that Trump is indicative of Republican party racism, we'll need to expand the discussion to the American population.

As an aside, while Trump had said some directly racist things, and I deplore those, there is a strong tendency to declare anyone proposing a policy to limit or punish illegal immigration as inherently racist.  This asshats to me to be because those policies disproportionally target Hispanics.  While true in the sense if you consider the total population of the US, it's very untrue if you look at who's actually illegally entering the country.  When you have geography determining the majority (overwhelming) racial demographic involved in a policy issue, it's intellectually dishonest to call those policies that on the theory of disproportionate impact.  That's a valid theory in some cases (black incarceration rates, war on drugs, etc) but it fails here because the demographics are determined solely by geography -- ANY policy on immigration right now will disproportionally effect Hispanics if considered against the population of the US or the world.  It doesn't if you consider impact against the actual set of immigrants.



> Santorum singling out black people are on welfare in 2012 was racist. That racist comment that he made to the base didn't stop him from being a close second in the Republican primaries of 2012. There was a lot of people who voted for his racist ass during the primaries. If Republican primary voters weren't racist, they certainly didn't mind voting for a racist. No?



If you want me to agree that Santorum is a douche, you have an easy row to hoe. I will not defend him.

However, as that campaign drug on and more of his d-baggery became evident, he lost his soak even to the base.  The fact that he was out of the race entirely for months after those comments first came to light does more to show that that wasn't the defining part of his limited success and, in fact, weighed him down.  Did he actually day something racist?  Sure.  Did it help him secure any additional voters?  Arguably no, as he was on a major upsetting already when he said it and shortly thereafter list his momentum entirely (by February he was barely holding on sharing Romney, who is and was a very weak caudate that did nothing to excite his base).  That he lost to Romney, of all people, and badly enough he pulled his plug before the final primaries really shows that whatever Rick had, it wasn't it.



> I mean, Republican candidates keep talking about abolishing abortions and defunding planned parenthood. Would you say that isn't a sign that the Republican party and its base aren't against abortions?



The huh?  Yes, of course they are, but we're talking about racism and you bring in abortion and PP?!  Non sequitur much?  If course, thinking back, this conversation was about shrinking government as part of the Republican platform before it suddenly pivoted to Republican racism, and now it seems that's not enough and so it's pivots again to another hot button social issue?

This really seems like more of an opportunity for you to air all of your grievances against the Republicans that any attempt to discuss.  Which is fine, but you don't need me to bash the Republicans (although, depending on the topic, I'd gleefully join you), so if that's the case, please let me know so I can not waste any more of my time.


----------



## billd91

Ovinomancer said:


> And during that same period led the nation in passing the civil rights act.  Quoting things from fifty plus years ago that have been since repudiated publicly by the party is in no way supportive of your clans that the party is racist now.




I'm not sure I'd consider passing civil rights legislation a counter to Nixon's southern strategy considering it was the passage of said legislation that made the southern strategy possible. The divide in the legislature was almost mostly North/South rather than Democrat/Republican (although northern Democrats voted for the legislation in proportions higher than northern Republicans - so I still wouldn't say the GOP lead the nation in passing the CRA). And in the aftermath, it was the GOP that made it a substantial part of their strategy to attract people disaffected by African Americans gaining in civil rights.


----------



## Ovinomancer

billd91 said:


> I'm not sure I'd consider passing civil rights legislation a counter to Nixon's southern strategy considering it was the passage of said legislation that made the southern strategy possible. The divide in the legislature was almost mostly North/South rather than Democrat/Republican (although northern Democrats voted for the legislation in proportions higher than northern Republicans - so I still wouldn't say the GOP lead the nation in passing the CRA). And in the aftermath, it was the GOP that made it a substantial part of their strategy to attract people disaffected by African Americans gaining in civil rights.



Republicans voted in favor of the CRA in greater numbers than the Democrats.  Considering they were the ministry party at the time, that's pretty telling.  The Republican monkey leader in the Senate was instrumental in overturning the Democrat led filibuster, so...

You might want to quibble on "led" but it would be very hard to deny that the Republicans did more work as a party than the Democrats to pass the legislation.  Left to the Democrats, it would have died to a filibuster in the Senate.  

That the Republicans almost immediately pivoted to the Southern Strategy and its racist overtones is shameful, but doesn't erase the good work just accomplished.  Further, it was a clear sign if the times and individual Democrats were running very racist campaigns at the same time (granted not at the party level).  The whole era is ornate in racism, and the whole era had little to do with today.  I'm not making claims that the modern Democrat party is racist because of its CRA filibuster, although the leader of that effort, Robert Boyd is a modern Democrat hero.   Although, to be fair, he did change his tune and is remembered fondly for his championing of other causes, so I guess that goes to show how little we should give credence to that area in judging modern positions.

ETA:  also, the implied argument that Republicans passed the CRA so that they could successfully enact the Southern Strategy seems a bit conspiracy theoryish.


----------



## billd91

Ovinomancer said:


> Republicans voted in favor of the CRA in greater numbers than the Democrats.  Considering they were the ministry party at the time, that's pretty telling.




Don't what numbers you're going by, but the record I'm seeing has 152 Dems, 138 Reps for in the House, 46 Dems, 27 Reps for it in the Senate. It's only by percentages that the GOP votes more for the legislation than against, but, as I pointed out above, the opposition is primarily from the South. Though even there, 100 of southern Republicans opposed the legislation while only 93%-95% of Dems opposed.




Ovinomancer said:


> The Republican monkey leader in the Senate was instrumental in overturning the Democrat led filibuster, so...




Yes, the GOP were instrumental in breaking the filibuster, but I understand the bill had to be watered down in the Senate to get enough on board to vote for cloture. So let's dispense with the rose colored glasses on the GOP and CRA, OK?



Ovinomancer said:


> ETA:  also, the implied argument that Republicans passed the CRA so that they could successfully enact the Southern Strategy seems a bit conspiracy theoryish.




That implication is entirely invented by your reading. The GOP leadership (Nixon and his ilk, primarily, but presaged by Goldwater in the 1964 campaign) reacted to the controversy of the CRA to try to wheedle electoral advantage. There's no implication that the GOP rank and file were encouraged to vote CRA in order to enable the Southern Strategy.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> That the Republicans almost immediately pivoted to the Southern Strategy and its racist overtones is shameful, but doesn't erase the good work just accomplished.




More importantly, since it was so long ago, it doesn't speak to *today*.  The people who passed that legislation are generally no longer present in governance, rendering it irrelevant to current matters.

Recent voter registration laws aimed at minimizing minority votes, Trump's comments about Mexicans, GOP support for cops who engage in biased enforcement, support for "stand your ground" laws, and kids getting hauled away from school for building clocks (which is indicative of resistance to removing racial profiling) are perhaps more relevant recent indicators of the party's leanings.



> In trying to cast Carson's remarks about a religion as racist you're the one that's actually ended up making a racist statement as you've attributed the massively racially diverse set of Muslims as a single race. Ironic, no?




I don't think it is ironic - it is merely indicative of the belief that Carson's comments are not only about religion, but do have a racial component as well.  In essence, he's just implying that Carson doesn't fully separate religion from race.  Failing to separate them is not uncommon - ultimately, whether they are differentiated by race or religion is likely for many a rationalization that comes *after* noting "those people" as the Enemy.

You may contend that assertion is not well founded, but I don't think you are doing yourself or your position any favors by suggesting it is Goldomark who is being racist in this case.  Aside from it being an irrelevant misdirection away from the meat of the matter, it smacks rather strongly of trying to win points in the argument. I suggest you'd do better to not go there again.


----------



## gamerprinter

Sadras said:


> You might want to familiarise yourself with the Coptic Christians specifically of Egypt and the history of the Armenians in Turkey....there is plenty more of that in other parts of the Middle East as well as Africa.




I was speaking of America and most of Western Europe. Its hardly surprising that Muslim countries are where the persecution against Christians/Jews primarily exists - its been that way since the initial existence of Muslim beliefs.


----------



## Ovinomancer

billd91 said:


> Don't what numbers you're going by, but the record I'm seeing has 152 Dems, 138 Reps for in the House, 46 Dems, 27 Reps for it in the Senate. It's only by percentages that the GOP votes more for the legislation than against, but, as I pointed out above, the opposition is primarily from the South. Though even there, 100 of southern Republicans opposed the legislation while only 93%-95% of Dems opposed.




Well, yes, of course by percentages.  Considering the Republics were the minority by a good margun at the time, a straight count isn't exactly s fair metric.  The Republicans, as a party, voted in much higher numbers than the Democrats did.  They showed more support for the CRA as a party than the Democrats did.  That's a salient data point when arguing the racism of the entire party.

Both parties supported the CRA by majority.  I'm not understanding that vehemence in denying that more Republicans supported it more than Democrats, especially as it was sixty years ago.



> Yes, the GOP were instrumental in breaking the filibuster, but I understand the bill had to be watered down in the Senate to get enough on board to vote for cloture. So let's dispense with the rose colored glasses on the GOP and CRA, OK?



I'm not sure I follow your logic here.  The Republicans broke the filibuster, and a compromise bill was made so that more Democrats would support it (it was majority Democrat opposition that had it stalled in the Senate after all), and somehow that's evidence that the Republicans really didn't have a leadership role in passing the CRA?  
I must need to review my understanding of how leadership works in politics as I was under the impression that it involved getting disagreeing parties to agree to something that betters the country.  Do you have a solid recommendation on a more modern definition so I can reeducate myself?





> That implication is entirely invented by your reading. The GOP leadership (Nixon and his ilk, primarily, but presaged by Goldwater in the 1964 campaign) reacted to the controversy of the CRA to try to wheedle electoral advantage. There's no implication that the GOP rank and file were encouraged to vote CRA in order to enable the Southern Strategy.



Apologies, then, that makes much more sense.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> And during that same period led the nation in passing the civil rights act.



Which has nothing to do with racism inside the Republican party.



> Quoting things from fifty plus years ago that have been since repudiated publicly by the party is in no way supportive of your clans that the party is racist now.



I knew you'd say that. Thing is, the Republicans still need the same voters they did back then. The vocabulary just changed, as Republican strategist Lee Atwater explained:



> You start out in 1954 by saying, “N–ger, n–ger, n–ger.” By 1968 you can’t say “n–ger” — that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites … “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N–ger, n–ger.”



Nowadays they say things like "voter ID", "anchor babies", "illegal immigrants", "black people want free stuff", etc, and what needs to be defunded are things the Affordable Health Care Act and planned parenthood. Old stuff like states rights is still used though. When it came to the Confederate flag words like heritage, pride and freedom of speech were used. 

Times changed, but the strategy is the same. Which, electorally speaking, is problematic for Republicans as demographics are changing in the US. It will be fascinating to see how they dig themselves out of that hole. Not gonna happen this cycle though, thanks in part to Trump.



> In trying to cast Carson's remarks about a religion as racist you're the one that's actually ended up making a racist statement as you've attributed the massively racially diverse set of Muslims as a single race.  Ironic, no?



No. I knew you'd use that distraction instead of talking about Carson's and the Republican's racism. Colloquially, the word racism is used to talk about bigotries that do not necessarely involve race. But I guess it is easier to dodge than face more proof of the racism in the Republican party. 

Lets use your rationalization of Carson's bigotry toward Muslims and see if it wouldn't be decried as racist if it was applied to Jews. 







> The fact that he limits his comments only to the point that a devout Muslim Jews that honors sharia talmudic law and points out that such belief is in opposition to several foundational doctrines if the Constitution may or may not get past the knee jerk reaction of saying something poorly of Islam Judaism, but it's most definitely not racist.



Yeah, wouldn't happen.

The Pope was in town and he told you that some of your constitution, like allowing the death penalty, was poopie. I guess Catholics shoudn't become president either cause their values are against the US constitution. That is starting to be a lot of people who should be excluded from office. I wonder why he didn't mention all those devout Catholics and Jews? I wonder I wonder... Couldn't be that it isn't about Muslim values and more about getting the votes of racists. Nah. Impossible.



> So, if we're going to accept that Trump is indicative of Republican party racism, we'll need to expand the discussion to the American population.



Racism is a problem in the US, but we are talking about the Republican party and how it tries to appeal to the racists found in the US population. 



> As an aside, while Trump had said some directly racist things, and I deplore those, there is a strong tendency to declare anyone proposing a policy to limit or punish illegal immigration as inherently racist.



Trump just did away with the abstractions that Lee Atwater was talking about. He exposed why those who talk so much about immigrants are often labelled as racist.



> However, as that campaign drug on and more of his d-baggery became evident, he lost his soak even to the base. The fact that he was out of the race entirely for months after those comments first came to light does more to show that that wasn't the defining part of his limited success and, in fact, weighed him down.  Did he actually day something racist?  Sure.  Did it help him secure any additional voters?  Arguably no, as he was on a major upsetting already when he said it and shortly thereafter list his momentum entirely (by February he was barely holding on sharing Romney, who is and was a very weak caudate that did nothing to excite his base).  That he lost to Romney, of all people, and badly enough he pulled his plug before the final primaries really shows that whatever Rick had, it wasn't it.



Santorum said his racist remark on Januray the 2nd. The first primaries were held on the 3rd in Iowa and Santorum won. He won others after that and was the second candidate when it came to votes. His racist remarks didn't make him the least popular candidate, as it should have. At worst it didn't hurt him. 



> Yes, of course they are, but we're talking about racism and you bring in abortion and PP?!



Comparison. If the standards used to say that the Republican party and its base are against abortions are acceptable, the same standards should apply to racism. Lots of candidates say stuff against abortion, propose anti-abortion policies and get base support for saying these things. You agree this means the party is against abortion. Lots of candidates say racist stuff, propose racist policies and get base support for saying these things... but your conclusion is that it isn't a sign of racism. Seems like a double standard.


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> Which has nothing to do with racism inside the Republican party.



You can't win the argument by fiat.  Do the work.  HOW does passing the single largest legislation against systemic racism in the US since the abolition of slavery NOT have anything to do with racism.  This is a discussion (I thought) where you make a point and then at least provide a modicum of argument to back it up.  This is just you stating things.



> I knew you'd say that.



  Lampshading doesn't make it go away.



> Thing is, the Republicans still need the same voters they did back then. The vocabulary just changed, as Republican strategist Lee Atwater explained:



Atwater was a racist tool, yes.  You get those.  When he said that, though, Robert Byrd, leader of the Democratic caucus at the time, was still deeply racist.  Racists exit on both sides, in positions of power.  That one said something racist is not indicative of the whole party. (And that's my tu quoque to counter your fallacy of composition.)

Further, those words were uttered more than thirty years ago.  



> Nowadays they say things like "voter ID", "anchor babies", "illegal immigrants", "black people want free stuff", etc, and what needs to be defunded are things the Affordable Health Care Act and planned parenthood. Old stuff like states rights is still used though. When it came to the Confederate flag you words like heritage, pride and freedom of speech were used.



I disagree that those are racist.  Many other people also disagree.  Many would agree with you, but that doesn't mean they are racist.  While I'm not a huge proponent of Voter ID, it does seem sensible given that ID is required almost everywhere else except voting -- banking, entering Federal buildings, getting social security and medicare benefits, entering the DNC, etc.  While I agree that the laws that do not have provisions for providing ID free of charge have a disproportionate impact, that doesn't prove they are racially motivated.  Those that do have free ID provisions have been ruled as acceptable in the places they've been passed into law.  Hard to say a law is racist when it's been to court with that argument against it and prevailed in SCOTUS.

Anchor babies and illegal immigration aren't racist unless you use the theory I discussed above and you conveniently snipped and didn't address.  If you won't address the arguments, don't keep making the statements the arguments address -- that's just poor form.

And I completely fail to see how defunding ACA or PP is racist in nature.  Well, I can imagine an argument, but I try not to imagine other people's arguments when I'm responding, preferring to ask them what they're argument is.  So, what's the argument that defunding ACA is racist?  Is it the same as the argument for defunding PP, or is that different?



> Times changed, but the strategy is the same. Which, electorally speaking, is problematic for Republicans as demographics are changing in the US. It will be fascinating to see how they dig themselves out of that hole. Not gonna happen this cycle though, thanks in part to Trump.



Pet peeve:  the word problematic. What a horrid word that is.  If something is a problem, say that, using problematic just weasels around and suggests it's kinda like a problem, but maybe it's not exactly a problem, it's just something.  That and the word is usually used as code for 'I don't like this and think it shouldn't exist.'  Bleh.  /rant

As for the coming failure of the Republican party due to demographics -- I'll wait and see.  They're doing  okay in polls right now that are diverse demographically. I think the claims of doom of the Republican party because of POC are more wishful thinking than anything else.



> No. I knew you'd use that distraction instead of talking about Carson's and the Republican's racism.



Huh, so I say that and then actually address your charges of racism in what Carson said, and somehow I didn't do that?  What's the next few para's of your response in relation to, if not what I responded to about your allegations of Carson's racism?

You're deflecting from the fact that what you said was tinged with racism by trying to claim I'm throwing out a red herring and avoiding your question.  It fails because I actually addressed your question.  I'm quite sure that any racism was entirely unintentional and merely the result of inflamed passions, but that goes to show how very easy it is to stumble into a racist statement without intent by a simple misspeak in today's hyperaware environment.  If a candidate never said anything that someone didn't take as racist, I'd say that candidate was dead (although, that's probably racist in a way I'm not aware of due to my living person privilege).



> Colloquially, the word racism is used to talk about bigotries that do not necessarely involve race. But I guess it is easier to dodge than face more proof of the racism in the Republican party.



No. No, it's not.  Racism means bigotry based on race, period.  Bigotry about other things is colloquially known as bigotry.



> Lets use your rationalization of Carson's bigotry toward Muslims and see if it wouldn't be decried as racist if it was applied to Jews. Yeah, wouldn't happen.



His argument holds perfectly in that regard, because if Jew held closely to the Talmudic law, he would be against certain fundamental doctrines of the Constitution.  And it would be anti-Semitic, not racist, anyway.

However, most Jews don't hold tightly to Talmudic law, and that meets his broader discussion of the problem (again, available at the CNN coverage of his remarks) that a candidate he would endorse must at least hold the Constitution as the highest law of the land.




> The Pope was in town and he told you that some of your constitution, like allowing the death penalty, was poopie. I guess Catholics shoudn't become president either cause their values are against the US constitution. That is starting to be a lot of people who should be excluded from office. I wonder why he didn't mention all those devout Catholics and Jews? I wonder I wonder... Couldn't be that it isn't about Muslim values and more about getting the votes of racists. Nah. Impossible.



Um, the death penalty isn't in the Constitution.  It's, in fact, often challenged as cruel and unusual under the 8th Amendment.  Did you have any other examples, because this one is busted.  You're trying extremely hard to make what Carson said unreasonable when it plainly isn't if you read the broader context and quotes.  You may disagree with him, and think that someone very much dedicated to installing Sharia law would make a fine US President, but that's just, like, your opinion, man.




> Racism is a problem in the US, but we are talking about the Republican party and how it tries to appeal to the racists found in the US population.



Right, yes, a nationally agreed to racist position is really just about the Republican party.  



> Trump just did away with the abstractions that Lee Atwater was talking about. He exposed why those who talk so much about immigrants are often labelled as racist.



No, again, you don't get to just declare things.  Talking about immigration policy cannot be inherently racist because it disproportionately affects Hispanics.  That's ludicrous because it's allowing geography to dictate the racist content of policy.  Specific statement about Hispanics and/or Hispanic immigrants can be racist, and Trump has done that and been called out by other candidates in the Republican party for doing it.  Trump's a jerk (lack of better word choices due to Eric's Grandma), but he's not representative of the Republicans when he says those things.  He is representative when he discusses the issue of illegal immigration and what to do about it, but that's not inherently racist.



> Santorum said his racist remark on Januray the 2nd. The first primaries were held on the 3rd in Iowa and Santorum won. He won others after that and was the second candidate when it came to votes. His racist remarks didn't make him the least popular candidate, as it should have. At worst it didn't hurt him.



Ah, right, because everyone knew about what he said immediately.  He was done within months.  He was rejected in favor of a candidate no one liked.  At BEST his racist statement didn't hurt him, not at worst.



> Comparison. If the standards used to say that the Republican party and its base are against abortions are acceptable, the same standards should apply to racism.Lots of candidates say stuff against abortion, propose anti-abortion policies and get base support for saying these things. You agree this means the party is against abortion. Lots of candidates say racist stuff, propose racist policies and get base support for saying these things... but your conclusion is that it isn't a sign of racism. Seems like a double standard.



I...I....

You can't actually be serious?  Being against abortion is _part of the national platform_, racism isn't, so under your construction there, the Republicans aren't racist.


----------



## Sadras

gamerprinter said:


> I was speaking of America and most of Western Europe.




Maybe, but the below quote seemed to suggest otherwise...



gamerprinter said:


> (snip)....Every now and again Christian missionaries see misfortune, but I consider that more a situation of non-locals imposing their belief systems to a local populace often in a socially troubled area, and not really a Christian problem per se.


----------



## gamerprinter

Sadras said:


> Maybe, but the below quote seemed to suggest otherwise...




True to that part, but let me clarify, there's a difference between a Christian missionary going to a region where Christianity doesn't dominate and is socially troubled, and indigenous Christian faiths like Egyptian Coptic Christians who have been local to their area for thousands of years (who may indeed be experiencing Christian persecution, but I don't know any Coptics to share that experience). Most of the exposure I get related to my post above, is via face to face or witnessed a conversation with a missionary returned, not from the news, which I don't watch/read/view online anymore.


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> But a high school degree still excludes people.




Yes it does. In the same way that a high school degree still excludes person attaining certain jobs.   



> And there is not garanty of success.




Guarantees are hard to come by.



> Adults still get a right to education. Generally it is university level...




Agree, but this point was not being debated. We were referring to adults (varsity kids) being expelled. You didn't want them to be expelled. So instead of arguing the point of expulsion which you don't agree with - please propose your form of punishment which you deem appropriate for the defacing of public property.  



> Dung destroys property? I thought is just made it dirty.




Dung AND paint, others were neck-laced with chains...etc



> How wouldn't they? Don't black people have less high school degrees than say white people in SA?




No they don't. There are more black people in SA and if we include the Coloureds (as I have explained the South Africa political term) as black, then you have plenty of black people with high school degrees - nevermind that I'm advocating that it should be free to all - so I don't see the problem.



> Two wrongs do not make a right




No, but leftist pandering about human rights even for repeat offenders for heavy crimes is not an option either. I'm advocating they do something productive with their time, perhaps even learn a skill/trade - you see it as an abuse of authoritative power. Abuse of authoritative power is starting wars every few years for unsubstantiated reasons, killing and displacing civilians, raping foreign countries of resources, enforcing/aiding military dictatorships for the benefit of economic growth...etc
Making mass murderers and rapists cultivate land or fix roads isn't an abuse of power, IMO.  



> What? You want to smack children, exploite prisoners and exclude people, mostly black people, from political participation. Why should I agree?




Firstly  I don't 'want to smack children'. Secondly I don't see it as exploitation - I see it as 'necessary compensation' to the community for 'misconduct' and as for excluding black participation in the political arena - that is just a ridiculous gross misrepresentation. If schooling is free - then there is no exclusion policy in place.

It is hard to agree when we don't even agree on what is being said 



> First time I heard of it.




Game of Thrones reference - when the queen was doing her walk of shame in King's Landing...



> Damn it! It is the invasion of the Loyalists all over again!




I'm sure Quebec is safe, sadly we didn't learn much French down here


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> HOW does passing the single largest legislation against systemic racism in the US since the abolition of slavery NOT have anything to do with racism.



You sure like them strawman. I didn't say it didn't have anything to do with racism.  



> Atwater was a racist tool, yes.



And that isn't the point. The point is that he explained the Republican's strategy to use racism to get voter support. A strategy that is still used today. This is why Republican politicians panders to racists today, why the party can be called racist and why those who join the party have to deal with that even if they aren't racist. 



> I disagree that those are racist.



I knew you would.  



> While I agree that the laws that do not have provisions for providing ID free of charge have a disproportionate impact, that doesn't prove they are racially motivated.



[sblock=There is proof it is motivated by partisanship. To favor a candidate. A Republican says it outright.][video=youtube;EuOT1bRYdK8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8[/video]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2012/10/02/the-pennsylvania-voter-id-fight-explained/[/sblock]Just that should be enough to debunk the ID BS. Of course, it isn't mutually exclusive. One can appeal to racists and favor a candidate all in one legislation!



> Hard to say a law is racist when it's been to court with that argument against it and prevailed in SCOTUS.



That is an appeal to authority, and a lack luster one as it implies scotus can't make racist rulings. 



> And I completely fail to see how defunding ACA or PP is racist in nature.



Check Lee Atwater's quote again. He explains it pretty well. Defunding such programs impact blacks more. Or at least this is what some of the base is supposed to understand.



> allegations of Carson's racism?



It isn't an allegation. He is racist. Base on is racist thoughts on Muslims. Switch Muslims for Jews and no one would question his racism. It just shows double standards. 



> I'm quite sure that any racism was entirely unintentional and merely the result of inflamed passions,



That is hilarious. It doesn't make it ok. It would just mean that is what he really thinks. He just doesn't say when he is in control of himself.



> No. No, it's not.  Racism means bigotry based on race, period.  Bigotry about other things is colloquially known as bigotry.



And bigotry is that different from racism that it makes it ok? So you'd be ok if the Republican party was called bigoted instead of racist?



> His argument holds perfectly in that regard, because if Jew held closely to the Talmudic law, he would be against certain fundamental doctrines of the Constitution.



So why not say the same about Jews and Catholics in the same sentence as Muslims? Why target that one demographics. Why why why? Such a mystery. I mean it isn't because there is strong islamophobic sentiment among Republicans, right? Of course not. And it isn't because it wouldn't be popular that Jews and Catholics weren't mentioned, right? 



> And it would be anti-Semitic, not racist, anyway.



And that is better? That is the thing, you make a big deal about using the right word, but the problem isn't the word use, it is the discrimination that is the problem. You rationalize it, trivialize it and side-step it while it is just unacceptable. That is the problem with Republicans who say they aren't racist. They rationalize and trivialize, call it what you want, racism, bigotry, discrimination, whatever, and this is why the party and its members are labelled as racist even if they feel they aren't.

When a large part of the Republican base starts saying enough and starts supporting candidates who do not propose racist policies, that shadow will start lifting over the party.



> Um, the death penalty isn't in the Constitution.



It allows it by structuring how it can't be applied instead of outright banning it. 



> Talking about immigration policy cannot be inherently racist because it disproportionately affects Hispanics.



Again, I refer Lee Atwater's quote on how Republicans appeal to racist by using abstractions. When a politicians proposes to deport 11 million people who are associated with an different ethinicity, it becomes hard to say that supporting the policy is motivated by rationality and not hate. Doable, I'm sure, but not credible.  



> You can't actually be serious?  Being against abortion is _part of the national platform_, racism isn't



You're missing the point. A party doesn't need to have racism in its platform to be racist. Do you agree with this? Lee Atwater's quote showed that PCism won't let a party be open about it. My argument is that what politicians say and do, and what the base supports are indicators of racism. You agreed that what Republican politicians say and do, and what the base supports are indicators of its anti-abortion position. Why can't it be the case of racism?


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> Yes it does.



I know, that is my point. By excluding it becomes discriminatory. Discrimination of politicians should be left to voters when they vote. Not arbitrary legislation that strongly disfavor a segment of the population.



> You didn't want them to be expelled.



Because even adults have a right to education. 



> So instead of arguing the point of expulsion which you don't agree with - please propose your form of punishment which you deem appropriate for the defacing of public property.



I'm not too big on punishements. 



> Dung AND paint, others were neck-laced with chains...etc



Oh dear god! The humanity! Off to the labor camps with them!



> No they don't. There are more black people in SA and if we include the Coloureds (as I have explained the South Africa political term) as black, then you have plenty of black people with high school degrees - nevermind that I'm advocating that it should be free to all - so I don't see the problem.



Let me rephrase. Proportionally, do they have less degrees?



> No, but leftist pandering about human rights even for repeat offenders for heavy crimes is not an option either.



All humans have rights. It isn't a left or right thing, althought often people at the right want to do away with rights. 



> I'm advocating they do something productive with their time, perhaps even learn a skill/trade - you see it as an abuse of authoritative power. Abuse of authoritative power is starting wars every few years for unsubstantiated reasons, killing and displacing civilians, raping foreign countries of resources, enforcing/aiding military dictatorships for the benefit of economic growth...etc
> Making mass murderers and rapists cultivate land or fix roads isn't an abuse of power, IMO.



No matter how you rationalize it, it is still exploitation. Slavery in another form. 



> Firstly  I don't 'want to smack children'.



You propose hitting children. Smacking kids is hitting them, just under another name. 



> Secondly I don't see it as exploitation - I see it as 'necessary compensation' to the community for 'misconduct' and as for excluding black participation in the political arena - that is just a ridiculous gross misrepresentation.
> 
> It is hard to agree when we don't even agree on what is being said



No, it is just what it is. It is just framed differently because saying exploitation or slavery ain't acceptable anymore.


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> You sure like them strawman. I didn't say it didn't have anything to do with racism.



Yeah, um, wow.  Let's review this exchange:


> me said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And during that same period [Republicans] led the nation in passing the civil rights act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Which has nothing to do with racism inside the Republican party*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> me said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't win the argument by fiat. Do the work. HOW does passing the single largest legislation against systemic racism in the US since the abolition of slavery NOT have anything to do with racism. This is a discussion (I thought) where you make a point and then at least provide a modicum of argument to back it up. This is just you stating things.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Firstly, as we can see from my entire quote, I asked you to justify your statement, in bold above (emphasis mine).  Your response is that you didn't say that.  I'm pretty sure the evidence stands clearly against your response being true.



> And that isn't the point. The point is that he explained the Republican's strategy to use racism to get voter support. A strategy that is still used today. This is why Republican politicians panders to racists today, why the party can be called racist and why those who join the party have to deal with that even if they aren't racist.



No, he explained _Atwater's _opinion.  Thirty years ago.  It was challenged almost immediately.  Your point here is that because a racist thirty years ago that worked highly in the Republican party felt that he was still allowed to be racist by using different words (stipulated for argument) somehow proves that thirty years later everyone else in a many tens of millions of people party are racist (or tolerate open racism)?

Were the moon landings real?


> I knew you would.



You completely cut all of my arguments as to why I didn't agree and intentionally didn't address them.  It appears as if you are not engaging in good faith.  I am bending over backwards to read your responses in the best light possible, but this kind of thing makes it very difficult to do anything but think you are not interested in honest discussion and would rather just be insulting.



> [sblock=There is proof it is motivated by partisanship. To favor a candidate. A Republican says it outright.][video=youtube;EuOT1bRYdK8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8[/video]



Yes, I'm not saying there aren't racist tools in the Republican party.  There are.  But you cannot logically argue from the specific to the general. Your claim is that the entire party is racist, but all you can provide are isolated incidents of members being racist or policies that are labeled racist under suspect theories of racism.



> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2012/10/02/the-pennsylvania-voter-id-fight-explained/[/sblock]Just that should be enough to debunk the ID BS. Of course, it isn't mutually exclusive. One can appeal to racists and favor a candidate all in one legislation!



No, it doesn't, as my point was clearly that laws that don't allow for free IDs have disproportionate impacts and shouldn't be allowed.  Laws that do allow for free IDs aren't, and have been upheld by the Supreme Court as not racist.  Goodness, for someone that loves to falsely throw out the charge of strawman (and improperly used a few times) you sure do like to do it yourself.



> That is an appeal to authority, and a lack luster one as it implies scotus can't make racist rulings.



It would be, if I hadn't sited the exact reasons why it was ruled that way and how that avoids the disproportionate impact.  At that point, referencing SCOTUS just shows that it underwent scrutiny by people other than you and me that deal with this kind of thing and decided it passed muster.  Of course that can make a mistake, but I'm not relying on them as the sole point here -- I made and argument and showed that it was accepted by authority.  That's not an appeal to authority, blindly citing authority as your argument is an appeal to authority.  Having an argument and showing that it's well vetted isn't an appeal to authority.

Informal logical fallacies are specific and usually are when you replace an argument with one of the fallacies only.  If you make a valid argument AND cite something that would be an informal fallacy by itself (like noting that authorities have also agreed with your argument), then it's most likely not a fallacy.  Replaces argument -- fallacy.  Accompanies argument -- not necessarily a fallacy.



> Check Lee Atwater's quote again. He explains it pretty well. Defunding such programs impact blacks more. Or at least this is what some of the base is supposed to understand.



Yes, I've heard that argument, but by defunding PP, that money would go to other NGOs that do similar work.  It's specific to a single vendor of a service, not the entire service sector.  Further, it gets very complicated when you charge a effort that speaks directly to a moral imperative of a group that has nothing to do with racism (like abortion) with racism because one of the associated effects might fall disproportionately on a racial minority.  



> It isn't an allegation. He is racist. Base on is racist thoughts on Muslims. Switch Muslims for Jews and no one would question his racism. It just shows double standards.



Sigh, I've pointed out that it's not racism, and your misunderstanding of the difference between racism and bigotry, and that your continued insistence that saying something negative about Muslims is racist is, in fact, racist, yet you persist to ignore all of that and repeat yourself ad nauseam.  Further, I directly showed how your swap doesn't do what you continue saying it does. If you are going to ignore my arguments in favor of quoting me so you can repeat your disputed charges, I don't think you're arguing in good faith anymore.

Address my arguments.  Hand-waiving them away and repeating yourself isn't constructive. 




> That is hilarious. It doesn't make it ok. It would just mean that is what he really thinks. He just doesn't say when he is in control of himself.



Okay, let's go with that standard.  I will stipulate that he is racist because of his remark when you stipulate you are racist because of your remarks about Muslims above.  I can abide by a fair standard, and if this is your choice of standard, so be it.



> And bigotry is that different from racism that it makes it ok? So you'd be ok if the Republican party was called bigoted instead of racist?



Nope.  My pointing out your imprecision of language and attempt to intermingle separate issues in no way obligates me to agree with your points.  Especially when I've taken the time to address them in detail and you've failed to even respond directly to those points.  I've denied the charge of bigotry AND told you that you were incorrect in labeling possible bigotry as racism.  My arguments aren't _that _hard to follow.



> So why not say the same about Jews and Catholics in the same sentence as Muslims? Why target that one demographics. Why why why? Such a mystery. I mean it isn't because there is strong islamophobic sentiment among Republicans, right? Of course not. And it isn't because it wouldn't be popular that Jews and Catholics weren't mentioned, right?



Simply?  Because he was asked specifically about Muslims by the interviewer.  Maybe you think he should have broadened the field for one question in an interview in order to make sure that you couldn't misinterpret his remarks, but putting the blame on Carson for failing to be generic enough for you when it was the interviewer than introduced the specificity is seriously off-base.



> And that is better? That is the thing, you make a big deal about using the right word, but the problem isn't the word use, it is the discrimination that is the problem. You rationalize it, trivialize it and side-step it while it is just unacceptable. That is the problem with Republicans who say they aren't racist. They rationalize and trivialize, call it what you want, racism, bigotry, discrimination, whatever, and this is why the party and its members are labelled as racist even if they feel they aren't.



Dismissing my arguments are rationalizations and trivializations without addressing them and showing HOW they are rationalizations or trivializations (surely an easy task, no?) isn't kosher.  You're dictating the results by presuming that premises -- that I'm wrong, so any arguments I make must be rationalizations and trivializations.  Lo and behold, I make arguments, and you say they're rationalizations therefor they are wrong.  You start with me being wrong, but you never _show _where I am wrong, you just state it as bald fact without doing the work.



> When a large part of the Republican base starts saying enough and starts supporting candidates who do not propose racist policies, that shadow will start lifting over the party.



According to who?  You?  Who decides they aren't racist?  You've shown you're unwilling to discuss how Carson's remarks aren't bigotry (which you insist is the same as racism) even though I've pointed to a source (CNN) that isn't friendly to Republicans (at best neutral) that discusses this issue contemporarily with events and shows that his broader remarks aren't the bigoted sounding sound bite relayed by your source.  You can't even see that people are manipulating you by provided easy to vilify sound bites for a reasonable and broad argument that ended up with the statement that he would endorse a Muslim that preferred the US Constitutional law and rights over Sharia law and rights.  That's an eminently reasonable position, and one that applies to all religions and philosophies, not just Muslims (he was only asked about Muslims).  Carson is nothing if not consistent (he scares me with some of his stuff, but the man is very, very consistent).



> It allows it by structuring how it can't be applied instead of outright banning it.



Wow.  It does the same thing about laws against murder and rape.  Surely you're not going to now say that the Constitution condones murder and rape because it doesn't say anything about it?  NO set of laws written in the 18th century bans capital punishment, why on Earth would you expect the Constitution to do so?  That it doesn't mention it leaves it up to the legislature to adjudicate the issue, or possibly the courts based on the laws passed.  Truly, this argument is just plain weird.  I'd stop going down this road if I were you, if only to stop looking so silly.



> Again, I refer Lee Atwater's quote on how Republicans appeal to racist by using abstractions. When a politicians proposes to deport 11 million people who are associated with an different ethinicity, it becomes hard to say that supporting the policy is motivated by rationality and not hate. Doable, I'm sure, but not credible.



No, it doesn't become hard.  You look at the reasons provided and judge according to those.  Adding your own and assuming the other person's motivations is a game in bad faith.  You can hear their words, see their actions, but you can't know their motivations, and guessing leaves you open to charges of motivations you don't have.  Further, I've clearly statement multiple times how _any_ immigration policy affects mostly Hispanics, so it fails at the start to claim that since an immigration policy affects mostly Hispanics, it's default racist.  That's a rhetorical trap, an argument in bad faith, and just plain illogical.  



> You're missing the point. A party doesn't need to have racism in its platform to be racist. Do you agree with this? Lee Atwater's quote showed that PCism won't let a party be open about it. My argument is that what politicians say and do, and what the base supports are indicators of racism. You agreed that what Republican politicians say and do, and what the base supports are indicators of its anti-abortion position. Why can't it be the case of racism?



No, it's doesn't work that way.  Abortion is part of the official Republican platform -- you would _expect _ Republicans to make statements about abortion.  It follows the argument if A then B -- _if _the party platform includes abortion, _then_ Republicans will talk about abortion.  However, the converse, if B then A, doesn't follow.  If we stipulate your facts for the sake of argument (that Republican candidates make racist statements), the form _if _Republican candidate makes racist statements, _then _racism in part of the party platform doesn't logically follow. 

Racists are part of the Republican party. Stipulated.  They are a minority, and act as individuals because the party does not take racist policy statements.  You claim they're racist, but that's all you do, you don't show how and why they're racist.  In the face of arguments to the contrary, you snip the arguments and respond flippantly to single sentences and go right back to saying what you said the first time.  If you can't respond in good faith by at least addressing arguments before you continue back to your point, I see little point in continuing this discussion.


----------



## Umbran

Let's see...

So, the Governor of Alabama is a Republican.  The State Senate has 35 seats - of those, 26 are currently Republicans.  The State House of Representatives has 72 Republicans and 33 Democrats.  The GOP has pretty firm control of the state.

And, when they have a law on the books that one must present government ID to vote, they encounter budget issues this week that "force" them to close the offices that offer IDs.... predominantly in black communities.   Two thirds of the historically black counties in the state will lack an office that issues driver's license, but only one third of other counties will lack them.  No Alabama counties in which more than 75 percent of registered voters are nonwhite will have offices that will issue the IDs!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._black_belt_counties_passed_voter_id_law.html

You want to keep claiming it is just some isolated individuals, not institutional.  The "individuals" are interestingly isolated, all together, in a group of 99, that just happen to be in the government.  Care to explain that?  Admittedly, not *all* 99 of them need to be racists, but it would seem they hold the majority to have this happen.

Or maybe you'd like to try your hand and explaining how what's going on is not a racist policy?

Hey,  [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION], I think you might want to hear this one.  It should be good.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Umbran, I think you're being a bit unfair. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people here who are interested in hearing this one.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Still on vacay in the Vatican with limited data plan, so won't respond to most stuff.  Since voter ID laws were brought up, though, I'll copy/paste this:




Dannyalcatraz said:


> No mainstream politician- or mainstream wannabe- is going to say that directly. They're smarter than that.
> 
> I had a friend who date a dude who worked on David Duke's gubernatorial campaign, so I got a close look at his platform materials.  Of the @2 dozen points in his platform, I could refute @20 of his positions with stuff out of freshman college courses.  One I couldn't: he was anti-crime, and nobody is going to run on a pro-crime platform.  But dig deeper, and his anti-crime measures were aimed squarely at minorities.
> 
> So, back to minorities voting.
> 
> Even throwing out the Jim Crow and Civil Rights abuses of the more distant past, GOP politicians are more likely to favor and propose measures like requiring ID to vote (usually while simultaneously making valid ID more difficult to get), reducing number of voting days, shortening polling hours, only counting absentee ballots in close elections, voting roll purges, and generally just making it more difficult to actually register in the first place (like opposing motor voter laws).
> 
> These are all more likely to suppress minority, youth, absentee (including military) and elderly voting than for middle aged white folks.  And "disparate impact" is one of the tests in deciding if a law is unconstitutional.
> 
> In addition, said measures rarely have an upside, at least, not the one claimed.  Usually, you'll see those regulations proposed to combat voting fraud.  Well, in-person voting fraud has been looked at pretty extensively: in the billions of votes cast nationwide in presidential elections over the past few decades, fewer than 3000 cases have been reported in which showing ID would have prevented the alleged fraud- only a couple dozen since 2000.  And there have been fewer than 100 convictions.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...le-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/georgia/s...acp/-person-voter-fraud-very-rare-phenomenon/
> 
> https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/voter-purges
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...nds-of-minorities-from-27-states-voter-rolls/
> 
> 
> And the cost of those measures?  Hundreds of thousands of voters struck from the rolls, hundreds of thousands if not millions more prevented from voting...mostly those who statistically tend to vote against the GOP.  Oh yeah- plus hundreds of millions of dollars spent preventing something exceedingly rare.




Now, in fairness, not all GOP politicos favoring measures that are proven to suppress the vote are motivated by racial animus- see Bobby Jindahl- they're just aiming to suppress the vote in groups that historically would vote against the GOP.  The effect, though, is functionally indistinguishable from bigotry, and under the legal "disparate impact" rules- as well as in many ethical systems- those policies should not be allowed to stand.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> Let's see...
> 
> So, the Governor of Alabama is a Republican.  The State Senate has 35 seats - of those, 26 are currently Republicans.  The State House of Representatives has 72 Republicans and 33 Democrats.  The GOP has pretty firm control of the state.
> 
> And, when they have a law on the books that one must present government ID to vote, they encounter budget issues this week that "force" them to close the offices that offer IDs.... predominantly in black communities.   Two thirds of the historically black counties in the state will lack an office that issues driver's license, but only one third of other counties will lack them.  No Alabama counties in which more than 75 percent of registered voters are nonwhite will have offices that will issue the IDs!
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._black_belt_counties_passed_voter_id_law.html
> 
> You want to keep claiming it is just some isolated individuals, not institutional.  The "individuals" are interestingly isolated, all together, in a group of 99, that just happen to be in the government.  Care to explain that?  Admittedly, not *all* 99 of them need to be racists, but it would seem they hold the majority to have this happen.
> 
> Or maybe you'd like to try your hand and explaining how what's going on is not a racist policy?
> 
> Hey,  [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION], I think you might want to hear this one.  It should be good.




Nope, wouldn't for a second deny that looks like crap.  Needs investigation, and, if badness is found, punishment.  Alabama has a nasty streak inside it's party.  I've never denied that there are racists or racist actions in the party, I've said that the party, as a whole, is not racist. Being a Republican does not make you racist or a member of a racist organization. Perhaps the keen eyed can note the difference.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

It is true that being a racist is NOT a requirement of GOP membership.

However, over the past 50 years, the typical GOP politician- regardless of state- has increasingly favored policies that are demonstrably anti-minority, anti-poor, or otherwise favoring moneyed white Christians above all others.  This is why those charges of being racist, etc. continue to dog the party.

And that stink increasingly finds itself shrouding the average GOP member because...well..._they (as a group) voted for those politicians._


----------



## Ovinomancer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It is true that being a racist is NOT a requirement of GOP membership.
> 
> However, over the past 50 years, the typical GOP politician- regardless of state- has increasingly favored policies that are demonstrably anti-minority, anti-poor, or otherwise favoring moneyed white Christians above all others.  This is why those charges of being racist, etc. continue to dog the party.
> 
> And that stink increasingly finds itself shrouding the average GOP member because...well..._they (as a group) voted for those politicians._




Blanket generalizations are boring and unconvincing.  If you have examples, argue them.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> Nope, wouldn't for a second deny that looks like crap.  Needs investigation, and, if badness is found, punishment.  Alabama has a nasty streak inside it's party.  I've never denied that there are racists or racist actions in the party, I've said that the party, as a whole, is not racist. Being a Republican does not make you racist or a member of a racist organization. Perhaps the keen eyed can note the difference.




So, why aren't the rest of the party jumping up and down about what Alabama is doing?  Why weren't they coming down on other states in past elections when they tired to institute discriminatory voter registration policies? 

Consider, before your answer, that coming down on racism should have value to the GOP.  They have a big problem courting minority voters - coming down on blatantly discriminatory policies should be a win for them.  Unless, of course, doing so would lose them votes from their non-minority base.  But, why would their non-minority voters care... unless they were racist?  

Silence is tacit assent.  Enough tacit assent is indistinguishable from agreement.


----------



## Janx

At some point, the thing becomes contaminated. Stigmatized.

Swastikas. Can't use them anymore.

Porch monkey. Can't take it back.

The current incarnation of the republican party favors a lot of anti-everybbody who aint white men stuff right now.

Its contaminated. Maybe the good folks who are in There need to leave or they need to stand up and say "no, that's a discriminatory idea!" To their peers


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> So, why aren't the rest of the party jumping up and down about what Alabama is doing?  Why weren't they coming down on other states in past elections when they tired to institute discriminatory voter registration policies?



I couldn't say, but this is the same argument used by some against Muslims and it's ruled invalid there.  Does a failure to actively and loudly proclaim disagreement render one a sympathizer?  I think we'd all have a lot to answer for for that.




> Consider, before your answer, that coming down on racism should have value to the GOP.  They have a big problem courting minority voters - coming down on blatantly discriminatory policies should be a win for them.  Unless, of course, doing so would lose them votes from their non-minority base.  But, why would their non-minority voters care... unless they were racist?



It does, and they do.  They haven't in this particular case, maybe because it's still early in its cycle, maybe because there's nothing like a full set of facts available, maybe because they haven't heard of it (I saw it just yesterday, for instance, and only because I'm involved in this argument in this thread).  There are myriad possible legitimate reasons why this hasn't been commented on (or commented on in a forum where you'd see it) in the public yet.



> Silence is tacit assent.  Enough tacit assent is indistinguishable from agreement.



It's only tacit assent in a case where the issue is clearly pointed out to a person.  Silence on issues that don't directly involve someone and/or aren't brought clearly to their attention is not -- it's just silence.  This argument is used to smear people for failing to be aware, or failing to know that they have to make a clear, unambiguous statement specifically on that topic to avoid opprobrium.  It's a lose-lose tactic.  The Republican party has made public statements that they do not support racism.  This doesn't help, but failure to specifically call this out doesn't mean the general statement is false.  And the Republicans generally do make statements against racism, as evident in the recent events of the primary race where the comments of The Donald were repudiated by the other candidates and called racist.

But, if we go with the silence is assent, am I to assume you give assent to any bad thing that has occurred that you haven't specifically said you disapprove of?  No, of course not, and I immediately withdraw and apologize for the insinuation.  One can be assumed to disagree with actions one has said they disapprove of, or that are sufficiently outside normality that they don't require comment to assume disapproval, and silence in no way implies assent.


----------



## MechaPilot

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Now, in fairness, not all GOP politicos favoring measures that are proven to suppress the vote are motivated by racial animus- see Bobby Jindahl- *they're just aiming to suppress the vote in groups that historically would vote against the GOP*.  The effect, though, is functionally indistinguishable from bigotry, and under the legal "disparate impact" rules- as well as in many ethical systems- those policies should not be allowed to stand.




Even without racism being involved, that bolded part is reprehensible; it's an attack on one of the fundamental rights and responsibilities of citizenship.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I couldn't say, but this is the same argument used by some against Muslims and it's ruled invalid there. Does a failure to actively and loudly proclaim disagreement render one a sympathizer? I think we'd all have a lot to answer for for that.




While it is the same argument form, there are key real-world differences between perceived silence by Muslims about their radicals and perceived silence by the GOP about theirs.

I have personally (on another board) listed a number of large demonstrations against radicalized Islam in NYC, Dallas, London and other major western cities by moderate & liberal Muslims that received almost no coverage in major news outlets.  I even walked through one in Dallas.  It got @5 minutes on the local news for 1 day.

Why?

Because, despite being one of the biggest faiths in the world, HERE, they are still the demonized strange cousins from the East.  They control very little of what is said about them, or how, when and where it is said.

In contrast, the GOP is America's other major political party.  American conservatives have a voice in almost every major media market, and in every media format, including their own cable news network.  Last I checked, Fox was a ratings leader in that category.  Furthermore, if it hits the conservative media outlets, it is sure to hit the mainstream & liberal ones in some way, shape or form.

IOW, as a practical matter, they can say whatever they want whenever they want, and _that message will be heard._


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> I'm not too big on punishements....Oh dear god! The humanity! Off to the labor camps with them!




This is the closest I could find in the space of 5 minutes...its Canadian Law which is probably exactly the same or at least extremely similar to Quebec's (I stand under correction).

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-430.html

Mischief in relation to cultural property

(4.2) Every one who commits mischief in relation to cultural property as defined in Article 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, done at The Hague on May 14, 1954, as set out in the schedule to the Cultural Property Export and Import Act,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

By comparison, my expulsion is rather tame. Enjoy your Labour Camps.



> Let me rephrase. Proportionally, do they have less degrees?




I have no data, but If I had to hazard a guess, yes. Why don't you ask about the proportion of the number of voters? Are you really worried about a white president?   



> All humans have rights. No matter how you rationalize it, it is still exploitation. Slavery in another form... (snip)...No, it is just what it is. It is just framed differently because saying exploitation or slavery ain't acceptable anymore.




Let me get this straight you're worried about the criminals' rights (rapists and murderers) because of "supposed exploitation" I seek to impose yet you support governments like your own and other western powers in the MASS EXPLOITATION of clothing workers, farmers and miners in Africa, Bangladesh, India, Cambodia...and the like. 

Liberals and Human Right activists will be the death of logic.   

I think you should worry more about the change within and less about the blacks in South Africa. Do you know the real reason why apartheid had to go? Because the benefit of the exploitation of the black man only benefited the few white men in South Africa (the  elite Afrikaners) and not the elite cronies in countries like USA, Canada and Northern Europe...now that South Africa is in inexperienced, short-sighted and corruptible black hands, Western policies for big business can inflict the kind of mass exploitation they have imposed on every other supposed developing country. Open your eyes.

No one is really calling out Israel for its Apartheid policies because there is no money to be made from the Palestinians and their land...and USA supports them fully whether it is a democrat or republican party in power...same butt, different cheek.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> Blanket generalizations are boring and unconvincing.  If you have examples, argue them.




I have given you plenty of examples in this thread. And you agreed with some of them! 

How will you move the goal post now?


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> No, he explained _Atwater's _opinion.



Heh. Why not say the Southern Strategy is a opinion and didn't really happen while you're at it? The two quotes I gave you were from high up Republican strategists who worked for Nixon, Reagan, Bush sr. and worked with Bush jr. They explain how Republicans get votes from racists. 

But if you're trying to reframe those into an opinion rather than fact, this is a waste of my time.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> This is the closest I could find in the space of 5 minutes...its Canadian Law which is probably exactly the same or at least extremely similar to Quebec's (I stand under correction).
> 
> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-430.html
> 
> Mischief in relation to cultural property
> 
> (4.2) Every one who commits mischief in relation to cultural property as defined in Article 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, done at The Hague on May 14, 1954, as set out in the schedule to the Cultural Property Export and Import Act,
> (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
> (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
> 
> By comparison, my expulsion is rather tame. Enjoy your Labour Camps.



You asked how _I_ would punish them. Not what Canadian law was. Do not move the goal post.



> I have no data, but If I had to hazard a guess, yes.



So would I, thus my position that black people would be more affected if your discriminating law was passed. That was part of my point. 



> Let me get this straight you're worried about the criminals' rights



They are still humans with rights even if you put a label on them in an attempt to dehumanize them.



> you support governments



That is a strawman.



> Liberals and Human Right activists will be the death of logic.



Oh, an ad hominem. Quality logic right there.



> I think you should worry more about the change within and less about the blacks in South Africa.



I have this awesome ability called multitasking. Like in the exchange with you I talked about black people's rights and prisoner's rights. I'm that good.



> Open your eyes.



They are. Your opinion about apartheid is pretty clear. 



> No one is really calling out Israel for its Apartheid policies because there is no money to be made from the Palestinians and their land...and USA supports them fully whether it is a democrat or republican party in power...same butt, different cheek.



Two wrongs do not make a right.


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> You asked how _I_ would punish them. Not what Canadian law was. Do not move the goal post.




So you favour no punishment for damages to cultural property? Anything goes? Your only rebuttal being that expulsion = Labour Camps.  



> So would I, thus my position that black people would be more affected if your discriminating law was passed. That was part of my point.




Your point is meaningless if Education is free. One needs to further consider that whites constitute less than 10% of the population. A much more limiting factor is not education but wealth and connections. You're arguing the wrong point if you really care about the discrimination factor within politics. You cant see the forest for the trees. 



> They are still humans with rights even if you put a label on them in an attempt to dehumanize them.




Okay taking a page out of your Labour Camp Metaphors...we shouldn't even punish them or even provide a label for them, just let them back into society these poorly misunderstood humans.



> They are. Your opinion about apartheid is pretty clear.




Which apartheid, the one ignored by the main stream media and Canada for the last 50 years or the one that ended in '94 and had Canadians passing sanctions? Painting people with a big brush is a messy business, you might find that paint splattering all over yourself.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> So you favour no punishment for damages to cultural property? Anything goes?



Not exactly. I'm divided between protecting speech and protecting public good. Is there anyy optimal solution? Maybe not with the current justice system that is prevelent in the Western world. 

Either way, I'm not too keen on the punitive aspect of justice. Not sure it produces much of anything aside from quenching the public's thirst for revenge. 



> Your only rebuttal being that expulsion = Labour Camps.



That was humor. An hyperbole. 



> Your point is meaningless if Education is free.



Whether it is free or not, the reality is that proportionally black people have less degrees than whites. A bigger proportion of them would be barred from running for office if your suggestion was to pass.



> One needs to further consider that whites constitute less than 10% of the population.



And? Do they represent 10% of elected officials?



> A much more limiting factor is not education but wealth and connections.



I never said wealth and connections aren't in play. Just that adding an arbitrary barrier to the mix creates more limitations for no good reason, and will affect non-whites disproportionally.



> Okay taking a page out of your Labour Camp Metaphors...we shouldn't even punish them or even provide a label for them, just let them back into society these poorly misunderstood humans.



Finally! Your quoting me appropriately!



> Which apartheid, the one ignored by the main stream media and Canada for the last 50 years or the one that ended in '94 and had Canadians passing sanctions? Painting people with a big brush is a messy business, you might find that paint splattering all over yourself.



You're talking about Israel? It has nothing to do with the current conversation. It is a distraction. 

Also, what you're suggesting is ridiculus. As if I am allowed to critic something only if I critiqued everything else that needed to be critiqued.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

goldomark said:


> Heh. Why not say the Southern Strategy is a opinion and didn't really happen while you're at it? The two quotes I gave you were from high up Republican strategists who worked for Nixon, Reagan, Bush sr. and worked with Bush jr. They explain how Republicans get votes from racists.



Yep.

Here are some relatively recent articles- from left & right wing sources- talking about the rise of the GOP's racist element.  Many note the campaign of David Duke as a turning point with continuing ramifications:


http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-po...er-klan-leader-reshaped-republican-grassroots
http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/30/david-duke-still-haunts-the-gop/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/opinion/a-refuge-for-racists.html?_r=1

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-gop-really-is-becoming-the-racist-party.html

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/...nd-todays-gop-the-similarities-are-startling/


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

For giggles, here's some stuff about Jimmy Carter's proposed voter reforms of 1977- which aimed for universal national registration- and why they weren't enacted:

http://www.newsweek.com/how-jimmy-carter-pioneered-electoral-reform-366846
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/opinion/03carter.html?_r=0
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_08/jimmy_carter_and_the_conservat057342.php

Note the GOP's embrace then abandonment of Carter's proposals & the main reason for that denial: universal registration was risky to the GOP's future because it would lead to increased registration of poor, minorities, and the like.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yep.
> 
> Here are some relatively recent articles- from left & right wing sources- talking about the rise of the GOP's racist element.  Many note the campaign of David Duke as a turning point with continuing ramifications:
> 
> 
> http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-po...er-klan-leader-reshaped-republican-grassroots
> http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/30/david-duke-still-haunts-the-gop/
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/opinion/a-refuge-for-racists.html?_r=1
> 
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-gop-really-is-becoming-the-racist-party.html
> 
> http://www.forwardprogressives.com/...nd-todays-gop-the-similarities-are-startling/




I suppose that fact that David switched from the Democrat party to the Republican party just to be able to run, and how he carried the white Democrat vote as well isn't truthy enough.  Or how he was repudiated at every turn by the Republican party, and failed to win any elections except the special runoff to the Louisiana State House, the one he swapped parties to run in?

Yeah, a bunch of opinion pieces making vague and weasel worded accusations that Duke is somehow relevant to the Republican Party isn't exactly a bedrock foundation.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Ovinomancer said:


> I suppose that fact that David switched from the Democrat party to the Republican party just to be able to run,



DA did mention that this is considered a tuning point in the republican party. Still, Duke switched over to the republican party for a reason. He believed that he could win as a republican. Something made him think that.



> and how he carried the white Democrat vote as well isn't truthy enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that take away from republicans having a racist element in their party?
> 
> 
> 
> Or how he was repudiated at every turn by the Republican party, and failed to win any elections except the special runoff to the Louisiana State House, the one he swapped parties to run in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He still managed to win an election. There are plenty of republicans that don't win any elections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, a bunch of opinion pieces making vague and weasel worded accusations that Duke is somehow relevant to the Republican Party isn't exactly a bedrock foundation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So dismissive. Those articles also contain factual information, such as the donors that have ties to racist groups and who they contributed money to. The Trump articles also point out how there wasn't any real reaction from republicans when Trump accused all Mexicans of being criminals, drug traffickers, and rapists. Hell, there was a barely there reaction when he went after McCain.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Ovinomancer

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> DA did mention that this is considered a tuning point in the republican party. Still, Duke switched over to the republican party for a reason. He believed that he could win as a republican. Something made him think that.



Yes, the race was open to Republicans.  He couldn't win as a Democrat not because he wouldn't get votes or that only Republicans would vote for a racist, but because it was an opportunity open to Republicans at the time.



> ]How does that take away from republicans having a racist element in their party?



It doesn't.  If that's the argument -- that there are racists in the Republican party, then I can agree and we can be done:  there are racists in the Republican party.  If the argument is that some racists have had high positions, then we can agree and be done:  there have been some racists holding high positions in the Republican party.  I find neither of those statement objectionable or arguable.

My argument is that the party isn't racist because of that.  To whit, I offer the counter observations that the Democrat party has racist elements, and that racists have held high positions in the Democrat party. 



> He still managed to win an election. There are plenty of republicans that don't win any elections.



He never one another one, and I'm not arguing that he didn't win an election.  There's a 2 year old mayor of a town out there right now, so that's a benchmark of low quality.  He won a special election to a state house, and lost it promptly the next election with stiff opprobrium from the party.  Hardly a case of him being a solid representative of the Republican party as a whole.



> So dismissive. Those articles also contain factual information, such as the donors that have ties to racist groups and who they contributed money to.



Yes, and he even lampshaded that particular argument quite well by pointing out that it's guilt by association before he went on and made the guilt by association argument.  Very well done, rhetorically, except that pointing out it's a bad argument before going on an making that argument doesn't magically absolve you of making a bad argument.  



> The Trump articles also point out how there wasn't any real reaction from republicans when Trump accused all Mexicans of being criminals, drug traffickers, and rapists. Hell, there was a barely there reaction when he went after McCain.



Really?  It was talked about widely in the media, and many of the other candidates specifically called it out as racist.  A trivial google search turns up loads of hits on this.  Here's one.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> My argument is that the party isn't racist because of that.



What proof or signs of a party being racist or is cattering to racists would you accept? Explicite policies in the party's platform can't be one of them, as a mainstream party would avoid such explicite policies so it couldn't be easily labelled racist in the current era of PCism.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, the race was open to Republicans.  He couldn't win as a Democrat not because he wouldn't get votes or that only Republicans would vote for a racist, but because it was an opportunity open to Republicans at the time.
> It doesn't.  If that's the argument -- that there are racists in the Republican party, then I can agree and we can be done:  there are racists in the Republican party.  If the argument is that some racists have had high positions, then we can agree and be done:  there have been some racists holding high positions in the Republican party.  I find neither of those statement objectionable or arguable.
> My argument is that the party isn't racist because of that.  To whit, I offer the counter observations that the Democrat party has racist elements, and that racists have held high positions in the Democrat party.



Sure, the democrats had their racist in high positions, but then they rushed off to the republican party (dixiecrats). I believe the point is that currently, the republican party is racist, or at least seen as racist. The republican party is courting a racist element in their electorate. Their policies are geared towards limiting the rights of minorities. Whether purposefully or not, that is the end result. Primary campaigns have turned into a contest of who can say the most outrageous things about some group that is different than the republican base. Considering that the republican base looks very old and white, it usually ends up being a minority group that gets ripped on for the sake of attracting votes. If republicans are pandering to racist, they are being racist. I mean, you have to in order to pander to racists. 



> He never one another one, and I'm not arguing that he didn't win an election.  There's a 2 year old mayor of a town out there right now, so that's a benchmark of low quality.  He won a special election to a state house, and lost it promptly the next election with stiff opprobrium from the party.  Hardly a case of him being a solid representative of the Republican party as a whole.



Well how bad was the other republican candidate that the racist won the election?



> Yes, and he even lampshaded that particular argument quite well by pointing out that it's guilt by association before he went on and made the guilt by association argument.  Very well done, rhetorically, except that pointing out it's a bad argument before going on an making that argument doesn't magically absolve you of making a bad argument.



As much as you may want it to be different, you'll be judged by whom you hang out with. If you're hanging out with a bunch of thugs and junkies, are you going to be surprised if you get labeled a thug and/or junkie? If you hang out with a bunch of swastika tattooed KKK members, would you be surprised if you were labeled a racist? Sure, guilt by association may sometimes get it wrong 




> Really?  It was talked about widely in the media, and many of the other candidates specifically called it out as racist.  A trivial google search turns up loads of hits on this.  Here's one.



Let's look at what they actually say:


> “I’ve said very clearly that Donald Trump does not represent the Republican Party,” Rick Perry said Sunday on ABC’s This Week.  “I was offended by his remarks. Listen, Hispanics in America and Hispanics in Texas, from the Alamo to Afghanistan, have been extraordinary people, citizens of our country and of our state.”



Note he says that Trump is not representative of the republican party and Hispanics are not bad. He doesn't call out Trump for being a racist, or saying racist things. He just gives Trump this tepid slap on the wrist.


> Mike Huckabee, speaking on CNN’s State of the Union, said Trump “made a severe error in saying what he did about Mexican-Americans, and it is unfortunate.”



Sounds more like its more about political strategy rather than about the substance of what Trump has said. He doesn't say Trump is wrong. He just says Trump made an error in saying it. 

Bush seems to be the only one to really say that trump is wrong, but even he is very measured in his response. 

Meanwhile, you get republicans like Ted Cruz who salute Trump for his comments because calling all Mexicans criminals and rapists is the way to focus attention on immigration.

In any case, saying that the republican party is racist doesn't limit that racism to the republican politicians. The republican voters are also counted in that. Look who is leading in the polls. Trump, the guy who said that all Mexican immigrants are criminals and rapists, and Carson, the guy that suggested we drone immigrants crossing the boarder and that a Muslim could not be President.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ovinomancer said:


> I suppose that fact that David switched from the Democrat party to the Republican party just to be able to run, and how he carried the white Democrat vote as well isn't truthy enough.  Or how he was repudiated at every turn by the Republican party, and failed to win any elections except the special runoff to the Louisiana State House, the one he swapped parties to run in?
> 
> Yeah, a bunch of opinion pieces making vague and weasel worded accusations that Duke is somehow relevant to the Republican Party isn't exactly a bedrock foundation.



1) I was in my hometown of NOLA when Duke beat out incumbent buddy Roemer to force a runoff between himself and the former governed and convicted criminal Edwin Edwards.  People actually interviewed on TV wanted to vote for Duke, but said they wouldn't purely because big companies like Apple said they'd pull out of the state if Duke were elected.

2) did you note that the Op-Eds were from bit the Left and Right?  The reason Duke gets pointed out as a historical catalyst is that his rhetoric and policies keep getting recycled by the current radical right, and this is lost on neither side of the political spectrum.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 1) I was in my hometown of NOLA when Duke beat out incumbent buddy Roemer to force a runoff between himself and the former governed and convicted criminal Edwin Edwards.  People actually interviewed on TV wanted to vote for Duke, but said they wouldn't purely because big companies like Apple said they'd pull out of the state if Duke were elected.



Straight up?  You guys were screwed.  Vote for the lizard, not the wizard?  Crikey.  There's a lot of issues down Louisiana way, although I do love the food in nawlins.



> 2) did you note that the Op-Eds were from bit the Left and Right?  The reason Duke gets pointed out as a historical catalyst is that his rhetoric and policies keep getting recycled by the current radical right, and this is lost on neither side of the political spectrum.




No.  I'm not intimately familiar with the slant of the writers of the op-eds, and there aren't any banners.  Which are which? Idle curiosity, though, as I don't think that that improves your argument much.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> Idle curiosity, though, as I don't think that that improves your argument much.




That some of the "weasel worded accusations" that he is relevant to the party come from folks in the party doesn't matter?

Perhaps you need statistically relevant polling of the party before you'll accept something as being relevant to the party?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> Perhaps you need statistically relevant polling of the party before you'll accept something as being relevant to the party?




I know Associated Press and Public Policy Polling have a few.

The AP's 2012 poll does show that a simple majority (51%) of ALL Ameicans in general harbor anti-black positions, but further showed there were more holding such views in the GOP than in the Democratic party.  In fairness, though, they also showed a general decline in bigotry across the board since 1997.

The Dems are healing themselves faster, though.  One question asked participants attitudes about interracial dating/marriage.  In 1997, a similar AP poll pegged the numbers at about 33% GOPers and 31% of Dems being opposed to them.  In 2012, the GOP had dropped that number to 18%...but the Dems were sitting at 5%.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> That some of the "weasel worded accusations" that he is relevant to the party come from folks in the party doesn't matter?
> 
> Perhaps you need statistically relevant polling of the party before you'll accept something as being relevant to the party?




Sorry, I realize that I used jargon and wasn't clear.  What I mean by 'weasel words' are things like "might," "may," "could," etc.  They are words that allow a perception to be created without actually doing the work to show that perception.  Use of these words when discussing facts is a sign that the discussion has moved from a factual basis to speculation, with all of the attendant issues of speculation, but still appears to be fact based.  I've had technical work published and 'weasel words' was jargon we used to identify when we were "selling instead of telling."  Words that end in -ly are often the same when used in fact based articles.

And as for polling and 'relevant,' there's a lot that's relevant to the party that I wouldn't look to polling for, but if you're describing relevant as applying to the whole party, then, yeah, statistical polling would be a great starting point.  I see Danny has done some work on this (thanks, Danny) and it looks like racism is a dwindling issue in the party, and certainly couldn't be used to describe the party as a whole.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I know Associated Press and Public Policy Polling have a few.
> 
> The AP's 2012 poll does show that a simple majority (51%) of ALL Ameicans in general harbor anti-black positions, but further showed there were more holding such views in the GOP than in the Democratic party.  In fairness, though, they also showed a general decline in bigotry across the board since 1997.
> 
> The Dems are healing themselves faster, though.  One question asked participants attitudes about interracial dating/marriage.  In 1997, a similar AP poll pegged the numbers at about 33% GOPers and 31% of Dems being opposed to them.  In 2012, the GOP had dropped that number to 18%...but the Dems were sitting at 5%.




Thanks, good stuff.


----------



## Ryujin

To inform the racism debate: In Canada we are in the last two weeks of a Federal election campaign. The incumbent Conservative government has been pushing the issue of the niqab (face covering worn by some Muslim women) as an 'important' issue. They've been talking about banning it, in law, during citizenship ceremonies and in Federal public sector workplaces. I can't speak to the Federal workplace issue but it would seem that precisely two woman have EVER requested to wear the niqab during the swearing in ceremony. It should also be noted that the ceremony and the actual official swearing in are separate events.

In other words this is a clear appeal to bigotry.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Ryujin said:


> To inform the racism debate: In Canada we are in the last two weeks of a Federal election campaign. The incumbent Conservative government has been pushing the issue of the niqab (face covering worn by some Muslim women) as an 'important' issue. They've been talking about banning it, in law, during citizenship ceremonies and in Federal public sector workplaces. I can't speak to the Federal workplace issue but it would seem that precisely two woman have EVER requested to wear the niqab during the swearing in ceremony. It should also be noted that the ceremony and the actual official swearing in are separate events.
> 
> In other words this is a clear appeal to bigotry.




How so?  I mean, I'm not disagreeing with you, but all you've done here is set the stage and then jumped to the conclusion.  Are we meant to understand exactly what you think is bigotry, here?  Is it the call for the policy change to require not covering your face for citizenship ceremonies, the Conservatives using it as a wedge issue, both, or neither?


----------



## Ryujin

Ovinomancer said:


> How so?  I mean, I'm not disagreeing with you, but all you've done here is set the stage and then jumped to the conclusion.  Are we meant to understand exactly what you think is bigotry, here?  Is it the call for the policy change to require not covering your face for citizenship ceremonies, the Conservatives using it as a wedge issue, both, or neither?




It's the conflation of the entire issue. There have been, as stated, precisely two women who requested to wear the niqab during the swearing in ceremony. Both of these women removed the niqab, in private and with appropriate officials, for the ACTUAL swearing in (not the public ceremony). So now the Conservatives crank it up to 11 for this issue, which is a non-issue, in an effort to capture the xenophobe vote.

Let's be plain here. I freely admit that the niqab makes me uncomfortable. I've worked with a woman who for the first 5 years I knew her didn't wear one, then suddenly started to. It still makes me jump a little. I think that in cases in which positive identification is needed (passport, driver's license, citizenship documentation) the niqab should be removed. I also think that covering your face from your fellow citizens, when taking the symbolic pledge, has very bad optics. Im also, however, not the one who is doing it and feels that it's a religious requirement. (There's a debate to be had over that also, that could go on for weeks.) The Cliff's Notes is that it's two people, out of literal millions, and so is a drop in the bucket. It's a non issue as when it's required, those same two women did remove it for identification.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Ryujin said:


> It's the conflation of the entire issue. There have been, as stated, precisely two women who requested to wear the niqab during the swearing in ceremony. Both of these women removed the niqab, in private and with appropriate officials, for the ACTUAL swearing in (not the public ceremony). So now the Conservatives crank it up to 11 for this issue, which is a non-issue, in an effort to capture the xenophobe vote.
> 
> Let's be plain here. I freely admit that the niqab makes me uncomfortable. I've worked with a woman who for the first 5 years I knew her didn't wear one, then suddenly started to. It still makes me jump a little. I think that in cases in which positive identification is needed (passport, driver's license, citizenship documentation) the niqab should be removed. I also think that covering your face from your fellow citizens, when taking the symbolic pledge, has very bad optics. Im also, however, not the one who is doing it and feels that it's a religious requirement. (There's a debate to be had over that also, that could go on for weeks.) The Cliff's Notes is that it's two people, out of literal millions, and so is a drop in the bucket. It's a non issue as when it's required, those same two women did remove it for identification.




Thanks.  I have an odd fetish for arguments.  That's pretty much exactly what I had understood from my reading of the issues prior to your post, and I don't have any problems with your assessment.

But that leads to the discussion of why there's enough Canadians that are angry over these issues that the Conservative's wedge issue has legs?  I've read from both sides of the politics on this issue (from Canadian sources (hey, I have an eclectic reading list), and boiling it out it seems that there are a number of Canadians that think accommodating some Muslim practices is eroding Canadian culture.  I'm not endorsing this view, I'm merely restating what I've gleaned from reading.  Any thoughts?


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> Thanks.  I have an odd fetish for arguments.  That's pretty much exactly what I had understood from my reading of the issues prior to your post, and I don't have any problems with your assessment.
> 
> But that leads to the discussion of why there's enough Canadians that are angry over these issues that the Conservative's wedge issue has legs?  I've read from both sides of the politics on this issue (from Canadian sources (hey, I have an eclectic reading list), and boiling it out it seems that there are a number of Canadians that think accommodating some Muslim practices is eroding Canadian culture.  I'm not endorsing this view, I'm merely restating what I've gleaned from reading.  Any thoughts?




Islamophia is strong right now in the Western world. Bashing Muslims for any reason is acceptable, like bashing Jews at the turn of the 20th century was acceptable. In Canada it is rather ironic, as multiculturism is supposed to be the norm. Sharia courts were briefly considered to be made legal in Ontario a while back. The public push back was strong so that was dropped. There was no push back against rabbinic courts.


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> Islamophia is strong right now in the Western world. Bashing Muslims for any reason is acceptable, like bashing Jews at the turn of the 20th century was acceptable. In Canada it is rather ironic, as multiculturism is supposed to be the norm. Sharia courts were briefly considered to be made legal in Ontario a while back. The public push back was strong so that was dropped. There was no push back against rabbinic courts.




That's a bit disingenuous, as Rabbinical courts are only allowed legal power in civil cases, and then only when both parties agree in advance to be bound by arbitration.  Further, Rabbinical courts only deal with civil issues, and they're decisions are not binding except as noted above.  Mostly, the courts only deal with religious issues specific to Judaism, like what's kosher, the religious aspects of divorce (not the civil ones), who's a Jew, and conversions.  They're very limited and do not assume any legal authority.

Sharia, on the other hand, or, at least, the courts you're discussing, were trying to assume full legal status, including the determination of criminal cases under Sharia law, not just civil cases.  They were claiming full legal power to enforce Sharia laws.  That's a bunch different from Rabbinical courts, who do not assume any legal authority outside of agreed civil arbitration. 

I get that it's easy to conflate them because, hey, religion, but the actual impacts are very different, and those are the reasons that Rabbinical courts are widely tolerated in Western democracy and Sharia courts aren't -- the Rabbinical courts don't try to assume legal power and stay in their narrow lanes while Sharia insists on assuming the force and power of law.  

That said, there where Sharia courts operate like Rabbinical courts -- limited to only religious matters, no criminal prosecutions, and only civil authority in agree arbitration -- there would be room to criticize a difference in reactions.  There are a few cases like this in the US and the UK, and complaints there are focused on the courts operating outside of that narrow corridor -- ie, assuming civil authority outside of arbitration and/or criminal authority.  No such reports of similar Rabbinical abuses succumbed to my Google-fu, although I may just have weak technique and they're out there.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> That's a bit disingenuous, as Rabbinical courts are only allowed legal power in civil cases, and then only when both parties agree in advance to be bound by arbitration.



From what I understand it would have been the same for Sharia courts. But you know, Islam bad.

The irony in all of this is that Muslims women have more freedom than orthodoxe women. Both have to cover their hair, of course, but if Muslim women are more visible is that hey are allowed to go get jobs outside their community. Can't say I've seen orthodoxe women behind the counter in a store even in neighborhoods with a high dencity of orthodoxes. I guess it is in part because Muslim women interract more with us, thus are more visible, that they feel more bothersome for some folks. 

And then there is the subtle difference we make. I've said Muslims, as if I was talking about an homogenous group, but use orthodoxe or Hasidic to mark a difference among the different types of Judaism there is.


----------



## Ryujin

Ovinomancer said:


> That's a bit disingenuous, as Rabbinical courts are only allowed legal power in civil cases, and then only when both parties agree in advance to be bound by arbitration.  Further, Rabbinical courts only deal with civil issues, and they're decisions are not binding except as noted above.  Mostly, the courts only deal with religious issues specific to Judaism, like what's kosher, the religious aspects of divorce (not the civil ones), who's a Jew, and conversions.  They're very limited and do not assume any legal authority.
> 
> Sharia, on the other hand, or, at least, the courts you're discussing, were trying to assume full legal status, including the determination of criminal cases under Sharia law, not just civil cases.  They were claiming full legal power to enforce Sharia laws.  That's a bunch different from Rabbinical courts, who do not assume any legal authority outside of agreed civil arbitration.
> 
> I get that it's easy to conflate them because, hey, religion, but the actual impacts are very different, and those are the reasons that Rabbinical courts are widely tolerated in Western democracy and Sharia courts aren't -- the Rabbinical courts don't try to assume legal power and stay in their narrow lanes while Sharia insists on assuming the force and power of law.
> 
> That said, there where Sharia courts operate like Rabbinical courts -- limited to only religious matters, no criminal prosecutions, and only civil authority in agree arbitration -- there would be room to criticize a difference in reactions.  There are a few cases like this in the US and the UK, and complaints there are focused on the courts operating outside of that narrow corridor -- ie, assuming civil authority outside of arbitration and/or criminal authority.  No such reports of similar Rabbinical abuses succumbed to my Google-fu, although I may just have weak technique and they're out there.




The consideration for Sharia courts took roughly this long: Yeeeeeeeeeah, no we don't want them. We're open to non judicial settlement of issues as long as they conform to our laws and regulations. As you stated, that was the issue.

As to Canadians who think that Muslim practice is eroding Canadian values, it's a numbers game. In the last Federal election a little over 61% of eligible voters showed up to polls. The vote break-down was as follows:

Conservative	39.62%
NDP 		30.63%
Liberal 	18.91%
Bloc Québécois 	6.04%
Green 		3.91%
Others 		0.89%

That means less than 1/4 of all eligible voters elected a majority government. It doesn't take much to tip the balance and if a couple of percent worth of backwoods bigots can be persuaded to come out and vote, when they normally wouldn't, it's a win. 

But that's not all that it is. Otherwise reasonable people are buying into the panic based, as goldomark stated, on Islamophobia born of terrorism. The terrorism angle was played up to support changes in law that are every bit as bad as, if not worse than, the United States' Patriot Act. Not that they needed to drum up support for it in Parliament, because a majority government pretty much passes whatever it wants, but they did it for public support. Prime Minister Harper has used former Bush Jr. advisers and, most recently, an Australian advisor who excels at politics of division. FUD is rampant and unless you actually dig, something that the average voter will not do, you're left with whatever government and media choose to spoon-feed to you.


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> From what I understand it would have been the same for Sharia courts. But you know, Islam bad.



Strangely, that's exactly how it works in the US for the very few Sharia tribunals set up.  Also how it works in Great Britain.  In Canada, they decided to not have any religious based arbitration, so there isn't any Rabbinical or Catholic arbitration either.



> The irony in all of this is that Muslims women have more freedom than orthodoxe women. Both have to cover their hair, of course, but if Muslim women are more visible is that hey are allowed to go get jobs outside their community. Can't say I've seen orthodoxe women behind the counter in a store even in neighborhoods with a high dencity of orthodoxes. I guess it is in part because Muslim women interract more with us, thus are more visible, that they feel more bothersome for some folks.



Wow. Okay, I'm not Jewish, but that's a gross misrepresentation.  Orthodox Jewish women can work if they want, and I've seen quite a few in the workplace myself, just as I've seen a number of Muslim women working.  I've never seen a Muslim woman in hijab or burka working, though, but I recognize that as merely representative of things I've personally seen, and not a blanket truth.  You would do well to do the same.



> And then there is the subtle difference we make. I've said Muslims, as if I was talking about an homogenous group, but use orthodoxe or Hasidic to mark a difference among the different types of Judaism there is.



That's not subtle.  You use gross stereotypes to paint Orthodox Jews as something other than they are while inventing some magically homogeneous group of Muslims that are really just the Westernized liberal Muslims, and attempt to say there's some valid points of comparison.  Given that your statements about Orthodox Jewish women working are a mere google search away from being debunked, and you continue to use stereotypes of Jews in place of real arguments, it's difficult to take your arguments here seriously.  Which is a shame, since there are valid points and discussions to be had on the topic if you could step outside of half-truths and stereotypes. 



Ryujin said:


> The consideration for Sharia courts took roughly this long: Yeeeeeeeeeah, no we don't want them. We're open to non judicial settlement of issues as long as they conform to our laws and regulations. As you stated, that was the issue.



From what I've read and understand, since there were concerns by many over the status of women under Sharia law (ie, not Muslims bad, but a specific concern about Sharia law), Canada decided to just get rid of all religiously based arbitration, including Jewish and Catholic panels.



> As to Canadians who think that Muslim practice is eroding Canadian values, it's a numbers game. In the last Federal election a little over 61% of eligible voters showed up to polls. The vote break-down was as follows:
> 
> Conservative	39.62%
> NDP 		30.63%
> Liberal 	18.91%
> Bloc Québécois 	6.04%
> Green 		3.91%
> Others 		0.89%
> 
> That means less than 1/4 of all eligible voters elected a majority government. It doesn't take much to tip the balance and if a couple of percent worth of backwoods bigots can be persuaded to come out and vote, when they normally wouldn't, it's a win.
> 
> But that's not all that it is. Otherwise reasonable people are buying into the panic based, as goldomark stated, on Islamophobia born of terrorism. The terrorism angle was played up to support changes in law that are every bit as bad as, if not worse than, the United States' Patriot Act. Not that they needed to drum up support for it in Parliament, because a majority government pretty much passes whatever it wants, but they did it for public support. Prime Minister Harper has used former Bush Jr. advisers and, most recently, an Australian advisor who excels at politics of division. FUD is rampant and unless you actually dig, something that the average voter will not do, you're left with whatever government and media choose to spoon-feed to you.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the CBC hostile towards the Harper government?  My impression is that Canadian media isn't exactly rolling over for Harper, and the opposition gets lots of airtime to make their points, too.  Doesn't seem like the media is an obedient dog parroting the government line.  I'm not a primary or constant consumer of Canadian media, though, so I don't know if my assumptions are correct.

As for a few percent of backwoods bigots (a little stereotypical, no?), don't they risk losing a similar percent of voters that disagree with their bigotry?  Also gives a big stick to the opposition to beat you with in the press.  It doesn't seem to be that the Conservatives are feeding this so much as it's so widespread that the Conservatives can use it.  Ghastly, sure, but if you're looking for primary causes, I don't think it's reasonable to assume this is being pushed down, it looks like taking advantage of a groundswelling anger.  And, from what I've read, it's less about terrorism and more about incompatible ideals held between devout Muslims and Canadian cultural expectations.  Also the number of concessions made by Canadian culture to Muslims.  Again, not condoning it, just relaying what I've read.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> In Canada, they decided to not have any religious based arbitration, so there isn't any Rabbinical.



There are Rabbinical courts in Canada. One example: http://jewishtoronto.com/directory/beis-din-vaad-harabonim-of-toronto

Fascinating how there isn't any public blow back with those. It isn't like women are treated well by those laws. 



> That's not subtle.



Sort of the point. Rarely are Muslims and Sharia that vigorously defended from stereotypes like you just did. But you did make broad stereotypical statements about Sharia in the same post to Ryujin. Fascinating.



> inventing some magically homogeneous group of Muslims



Muslims are lump together even if they are a diverse group. Lumping Muslims into one group is sadly something that is very present in our current societies. These hosts are a great example of that mentality that fuels islamophobia.

[video=youtube;PzusSqcotDw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzusSqcotDw[/video]


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> There are Rabbinical courts in Canada. One example: http://jewishtoronto.com/directory/beis-din-vaad-harabonim-of-toronto



They have no legal standing or authority, nor do they claim such.  They certify kosher, deal with religious divorces aspects, determine standing (who is a Jew), and other such things that are entirely religious and have no legally binding decisions.  Muslims can do this as well (and do).



> Fascinating how there isn't any public blow back with those. It isn't like women are treated well by those laws.



Probably because they don't do legally binding stuff?  I'm out on a limb there, but I'm willing to risk it.



> Sort of the point. Rarely are Muslims and Sharia that vigorously defended from stereotypes like you just did. But you did make broad stereotypical statements about Sharia in the same post to Ryujin. Fascinating.



Where?  Do you mean the part where I specifically call out what I'm reading in Canadian sources as to feelings towards Muslims?  Yes, fascinating that I might try to accurately summarize a position I don't hold.



> Muslims are lump together even if they are a diverse group. Lumping Muslims into one group is sadly something that is very present in our current societies. These hosts are a great example of that mentality that fuels islamophobia.



So it's okay?  I'm confused, you seem to be arguing that people stereotype Muslims as a defense for your use of stereotypes of other groups.  "You did it, too" arguments are not strong or persuasive. 

Also, the use of Islamophobia is a pejorative that's fatuous.  Phobias are irrational fears, but people I see being critical of Islam all seem to have rational reasons for doing so.  You may disagree with those reasons (I disagree with many of them), but their criticism isn't irrational.  Using the term is a quick way to dismiss any and all points made because arguer is irrational.  It's a shortcut to not even having to argue.  At least go with bigoted, which would be much closer to true in many cases -- people are often bigoted towards Muslims.


----------



## Ryujin

Ovinomancer said:


> From what I've read and understand, since there were concerns by many over the status of women under Sharia law (ie, not Muslims bad, but a specific concern about Sharia law), Canada decided to just get rid of all religiously based arbitration, including Jewish and Catholic panels.




That would be accurate and why I mentioned our laws and regulations. I might have also stated our national values, but those have been under attack for the last decade or so.



> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the CBC hostile towards the Harper government?  My impression is that Canadian media isn't exactly rolling over for Harper, and the opposition gets lots of airtime to make their points, too.  Doesn't seem like the media is an obedient dog parroting the government line.  I'm not a primary or constant consumer of Canadian media, though, so I don't know if my assumptions are correct.
> 
> As for a few percent of backwoods bigots (a little stereotypical, no?), don't they risk losing a similar percent of voters that disagree with their bigotry?  Also gives a big stick to the opposition to beat you with in the press.  It doesn't seem to be that the Conservatives are feeding this so much as it's so widespread that the Conservatives can use it.  Ghastly, sure, but if you're looking for primary causes, I don't think it's reasonable to assume this is being pushed down, it looks like taking advantage of a groundswelling anger.  And, from what I've read, it's less about terrorism and more about incompatible ideals held between devout Muslims and Canadian cultural expectations.  Also the number of concessions made by Canadian culture to Muslims.  Again, not condoning it, just relaying what I've read.




Despite the general liberal bent of those who commonly gravitate toward a life in media, the CBC has also been pretty tough on Liberal governments. In this case I would say it's just that the Harper government gives them far more ample opportunity for criticism. If you've read Canadian ideologically conservative based media, like the Sun newspaper chain, then you'll have a pretty skewed view of it. Harper have been axing CBC's funding, so ideologues think that every shot they take at him is some form of revenge. You can look at other conservative leaning papers like The National Post and The Globe and Mail, and see that they are essentially just as critical of Harper.

I use "backwoods bigot" as a catch-all term, rather than specifically aiming it at rural folk. I do also, however, use it to apply to my own family "back east." The "backwoods" thing is more a comment about mental process, than it is about geographical location. When it comes to the risk of losing potential votes, they really don't care. Or don't believe. It's really hard to say because today's politicians so tend to wrap themselves in like-minded individuals who will tell them that their every idea is gold, that they are completely out of touch with the electorate. My personal view, based solely on anecdotal evidence, is that they prefer to use wedge issues to further split the electorate. This results in a deep chasm between political stripes and many disenfranchised voters, who simply will not vote. This leaves them with the dyed in the wool Conservative supporters, who will never vote differently, and the voters who don't dig deeply into issues, and can be swayed by a catchy sound-bite. This makes their strategy far easier to formulate.

Remember; "If you're not with us, then you're with the terrorists." It still works. 

Also consider; "Look at this one horrible case in which the justice system failed. Obviously it's completely broken and we need more jails, mandatory sentences, and real life terms. Don't like it? You must love violent criminals."

This isn't something that most Canadians would agree with, but Canada actually is a Christian country. Our titular Head of State is 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'. We work for tolerance, but that is our origin. Very different from the USA.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> They have no legal standing or authority



So? What makes Sharia less discriminatory toward women? You made this argument: 







> since there were concerns by many over the status of women under Sharia law






> Probably because they don't do legally binding stuff?



That is speculation, not a poll.



> Yes, fascinating that I might try to accurately summarize a position I don't hold.



What is your position?



> I'm confused



Its been obvious for a while. What I said is that the language used points toward amalgamation. Don't you agree? 



> Phobias are irrational fears



Quote me saying they aren't.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> Also, the use of Islamophobia is a pejorative that's fatuous.  Phobias are irrational fears, but people I see being critical of Islam all seem to have rational reasons for doing so.




Well, we don't know who *you* see being critical of Islam.  We cannot quiz them, or otherwise dig into their positions. Moreover, your personal acquaintances are unlikely to be a representative sample.  Which makes this anecdote, not data.  

But, let us be frank - it isn't like Christianity and the dogmas of its various branches are somehow perfect, beyond reproach.  Are the folks "criticizing" Islam giving a similar critical eye to Christianity?  Probably not.  Broadly, the ones critical of Islam often (usually?) claim to be pretty devout Christians themselves, very happy with the tenets and practices of their religion.  That's an indication of cognitive bias, rather than rationality.  Christianity, even if you don't agree with it, is the known and familiar to those in the Americas and Europe.  Most are not actually terribly well acquainted with Islam, and people fear what they do not understand.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> Well, we don't know who *you* see being critical of Islam.  We cannot quiz them, or otherwise dig into their positions. Moreover, your personal acquaintances are unlikely to be a representative sample.  Which makes this anecdote, not data.



Nicely done, very rhetorical, but completely beside the point.  You can't just wave the anecdote wand and disappear the argument.  You're implying that the reverse is true (otherwise, I fail to discern the intent of your rebuttal -- I may just be slow, though) but you haven't done any work to show that it is.  When I say 'criticism I see' I'm speaking of what's in the media, not my personal acquaintances.  There's always a reason for distrust of Muslims given, and while I might disagree with that reason, or that reason may be entirely false, having a reason moves you into the realm of the rational and out of the realm of the irrational.  It might mean you're a jerk, a bigot, uneducated, stupid, mean, wrong, or any number of other pejoratives, but having a reason means you're not in the grip of an irrational fear.

Islamophobic is a pejorative meant to shut down discussion under the guise of accusing someone of being irrational.  Why are you choosing to defend it's use?



> But, let us be frank - it isn't like Christianity and the dogmas of its various branches are somehow perfect, beyond reproach.  Are the folks "criticizing" Islam giving a similar critical eye to Christianity?  Probably not.  Broadly, the ones critical of Islam often (usually?) claim to be pretty devout Christians themselves, very happy with the tenets and practices of their religion.  That's an indication of cognitive bias, rather than rationality.  Christianity, even if you don't agree with it, is the known and familiar to those in the Americas and Europe.  Most are not actually terribly well acquainted with Islam, and people fear what they do not understand.



I think that someone giving a critical eye to mainstream Christianity vs mainstream Islam with an eye towards modern, liberal sensibilities wouldn't find Christianity above reproach, but would find it far more friendly than Islam.  But I don't understand why this needs to be a contest of religions.  There's nothing in Christianity that affect Islam, and vice versa, at least that I can see.  

I've read large parts of the Koran.  Islam has many lovely bits.  But it has very large blocks that are generally incompatible with modern, liberal ideologies (I'm using liberal in the classic sense, here, as opposed to how it's used in US politics).  The injunctions against apostates and blasphemy alone are strongly at odds.  These and the treatment of women under Sharia law are the most often cited reasons for dislike, distrust, or fear of Muslims.  That's not irrational, even if you disagree with it (which is perfectly valid).

To sum up, one doesn't need to be perfectly even handed and fair in the critique of all like things to have a valid reason to critique one thing.  Not critiquing other things doesn't reduce the validity of the singular critique.  It might make someone a hypocrite, but it doesn't alter the validity of their point (except that we generally don't like hypocrites).

For the record, I'm agnostic.  I don't have a dog in the fight as far as a driving need to defend or devalue any particular religion.


----------



## Sadras

IMO Islam is all ok when you're dealing with minorities...because the lot of us live in 'Christian Democratic' countries and we feel pretty safe. I would hazard a guess that if your neighbourhood gradually became Islamic you wouldn't feel so comfortable, for whatever reason. This is not about being PC or non-PC, this is basic human nature. You can argue I'm being reflective about my own fears - sure I wont contest, it doesn't bother me. What if the country you started to shift and a growing Muslim population started dominating mainstream media, politics...etc how would you feel then, while they begin pushing their religious agendas through...

You see, the same problems agnostics and free-thinking liberal have and pushback against Christianity, would be the same and worse with Islam. I only say worse because the Islamic Religion is only 1200-1400 years into its history and we all know how Christianity was back then.

So yes, Islamophobia appears irrational now because we are dealing with minorities, but name me a Christian group that feels they have equal opportunities within an Islamic world. Just so you are aware my father was born in Egypt and was around when Nasser started making it difficult for the Europeans to remain there, so yes I freely admit I have bias, but history regarding the Copts, Armenians, Zoroastrian, Hindus is on my side. And the fact that much of Christianity has admitted to its mistakes with the Crusades, the Americas, Africa and the like - yet the Muslim world has not come clean about their own atrocities speaks volumes. I find Islamophobia on that level justified. 

Of course I completely disagree with the demonization of the religion for political and capital gain and for the pushing of atrocious policies like the West has recently done. That only strengthens the conviction of the religious and leads to blowback which begins a vicious cycle of hate and violence.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> What if the country you started to shift and a growing Muslim population started dominating mainstream media, politics...etc how would you feel then, while they begin pushing their religious agendas through...



Fearing what you discribed is islamophobia by definition. No Western country is facing that scenario. It isn't a rational fear. Yet it is the fear behind many critics of Islam in the Western world. 



> You see, the same problems agnostics and free-thinking liberal have and pushback against Christianity, would be the same and worse with Islam.



The difference is that in some Western countries Christians actually have power and influence over politics and the media, and are pushing their agenda. The US is the perfect example. Just look at the influence of Christians in the same sex unions or abortion debate. It isn't irrational to fear Christian influence in that context. 



> yet the Muslim world has not come clean about their own atrocities speaks volumes.



I didn't know Muslims were that homogenous.


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> Fearing what you discribed is islamophobia by definition. No Western country is facing that scenario. It isn't a rational fear. Yet it is the fear behind many critics of Islam in the Western world.




LOL. True USA and Canada are far from the mess they caused in the middle-east and with the Arab Spring. Europe is bearing all the brunt. I wonder if their fear is deemed rational or don't you consider Europe as Western?



> The difference is that in some Western countries Christians actually have power and influence over politics and the media, and are pushing their agenda. The US is the perfect example. Just look at the influence of Christians in the same sex unions or abortion debate. It isn't irrational to fear Christian influence in that context.




Despite all USA's imperfections, dialogue on abortion and same sex unions is still possible, try raising the same issue in a Muslim country in the political arena. 



> I didn't know Muslims were that homogenous.




Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, are you implying Christianity has not apologised for its atrocities done in the name of the religion?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Sadras said:


> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, are you implying Christianity has not apologised for its atrocities done in the name of the religion?



No, he's mocking you using an argument I made against him.  Or, he's mocking me for not jumping on you for making a similar argument.  Probably both.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> LOL. True USA and Canada are far from the mess they caused in the middle-east and with the Arab Spring. Europe is bearing all the brunt. I wonder if their fear is deemed rational or don't you consider Europe as Western?



You think the tide of refugees is problematic for Europe because it is mostly composed Muslims? If that is the case, I'd say that is an irrational fear of Islam right there. The refugee crisis would still be problematic if it was composed of Buddhists or Hindus.



> Despite all USA's imperfections, dialogue on abortion and same sex unions is still possible, try raising the same issue in a Muslim country in the political arena.



That is irrelevant to the actual power that Christians have in some Western countries, as opposed to the perceived power Muslims have and the fear that comes with that perception.

And saying there are no differences between Muslim countries is inaccurate and only fosther islamophobia.



> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, are you implying Christianity has not apologised for its atrocities done in the name of the religion?



I'm saying you're making an over generalization, painting Muslims as a monolithic block when they aren't.


----------



## Ryujin

Ovinomancer said:


> Islamophobic is a pejorative meant to shut down discussion under the guise of accusing someone of being irrational.




When used correctly, it should. Islam is no more monolithic than Christianity or, dare I say it, the Republican party 

When someone rails on about Islam which branch of the religion are they talking about? It is Shi'ah? Sunni? Do we break it down further and look at Wahhabi, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, Druze.......? A blanket statement in condemnation of Islam is indicative of Islamophobia. I don't hear people decrying general Christianity because of the actions of the Lord's Resistance Army, but I do hear people using the blanket term Islam on a daily basis.

Wouldn't you say that treating a dozen disparate groups as one monolithic organization is rather irrational?


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> Nicely done, very rhetorical, but completely beside the point.  You can't just wave the anecdote wand and disappear the argument.




Well, that's pretty much what happened when you dismissed some of my points as "isolated incidents".  I listed a small number of things, and you dismissed them as not indicative of a pattern.  I'm calling the same here.  At least my items were from the public, national stage, not undocumented discussions.



> You're implying that the reverse is true (otherwise, I fail to discern the intent of your rebuttal -- I may just be slow, though)




No - stating that insufficient evidence has been given is not an implication that the opposite is true.  It merely says the question is still open.

I'm not usually a fan of absolute assertions.  I don't think *all* folks criticizing Islam are doing so because they are phobic.   However, "not all X!" (Not all men!  Not all Republicans!  Not all gun owners! Not all Democrats!  Not all Christians!)  is known to be an informal logical fallacy - a bit of rhetorical judo that attempts to redirect discussion of a problem to the innocence of some subset of the accused (and all too often to how that subset is unfortunately put upon by being accused).  I'm saying you have not demonstrated enough folks aren't phobic hat we can safely ignore the phenomenon.



> you haven't done any work to show that it is.




I don't need to.  You made an implied assertion.  Burden of proof is on you to give support.  



> There's always a reason for distrust of Muslims given




It is a well-known bit of human psychology that a great many of our opinions and decisions are made on an emotional basis, and the reason given is a rationalization after the fact.  And, the speaker usually *believes* the rationalization is the logical reason - that's an unfortunate artifact of how the human mind works.  But, when you probe, you find that the speaker will generally resist even after the rational point has been shown to not apply.

Thus, broadly, we cannot automatically trust stated reasons.  We need to probe deeper in order to trust that the issue is not one of a more basic emotional response (like fear).


----------



## Ovinomancer

Ryujin said:


> When used correctly, it should. Islam is no more monolithic than Christianity or, dare I say it, the Republican party



ZING!



> When someone rails on about Islam which branch of the religion are they talking about? It is Shi'ah? Sunni? Do we break it down further and look at Wahhabi, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, Druze.......? A blanket statement in condemnation of Islam is indicative of Islamophobia. I don't hear people decrying general Christianity because of the actions of the Lord's Resistance Army, but I do hear people using the blanket term Islam on a daily basis.
> 
> Wouldn't you say that treating a dozen disparate groups as one monolithic organization is rather irrational?




No, it's not something I approve of, but it's not irrational.  If it were, then we'd all be in trouble as we deal in generalities all day long.  I don't like to use generalities in arguments, as they're usually about specific things and you introduce slop when doing so, but to consider the use of a generality as irrational strains the use of the word.

Also, to be fair, most of the sectarian differences in Islam are as obtuse as most of the sectarian difference in Protestant Christianity -- they hinge more on small difference in observation or belief than in core tenets of the faith.  There are exceptions, of course, but most of the reasons I hear used to be critical of Islam are pretty broadly held across the factions -- Sharia law, subservience of women, apostate treatment, etc.  I don't necessarily agree with those reasons -- often I find them guilty of overbroad or hasty generalizations -- that that doesn't make them irrational.  It just makes them weak arguments.

I you have noticed that I tend to deal in nuance, especially in separating out lines of argument, and that I will argue for positions I don't hold if I think the argument against that position is weak.  In this case, I'm arguing about the misuse of a medical phrase, phobia, as applied as a rhetorical device.  It's incorrectly applied, and used primarily to avoid confronting the specifics of an argument.  Those specifics may well be wrong or detestable, but they exist, and just calling holders of the irrational to avoid leaving a safe space and confront different, challenging, and potentially offensive opinions is, in my opinion, a large part of what is wrong with political and social discourse today.  As a society, we're drifting into yelling at each other rather than listening.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> Well, that's pretty much what happened when you dismissed some of my points as "isolated incidents".  I listed a small number of things, and you dismissed them as not indicative of a pattern.  I'm calling the same here.  At least my items were from the public, national stage, not undocumented personal discussions.



i did more than that, I specified why I thought they weren't indicative, and even listed ways to make them become indicative if you had more of them.  It's a touch disingenuous to compare a multi-post discussion of the arguments to a fast, paragraph long dismissal.

Further, I addressed your statement in good faith, here, and showed why I felt that your dismissal wasn't valid -- specifically I addressed where I see such argument (the media), showing that they weren't isolated or limited to my personal sphere.  So my items are also public, national stage, and not undocumented personal discussions.  





> No - stating that insufficient evidence has been given is not an implication that the opposite is true.  It merely says the question is still open.
> 
> I'm not usually a fan of absolute assertions.  I don't think *all* folks criticizing Islam are doing so because they are phobic.   However, "not all X!" (Not all men!  Not all Republicans!  Not all gun owners! Not all Democrats!  Not all Christians!)  is known to be an informal logical fallacy - a bit of rhetorical judo that attempts to redirect discussion of a problem to the innocence of some subset of the accused (and all too often to how that subset is unfortunately put upon by being accused).  I'm saying you have not demonstrated enough folks aren't phobic hat we can safely ignore the phenomenon.



Ah, I see.  You're just arguing that I am wrong because there are some people that are irrational in their fear.  Sure, I agree, there are irrational people that have an irrational fear of Islam, in which case Islamophobia is appropriate.  Granted and agreed.

However, I was arguing how it was used here, and in that case, my arguments are valid.  In the general, most people concerned with Islam have rational fears.  They may fear that people who worship Islam are terrorists.  This is incorrect, but not an irrational fear.  If you believe that people who worship Islam are terrorist, or harbor terrorist sympathies, then it's very, very rational to fear them.  It's also narrowminded, uneducated, and bigoted, but not irrational.  If you criticize Islam for their treatment of women, that's also rational -- there's a large body of confirmed evidence that suggests that in many Islam countries women are oppressed.  That it's also true that there are Islamic countries where they aren't oppressed doesn't mean that the person only exposed to the former evidence is making an irrational choice to be critical of Islam.

You don't have to agree with the reasons, you don't even have to think they're true, but if there is a held belief, and you are critical of something because of that held belief, then you are being rational.  The premise might not be rational, but he logical chain built on that premise can be.  Logic is fun that way.




> I don't need to.  You made an implied assertion.  Burden of proof is on you to give support.



What about the assertion that I was countering -- that people have an irrational fear of Islam because they don't want Sharia law?  Shouldn't that have to have some evidence before my refutation is held to an evidentiary standard?  I'm all for standards, so long as they're applied evenly. 

Further, I've supported all of my arguments with rationals and descriptions of why I think the way I do.  You may disagree, but you can't claim I haven't backed up my arguments.




> It is a well-known bit of human psychology that a great many of our opinions and decisions are made on an emotional basis, and the reason given is a rationalization after the fact.  And, the speaker usually *believes* the rationalization is the logical reason - that's an unfortunate artifact of how the human mind works.  But, when you probe, you find that the speaker will generally resist even after the rational point has been shown to not apply.



Yes, I'm noticing that.



> Thus, broadly, we cannot automatically trust stated reasons.  We need to probe deeper in order to trust that the issue is not one of a more basic emotional response (like fear).



Okay, so you can't trust what a person tells you they're thinking, you must use, um, some other technique to glean what they really think because people can't be trusted to even know what it is they're really thinking.

Good luck with that.  I prefer to take what people say at face value and only question it if their actions are not in line with their stated beliefs.  I don't assume people aren't telling me the truth without evidence to the contrary, cognitive bias notwithstanding.  

But I'm now curious.  What's your opinion of what my actual reasons for making my arguments here are?  You've all but implied I'm suffering from cognitive bias, so I'm curious as to what you think my bias is.


----------



## billd91

Sadras said:


> Despite all USA's imperfections, dialogue on abortion and same sex unions is still possible, try raising the same issue in a Muslim country in the political arena.




Hmm... How about you bring up the issue of gay rights in Anglican Uganda? And I'll raise the same issue in Muslim Albania. We'll see who fares better. 
It's not simply a function of religion, per se. You see religious organizations against gay rights all over the place. Culture, social and political, makes a huge difference. You'd be a lot safer bringing issues like this up in Turkey than in Afghanistan because the culture is very different. You'd also be in a lot more danger bringing up gay rights in Russia than in Ireland despite the government of Ireland's traditionally much closer relationship to a religion than Russia's.


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> You think the tide of refugees is problematic for Europe because it is mostly composed Muslims? If that is the case, I'd say that is an irrational fear of Islam right there. The refugee crisis would still be problematic if it was composed of Buddhists or Hindus.




Agree, but I don't believe Hinduism, Taoism, Christianity, Shintuism or Buddhism speak about apostacy in the same manner that Islam does. 



> That is irrelevant to the actual power that Christians have in some Western countries as opposed to the perceived power Muslims have and the fear that comes with that perception.




Why is it actual power for Christians but perceived power for Muslims? Are you speaking about Islamic power within the States and Canada or in general.  



> I'm saying you're making an over generalization, painting Muslims as a monolithic block when they aren't.




An over generalisation? For what, calling Islamists out for not apologising for past atrocities done in the name of religion? We are just going to have to disagree on this. I'm sorry but I like to hold every religion to the same level of accountability and not just singularly bash Christianity like it is the only wicked stepchild of Organised Religion.

In the youtube clip with Barack Obama making fun out of three comments coming out the bible - TWO of those came out of the TORAH. But does he even mention it? No, Christianity solely gets the blame. The rest of the world does not see this supposed Christian USA you democrats like to bash, not at all, definitely not in its media and film. If anything they ridicule Christianity any chance they get. 
Being Islamophobic is seen as very non-PC, making fun of Judaism gets your labelled Anti-Semitic meanwhile Christian bashing has become the norm.


----------



## Sadras

billd91 said:


> It's not simply a function of religion, per se. You see religious organizations against gay rights all over the place. Culture, social and political, makes a huge difference.




100% Agreed.


----------



## Ryujin

Ovinomancer said:


> ZING!
> 
> No, it's not something I approve of, but it's not irrational.  If it were, then we'd all be in trouble as we deal in generalities all day long.  I don't like to use generalities in arguments, as they're usually about specific things and you introduce slop when doing so, but to consider the use of a generality as irrational strains the use of the word.
> 
> Also, to be fair, most of the sectarian differences in Islam are as obtuse as most of the sectarian difference in Protestant Christianity -- they hinge more on small difference in observation or belief than in core tenets of the faith.  There are exceptions, of course, but most of the reasons I hear used to be critical of Islam are pretty broadly held across the factions -- Sharia law, subservience of women, apostate treatment, etc.  I don't necessarily agree with those reasons -- often I find them guilty of overbroad or hasty generalizations -- that that doesn't make them irrational.  It just makes them weak arguments.
> 
> I you have noticed that I tend to deal in nuance, especially in separating out lines of argument, and that I will argue for positions I don't hold if I think the argument against that position is weak.  In this case, I'm arguing about the misuse of a medical phrase, phobia, as applied as a rhetorical device.  It's incorrectly applied, and used primarily to avoid confronting the specifics of an argument.  Those specifics may well be wrong or detestable, but they exist, and just calling holders of the irrational to avoid leaving a safe space and confront different, challenging, and potentially offensive opinions is, in my opinion, a large part of what is wrong with political and social discourse today.  As a society, we're drifting into yelling at each other rather than listening.




Well you can certainly argue that using "phobia" is inaccurate as a technical term, but I would argue that from a sociological/colloquial standpoint it's a reasonable use. Taking the technical standpoint isn't so much nuance, as it is simply dismissing a statement over a philological point of language. We speak how we speak and we write how we write. You could tear Twain apart over his use of terms, but he wrote how people spoke.

I'm talking about people reacting to an entire range of cultural/religious groups based on the actions of a few. That is no less irrational than people who are in constant fear of their children being abducted or abused by strangers, when friends and relatives are far more commonly the abusers. It's no less irrational than people who think that you can curb illegal actions, by limiting the actions of the law abiding (here I speak specifically to issues like the use of illegal firearms in the commission of crime, or stopping habitual impaired drivers who operate vehicles while at multiples of the allowable BAC). Any time someone reacts in a way that is out of scale with what caused the reaction it is, by definition, irrational.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> Agree, but I don't believe Hinduism, Taoism, Christianity, Shintuism or Buddhism speak about apostacy in the same manner that Islam does.



Again with the broad generalization... Next thing you'll tell me is that Buddhists couldn't arm a fly. 



> Why is it actual power for Christians but perceived power for Muslims?



Islamophobes exagerate the actual political and mediatic power Muslims have in Western countries in general*. They perceive Muslims as far more influencial than they are. 

Of course, a country like Albania as a majority of Muslims in it and is a Western country, so it would be logical that Muslims have more power there. By Western countries in general I mean non-Muslim ones. 



> An over generalisation?



Yes. 



> For what, calling Islamists out for not apologising for past atrocities done in the name of religion?



For lumping radical Muslims with non radical ones.  



> In the youtube clip with Barack Obama making fun out of three comments coming out the bible



Huh? 



> The rest of the world does not see this supposed Christian USA you democrats like to bash, not at all, definitely not in its media and film.



What?



> If anything they ridicule Christianity any chance they get.



Who is they?



> Being Islamophobic is seen as very non-PC, making fun of Judaism gets your labelled Anti-Semitic meanwhile Christian bashing has become the norm.



Not going to argue against the myth that Christianity is under assault, it would be obviously pointless here, but I'll do say that there is a difference between pushing up and pushing down when critiquing groups. In federations like the US or Canada, Christians are the majority. Critiquing them is pushing up. Up because they are on top of the social order. Critiquing them often means critiquing their power and/or abuse of power. Pushing down, means pushing on minorities who are often not in power and/or discriminated upon, so it can adds to their burden. 

It is also easier to critic groups we are part of. In part because we are familiar with that group, but also because we can be directly affected by some belief of our group since it is in power. Critiquing a minority who's culture we aren't familiar with might lead to critiquing stuff that doesn't exist or isn't wide spread, but result in real stigma to the minority.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Ryujin said:


> Well you can certainly argue that using "phobia" is inaccurate as a technical term, but I would argue that from a sociological/colloquial standpoint it's a reasonable use. Taking the technical standpoint isn't so much nuance, as it is simply dismissing a statement over a philological point of language. We speak how we speak and we write how we write. You could tear Twain apart over his use of terms, but he wrote how people spoke.
> 
> I'm talking about people reacting to an entire range of cultural/religious groups based on the actions of a few. That is no less irrational than people who are in constant fear of their children being abducted or abused by strangers, when friends and relatives are far more commonly the abusers. It's no less irrational than people who think that you can curb illegal actions, by limiting the actions of the law abiding (here I speak specifically to issues like the use of illegal firearms in the commission of crime, or stopping habitual impaired drivers who operate vehicles while at multiples of the allowable BAC). Any time someone reacts in a way that is out of scale with what caused the reaction it is, by definition, irrational.




No disagreement on word usage, but Islamophobia isn't a convenient shorthand for the issues people my have with Islam, it's used as a pejorative to shut down conversation via labeling people as unpleasant.  So, in that case, attacking the use of the word as both an unfair pejorative absent useful descriptive content and on technical issues is valid.  The former hasn't been much under discussion here because people have seemed to want to focus on the latter argument, but that doesn't mean that the former argument isn't also valid.


----------



## Ryujin

Ovinomancer said:


> No disagreement on word usage, but Islamophobia isn't a convenient shorthand for the issues people my have with Islam, it's used as a pejorative to shut down conversation via labeling people as unpleasant.  So, in that case, attacking the use of the word as both an unfair pejorative absent useful descriptive content and on technical issues is valid.  The former hasn't been much under discussion here because people have seemed to want to focus on the latter argument, but that doesn't mean that the former argument isn't also valid.




And I would disagree with that assessment completely. If using  the expression Islamophobia applies a label, then it's to people who have an irrational reaction to all followers of Islam as if they're terrorists, as 'phobic', ie. irrational in their fear and labelling of another group. You can disagree with something without being 'phobic' of it, however, when your reactions are out of scale or apply a label to an entire group because of the actions of a relatively small part of that group, you are then being irrational, bigoted, or a little of column A and a little of column B. I would call such people unpleasant and, quite likely, worthy of being 'shut down.' Logical debate is one thing, but knee jerk reactions to one and a half BILLION people based on a few of their number is quite another.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Ryujin said:


> And I would disagree with that assessment completely. If using  the expression Islamophobia applies a label, then it's to people who have an irrational reaction to all followers of Islam as if they're terrorists, as 'phobic', ie. irrational in their fear and labelling of another group. You can disagree with something without being 'phobic' of it, however, when your reactions are out of scale or apply a label to an entire group because of the actions of a relatively small part of that group, you are then being irrational, bigoted, or a little of column A and a little of column B. I would call such people unpleasant and, quite likely, worthy of being 'shut down.' Logical debate is one thing, but knee jerk reactions to one and a half BILLION people based on a few of their number is quite another.




We've crossed word, here.  I'm not defending anyone doing anything in regards to Islam.  I'm focused on the use of Islamophobia as a pejorative word that is used to shut down any discussion regarding issues tied to Muslims.  It is being used that way, it was used that way in this thread, and that's my focus.

Discussions of what may or may not be of issue with Islam, the relative value of different judgments or beliefs associated with those issues or non-issues, it outside the scope of my complaint.  I can discuss those with you, and it sounds like we're in pretty close agreement already, but it's a separate issue from the use of Islamophobia as an anti-intellectual discussion tactic.


----------



## Ryujin

Ovinomancer said:


> We've crossed word, here.  I'm not defending anyone doing anything in regards to Islam.  I'm focused on the use of Islamophobia as a pejorative word that is used to shut down any discussion regarding issues tied to Muslims.  It is being used that way, it was used that way in this thread, and that's my focus.
> 
> Discussions of what may or may not be of issue with Islam, the relative value of different judgments or beliefs associated with those issues or non-issues, it outside the scope of my complaint.  I can discuss those with you, and it sounds like we're in pretty close agreement already, but it's a separate issue from the use of Islamophobia as an anti-intellectual discussion tactic.




And here is precisely where we seem to differ. You appear to be casting a rather wide net, in the belief that people use the term "Islamophobia" as an anti intellectual means of shutting down any criticism of Islam as a whole. My position is that it's a method of shutting down anti intellectual sentiment that all who profess to follow Islam must, therefore, be terrorists. The latter appears to be the way that the lines are being drawn, politically, in my experience and observation.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Ryujin said:


> And here is precisely where we seem to differ. You appear to be casting a rather wide net, in the belief that people use the term "Islamophobia" as an anti intellectual means of shutting down any criticism of Islam as a whole. My position is that it's a method of shutting down anti intellectual sentiment that all who profess to follow Islam must, therefore, be terrorists. The latter appears to be the way that the lines are being drawn, politically, in my experience and observation.




It was used that way in this thread.  :shrug:

If you want to limit it to the example you gave, I've no problem with the word being used there.  Do you think that's how the word is generally used in discourse today?  I don't.  I see it used more the way I describe than as an accurate description.  I've no issue with it being used when it actually applies.


----------



## Kramodlog

To defend the freedom of women oppressed by Islam, brave protesters have been advance voting with potato bags on there head. Freeeeeeedumb!


----------



## Ryujin

Ovinomancer said:


> It was used that way in this thread.  :shrug:
> 
> If you want to limit it to the example you gave, I've no problem with the word being used there.  Do you think that's how the word is generally used in discourse today?  I don't.  I see it used more the way I describe than as an accurate description.  I've no issue with it being used when it actually applies.




Yes, that's how I generally hear it being used. There are always outliers who will abuse a term but, by and large, it is used to refer to people who irrationally tar all followers of Islam with a wide brush.


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> Again with the broad generalization... Next thing you'll tell me is that Buddhists couldn't arm a fly




When one speaks about the influence of Christians in Western media and politics, you're saying one was not being general? Or about their effect on same sex marriage or abortions - was it all Christians that were against it or just some? And what was wrong with my comment regarding the topic of apostacy in Islam - all I said was that the other religions don't quite have the same view. How is that generalising? In the new testament there is something 'similar' - not in terms of violence or punishment being called for, but in terms of damnation and an act being unforgivable - when one blasphemes against the Holy Spirit. 



> Islamophobes exagerate the actual political and mediatic power Muslims have in Western countries in general*. They perceive Muslims as far more influencial than they are.




They managed to build an MUSLIM centre near ground zero. That reflects two things to me - America is not as Christian influenced as you like to paint, and Muslims have far more influence that you give them credit for. 

EDIT: Changed the word ISLAMIST to MUSLIM. Didn't know there was a difference until [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION]'s post.



> For lumping radical Muslims with non radical ones.




How am I lumping them together, when they (the Muslim World) is not acknowledging their atrocities? Why are you defending their inaction? Are you so hell bent against Christianity that you would like to see its followers persecuted all over the world?   



> What?




What was the last Christian movie made? How much was its gross earnings? For a Christian country I suppose it made a lot of money with all those bad Christian Republicans who went to see it? 



> Not going to argue against the myth that Christianity is under assault, it would be obviously pointless here, but I'll do say that there is a difference between pushing up and pushing down when critiquing groups. In federations like the US or Canada, Christians are the majority. Critiquing them is pushing up. Up because they are on top of the social order. Critiquing them often means critiquing their power and/or abuse of power. Pushing down, means pushing on minorities who are often not in power and/or discriminated upon, so it can adds to their burden.
> 
> It is also easier to critic groups we are part of. In part because we are familiar with that group, but also because we can be directly affected by some belief of our group since it is in power. Critiquing a minority who's culture we aren't familiar with might lead to critiquing stuff that doesn't exist or isn't wide spread, but result in real stigma to the minority.




That is fair.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> They managed to build an Islamist centre near ground zero.




Not EVEN close to the truth.

Feisal Abdul Rauf is the Imam who built that mosque.  He is definitely NOT an Islamist.

He is a Sufi, the most liberal of the major sects of Islam, and whose members are often oppressed by radicalized Sunni and Shia Muslims.

He has criticized the 9/11 attacks, suicide bombings, and Middle-eastern church burnings as non-Islamic.

He is a member of the Council of 100 Leaders (C-100) on West-Islamic World Dialogue at the World Economic Forum (WEF) and has received both the Alliance for International Conflict Prevention and Resolution’s annual Alliance Peacebuilder Award and The Interfaith Center of New York’s annual James Parks Morton Interfaith Award (2006).

He supports the continued existence of Israel and is pro-American, anti-theocracy (pro-seperation of church & state), pro-democracy, and pro-gender equality.

He has served Bush in the Middle East in 2007, and aided the FBI in training agents dealing with Muslims.

He has performed interfaith marriages, has spoken forcefully and repeatedly against anti-Semitism, and has been a major part of many international interfaith councils.


----------



## Sadras

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not EVEN close to the truth.
> 
> Feisal Abdul Rauf is the Imam who built that mosque.  He is definitely NOT an Islamist.




My bad. I didn't realise the word ISLAMIST meant the extremist kind of Muslim. Believed it was another word for Muslim.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Fair enough.


----------



## trappedslider

Why religion still matters  very interesting read


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> And what was wrong with my comment regarding the topic of apostacy in Islam - all I said was that the other religions don't quite have the same view.



There are differences in interpretation and application. This is why saying Islam has a problem with apostacy is a broad generalization.  

Lumping Russia, Uganda, Ireland, the US, France and Denmark together wouldn't brush an accurate picture of how Christians treat homosexuals, now would it? Why should Muslims be held to another standard?



> They managed to build an MUSLIM centre near ground zero.



It is the US. People and groups can buy land and build/renovate stuff on them if they respect zoning laws and other restrictions. If being able to buy land and build stuff on it is a sign of influence, I'll say your standard is way too low. At least when it comes to the US. 

To be sure, are we talking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51 ? 



> That reflects two things to me - America is not as Christian influenced as you like to paint,



Because other religions can renovate a building to host a museum and a prayer room on US land!? How influencial do you think I said they were?



> and Muslims have far more influence that you give them credit for.



Again, cause a building was bought and renovated? Because they managed to resist an islamophobic campaign? Notice that I never said they had zero influence either, but having some influence doesn't mean you have congress in your back pocket, can get what ever you want or you're as influencial as other religious lobbies. 



> How am I lumping them together



Well, by saying stuff like: 







> (the Muslim World)






> Why are you defending their inaction?



Quote me defending it. 



> Are you so hell bent against Christianity



Quote me saying I was against Christianity. 



> that you would like to see its followers persecuted all over the world?



Funny. I say Muslims aren't as influencial in Western countries as islamophobes would like to think and for you that means I want Christians of the world to be persecuted by Muslims. You don't see how ridiculus you sound?



> What was the last Christian movie made? How much was its gross earnings? For a Christian country I suppose it made a lot of money with all those bad Christian Republicans who went to see it?



I like how you add "bad Christian Republicans" to this as if I said such words. It really helps to strenghten your argument. I also didn't call the US a Christian country, althought I agree that it can be construed in various ways and the way you use it might not mean what I think it means. 

But if we take your logic about movies to be an indicator of influence of a religious group, shouldn't you compare Christian films and their box office made in the US to the Muslims ones?


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> But if we take your logic about movies to be an indicator of influence of a religious group, shouldn't you compare Christian films and their box office made in the US to the Muslims ones?




That could be difficult, given the issue with idolatry.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I once saw a Muslim-made movie about Mohammed, and they had an interesting way of handling the "depictions of the prophet" issue: the film was presented mostly from his POV, and instead of a voice-.actor, they used a narrator, as in "then he told them..." type fashion.

 The idolatry/images of the prophet issue is an interesting one, seeing as how there actually is a fair amount of Muslim-made representative art depicting not only people & animals, but also the prophet himself, dating back several hundred years.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The idolatry/images of the prophet issue is an interesting one, seeing as how there actually is a fair amount of Muslim-made representative art depicting not only people & animals, but also the prophet himself, dating back several hundred years.




Well, as has been noted several times, it isn't like all 1.5 billion Muslims in the world agree on interpretations of what counts as idolatry.

I really only meant that the fact that this is an issue for a significant portion of the community should tend to limit the success of visual media, making apples-to-apples comparison difficult.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Agreed, completely.  Just wanted to point out the elephant.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> Well, as has been noted several times, it isn't like all 1.5 billion Muslims in the world agree on interpretations of what counts as idolatry.
> 
> I really only meant that the fact that this is an issue for a significant portion of the community should tend to limit the success of visual media, making apples-to-apples comparison difficult.




To be a Christian film you do not need Jesus to be in it, so I'm not sure why Mohammed needs to be in a film for it to be a Muslim film. 

And I think this is supposed to be a indicator of influence in the US, so it doesn't need to be about the 1.5 billion Muslims on Earth. 

That being said, if Muslims have made pact with Reptilians, who obviously are evolved dinosaurs from a parallel universe that got dimension hoping tech from aliens, one could safely speculate that there are Muslims in space too. Those Muslim space colonies increase their numbers and the effectiveness of their invasion and conversion of the _civilized_ Western world. All to fulfill the Elders of Zion, world bankers and communists' plan. But liberals will try to shut me up with their islamophobe comments. Don't listen to them! Pay for coffee with credit cards so the government can't track you with its printed bills!


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> To be a Christian film you do not need Jesus to be in it, so I'm not sure why Mohammed needs to be in a film for it to be a Muslim film.




The issue of idolatry is not, as I understand it, so simple as, "you cannot have images of Mohammed".  That's an oversimplification bordering on trivialization.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> The issue of idolatry is not, as I understand it, so simple as, "you cannot have images of Mohammed".  That's an oversimplification bordering on trivialization.




Yep.  Technically, Islam is an "Aniconistic" faith.

In Islam is a general proscription in Islam against the creation of images of sentient beings: depiction of all humans and non-human animals is discouraged in the hadith and by the long tradition of Islamic authorities, especially Sunni ones. This is why most Islamic art consists of geometric patterns, calligraphy and the barely representational foliage patterns of the arabesque.

(The photographic and filmed images of today has led to some religious authorities stating, for example, that all television is un-Islamic, but this is not a widely held position.)


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> There are differences in interpretation and application. This is why saying Islam has a problem with apostacy is a broad generalization.




In your opinion, if I had called the Republicans racist, would that also be considered a broad generalisation?
Also please tell me which part of Islam does not have a problem with apostacy, so it will be more evident to me that I'm making a broad generalisation.



> Quote me defending it.




Well I want the Islam world to own up to its persecutions and historical atrocities. You keep hassling me about it, saying I shouldn't generalise, when clearly you don't hold yourself up to that measure (refer above - racist Republicans). I'm saying I'm treating Islam in the same manner Christianity's History was held up to the spotlight and judged. So either you have an issue with me or you have an issue with what I say. If it is not with me, and you are being genuine in this debate, IMO that means you are defending Islam. 



> I like how you add "bad Christian Republicans" to this as if I said such words.




I think your position on where you stand in this thread makes it pretty clear.



> But if we take your logic about movies to be an indicator of influence of a religious group, shouldn't you compare Christian films and their box office made in the US to the Muslims ones?




Well this has been answered by others.

EDIT: Just to touch on the building of Park51. I have no problem with it. But our initial discussion re this issue was with actual Christian influence in the US, with regards to perceived Islamic influence. Can you please enlighten me as to this actual Christian influence that you know about? Because I am not seeing a public that is overtly Christian, I see a current president that has mocked the bible in public and a rather obvious move towards secularism.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> The issue of idolatry is not, as I understand it, so simple as, "you cannot have images of Mohammed".  That's an oversimplification bordering on trivialization.




According to the director of _Muhammad: the Messenger of God_, it is that simple and trivial. 







> Majidi stated, "The face of the Prophet is not shown in the film."



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad:_The_Messenger_of_God_(film) All done with the blessing of the Iranian theocracy no less. 

In the context of the US, making Muslim centric films should face less institutional red tape. After _Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas_, you could have _Omar Yusef's Saving Ramadan_! This, according to [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION], would be a sign of Muslim influence in the US.


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> This, according to [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION], would be a sign of Muslim influence in the US.




You counter that it is not a sign of influence? Okay to each their own.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> In your opinion,



More as a matter of fact. To say that all Muslim countries act like Saudi Arabia is just proof of ignorance, just like saying all Muslims approve of the death the penalty for apostacy. 



> Well I want the Islam world to own up to its persecutions and historical atrocities.



A nice personal crusade. 



> You keep hassling me about it



When it is Muslims being critiqued it is good, when it is you that is bad?



> when clearly you don't hold yourself up to that measure (refer above - racist Republicans).



That is more because you didn't really pay attention to what I actually said about Republicans. It is like you saying it means that I hate Christians when I say islamophobes exagerate the influence of Muslims in Western countries. Gross misrepresentation or gross misunderstanding.



> I'm saying I'm treating Islam in the same manner Christianity's History was held up to the spotlight and judged. So either you have an issue with me or you have an issue with what I say. If it is not with me, and you are being genuine in this debate, IMO that means you are defending Islam.



That is an interesting leap in logic right there. So, if I have an issue with what you say, it is not because I find what you say to be innaccurate and I like conversations to use accurate facts? It is because I defend Islam? So, if you say Iran killed a million Jews in 1999 because the Qoran demanded it to herald the new millenium, and I say that wasn't true, I'd be defending Islam, not pointing out a frabrication? Interesting logic indeed.



> I think your position on where you stand in this thread makes it pretty clear.



That islamophobes exagerate the influence of Islam in Western countries? It is pretty clear. And it is pretty clear that you haven't given any solid arguments to refute that. 



> Well this has been answered by others.



Well, no.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> You counter that it is not a sign of influence? Okay to each their own




I'm saying that if you believe that making and distributing Christian films are signs of Christian influence in the US, than it should apply to Muslim films too. Shouldn't your logic apply to all?

Are their a lot of Muslims films being made in the US, compared to Christian films? What about their respective revenues?


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> More as a matter of fact. To say that all Muslim countries act like Saudi Arabia is just proof of ignorance, just like saying all Muslims approve of the death the penalty for apostacy.




I appreciate the enthusiasm you display here, but I did not say all Muslim countries act like Saudi Arabia OR that all Muslims approve of the death penalty for apostacy. What I did say was: 

[QUOTE = Sadras] (snip)....I don't believe Hinduism, Taoism, Christianity, Shintuism or Buddhism speak about apostacy in the same manner that Islam does.[/QUOTE] 




> A nice personal crusade.




Thank you, I think so too. 



> When it is Muslims being critiqued it is good, when it is you that is bad?




Nope.



> That is more because you didn't really pay attention to what I actually said



 Pot. Kettle. Black (refer above)



> about Republicans.






> It is like you saying it means that I hate Christians when I say islamophobes exagerate the influence of Muslims in Western countries. Gross misrepresentation or gross misunderstanding.




No, now you are mixing issues again. And if you read my initial post again maybe things might become clearer. I said it is fine in the USA where the numbers are trivial but when they become significant then it is only human nature for this phobia to grow. You might want to ask the Arabs of Palestine how they felt when the Jews started settling in now, Israel. 



> That is an interesting leap in logic right there. So, if I have an issue with what you say, it is not because I find what you say to be innaccurate and I like conversations to use accurate facts? It is because I defend Islam? So, if you say Iran killed a million Jews in 1999 because the Qoran demanded it to herald the new millenium, and I say that wasn't true, I'd be defending Islam, not pointing out a frabrication? Interesting logic indeed.




You mentioned I was generalising about said Muslim world but then never provided any information that I was inaccurate after several posts. Christianity has through various religious figureheads like the Pope and other religious leaders spoken about its wrongdoings and apologised. That is a fact! In fact the Pope even apologised to the Christian Orthodox Church for the Schism. Please can you point me to a large body of the Islam world that has accepted the Armenian Plight, The Copts of Egypt, The Zoroastrians Persecution, The atrocities in the Hindu Kush valley....



> That islamophobes exagerate the influence of Islam in Western countries? It is pretty clear. And it is pretty clear that you haven't given any solid arguments to refute that.




One could have easily laughed at the Palestinian 'Jewophobes' in 1935-1945 in Palestine, saying that their fears were irrational. Hindsight. 

Do you think that entire European Governments exaggerate the influence of Islam in their countries by altering the immigration policies? You do know it is really in an attempt to preserve their culture and heritage. Perhaps that is not a solid argument for people across the Atlantic. I can understand that point of view, since I too live in a mixed salad country - but that doesn't mean the fear is completely irrational.


----------



## Ryujin

Sadras said:


> You mentioned I was generalising about said Muslim world but then never provided any information that I was inaccurate after several posts. Christianity has through various religious figureheads like the Pope and other religious leaders spoken about its wrongdoings and apologised. That is a fact! In fact the Pope even apologised to the Christian Orthodox Church for Schism. Please can you point me to a large body of Islam world that has accepted the Armenian Plight, The Copts of Egypt, The Zoroastrians Persecution, The atrocities in the Hindu Kush valley....




In Islam there really is no single leader of a sect, so there is no one to speak in such a way. I have, however, heard various individual Imams, speak on such matters.


----------



## Sadras

Ryujin said:


> In Islam there really is no single leader of a sect, so there is no one to speak in such a way. I have, however, heard various individual Imams, speak on such matters.




I am very much aware of that, but having a few Imams talk instead of an entire muslim body expressing about the plight of a people or culture is just not good enough for me. When they want to or need to, Muslims ban together and make a fuss about something. Let us not forget Muslims have various religious governing bodies and societies within countries.


----------



## Ryujin

Sadras said:


> I am very much aware of that, but having a few Imams talk instead of an entire muslim body expressing about the plight of a people or culture is just not good enough for me. When they want to or need to, Muslims ban together and make a fuss about something. Let us not forget Muslims have various religious governing bodies and societies within countries.




As I said, there isn't really an "entire Muslim body" to speak in such a way. You have a few organizations, like the Muslim Canadian Congress, who speak but they are tiny by comparison to something like The Roman Catholic Church  or The Church of England.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ryujin said:


> As I said, there isn't really an "entire Muslim body" to speak in such a way. You have a few organizations, like the Muslim Canadian Congress, who speak but they are tiny by comparison to something like The Roman Catholic Church  or The Church of England.




...or the Methodists, or the Southern Baptist Convention...or Westboro Baptist Church.

Simple fact is, even when you have billions of people under one umbrella, it will be difficult to get one unified voice on any issue.

Believe me: if you think you've seen "all Muslims" react to something, you haven't.  Remember the videos of Muslims reacting with joy to the events of 9/11?  Many people think that this was representative of the entire Islamic world.  In reality, even though there may have been some celebrations, those images came only from a part of Pakistan.  The public reactions of the rest of the Islamic world- even those of dictators and known terrorists*- were far more sympathetic:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_September_11_attacks#Islamic_world









* Yassir Arafat was _visibly_ shaken and pale, for instance.


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...or the Methodists, or the Southern Baptist Convention...or Westboro Baptist Church.
> 
> Simple fact is, even when you have billions of people under one umbrella, it will be difficult to get one unified voice on any issue.
> 
> Believe me: if you think you've seen "all Muslims" react to something, you haven't.  Remember the videos of Muslims reacting with joy to the events of 9/11?  Many people think that this was representative of the entire Islamic world.  In reality, even though there may have been some celebrations, those images came only from a part of Pakistan.  The public reactions of the rest of the Islamic world- even those of dictators and known terrorists*- were far more sympathetic:
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_September_11_attacks#Islamic_world
> 
> * Yassir Arafat was _visibly_ shaken and pale, for instance.




Yup, and even relatively large groups within the catch-alls like Islam and Christianity are only a fraction of the whole. Do we take what a few Wahabi extremists say as representative of the entire swath of Islam? No more so than we accept what the Westboro Baptist Church says when picketing military funerals as representative of all Christians.

Such leaders are quite aware of what could happen to their little corner of the world if America's military might takes notice of them and doesn't like what it sees.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> I appreciate the enthusiasm you display here, but I did not say all Muslim countries act like Saudi Arabia OR that all Muslims approve of the death penalty for apostacy. What I did say was:
> 
> [QUOTE = Sadras] (snip)....I don't believe Hinduism, Taoism, Christianity, Shintuism or Buddhism speak about apostacy in the same manner that Islam does.



 [/quote]Yes, I know, but when I say that you're lumping Islam into one homogenous body, it is because you present things as if Islam, thus Muslims, thinks the same about apostacy. If you agree there are many Islams, why talk as if their is one view of apostacy? 

I'm willing to bet that the standard for apostacy you use is Saudi Arabia. Certainly not Albania, because if Albania was used, apostacy wouldn't be a problem for Islam, right? 



> Thank you, I think so too.



Went right over your head.



> Nope.



And yet you critic me for critiquing you, right after you say critiquing the Muslim world is your personal mission. Double standards, as you put yourself above critics while critic others.



> Pot. Kettle. Black (refer above)



Ok, so show me again where I say I'm against Christianity? 



> No, now you are mixing issues again. And if you read my initial post again maybe things might become clearer. I said it is fine in the USA where the numbers are trivial but when they become significant then it is only human nature for this phobia to grow.



And it moved past that a while back, when you had to prove Muslims were bad. 

This is what I answered to your position on fear of immigrants when they grow to big: 







> Fearing what you discribed is islamophobia by definition. No Western country is facing that scenario. It isn't a rational fear. Yet it is the fear behind many critics of Islam in the Western world.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...vs-Persecuted-Christians/page22#ixzz3oSNi5GW2




You didn't refute, but then try to make it about Muslims refugees in Europe and how it was rational to fear them. 







> LOL. True USA and Canada are far from the mess they caused in the middle-east and with the Arab Spring. Europe is bearing all the brunt. I wonder if their fear is deemed rational or don't you consider Europe as Western?
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...vs-Persecuted-Christians/page22#ixzz3oSNzVDZ6




So then I countered by saying it wasn't rational with this: 







> You think the tide of refugees is problematic for Europe because it is mostly composed Muslims? If that is the case, I'd say that is an irrational fear of Islam right there. The refugee crisis would still be problematic if it was composed of Buddhists or Hindus.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...vs-Persecuted-Christians/page22#ixzz3oSOEPmpS




And you agreed: 







> Agree,




But you had to make the debate about something else, cause it is very important for you that we should fear Muslims or that they are bad, so out of nowhere comes apostacy. 







> but I don't believe Hinduism, Taoism, Christianity, Shintuism or Buddhism speak about apostacy in the same manner that Islam does.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...vs-Persecuted-Christians/page23#ixzz3oSOLVFVR



 So if we moved past your initial comment about fear of immigrants, it is because you moved away from it. 



> You might want to ask the Arabs of Palestine how they felt when the Jews started settling in now, Israel.



Do you consider that Western countries are being colonized by Muslims?



> You mentioned I was generalising about said Muslim world but then never provided any information that I was inaccurate after several posts.



I need to prove that Muslims countries apply Islamic principales differently and that their are differences in interpretation of the Qur'an depending on which branch of Islam we are talking about? Really?



> Christianity has through various religious figureheads like the Pope and other religious leaders spoken about its wrongdoings and apologised. That is a fact! In fact the Pope even apologised to the Christian Orthodox Church for the Schism.
> Please can you point me to a large body of the Islam world that has accepted the Armenian Plight, The Copts of Egypt, The Zoroastrians Persecution, The atrocities in the Hindu Kush valley....



As [MENTION=27897]Ryujin[/MENTION] said, there are lots of Imams and Muslims who spoke on such matters. But as you said to him, there aren't enough for you. There will never be enough for you. 



> One could have easily laughed at the Palestinian 'Jewophobes' in 1935-1945 in Palestine, saying that their fears were irrational. Hindsight.



So, if you compare Europe to Palestine, is it because you believe Muslims are organized in the colonisation of Europe, like Jews were organized in the colonization of Palestine?



> Do you think that entire European Governments exaggerate the influence of Islam in their countries by altering the immigration policies? You do know it is really in an attempt to preserve their culture and heritage.



Unlike you, I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories. I'm not sure what is that "entire European Governments" you are talking about, but I do know that it is some politicians and political parties that exagerate the influence of Islam in Europe. Islamophobia pays. 

As for manipulating immigration policies to foster fear, that is rather colorful. What else was decided at ShadowCon?



> Perhaps that is not a solid argument for people across the Atlantic.



Or rational people. 



> I can understand that point of view, since I too live in a mixed salad country - but that doesn't mean the fear is completely irrational.



So, if it is just a bit rational, that means you believe Muslims are taking over Europe just a bit, right?


----------



## Ryujin

For reference with respect to Muslims speaking out, I would reference the Muslim Canadian Congress.


----------



## Umbran

Ryujin said:


> In Islam there really is no single leader of a sect, so there is no one to speak in such a way. I have, however, heard various individual Imams, speak on such matters.




As an example, from National Public Radio just this morning:

"As the military response to the Islamic State heats up, an ideological front is opening against the group. They're using social media to explain why ISIS' interpretation of the Koran is wrong."

Listen to the entire piece here:

http://www.npr.org/2015/10/13/44818...media-to-counter-isis-interpretation-of-koran


----------



## Ryujin

Umbran said:


> As an example, from National Public Radio just this morning:
> 
> "As the military response to the Islamic State heats up, an ideological front is opening against the group. They're using social media to explain why ISIS' interpretation of the Koran is wrong."
> 
> Listen to the entire piece here:
> 
> http://www.npr.org/2015/10/13/44818...media-to-counter-isis-interpretation-of-koran




You know the people who are lumping Muslims together don't listen to NPR


----------



## Sadras

double post


----------



## Sadras

@_*goldomark*_ sadly I had a full reply, but it got lost in the submission. I will answer back when I have time available.

But I will address one of your's and @_*Ryujin*_'s comments:



> As  @_*Ryujin*_ said, there are lots of Imams and Muslims who spoke on such matters. But as you said to him, there aren't enough for you. There will never be enough for you.




Very dramatic.



Ryujin said:


> You know the people who are lumping Muslims together don't listen to NPR




The Muslims of Turkey need to acknowledge the Armenian Persecution and make reparations. The Muslims of Egypt need to acknowledge the injustices against the Copts and make reparations. The Muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh need to acknowledge their atrocities against the Hindu and Shieks and make reparations...list goes on, including the 200 or so girls that were kidnapped in Nigeria. At least the memes with the ridiculous Michelle Obama were funny.

This is very much similar to how South Africa acknowledged the atrocities under the Apartheid Regime, established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and began making reparations, as in post Nazi Germany...etc.

Feel free to keep on enjoying your handful of Imams on radio, youtube and Mosque while the atrocities continue. 

I felt inspired again so I answered a few more for you @_*goldomark*_



> So, if you compare Europe to Palestine, is it because you believe Muslims are organized in the colonisation of Europe, like Jews were organized in the colonization of Palestine? ....(snip)....So, if it is just a bit rational, that means you believe Muslims are taking over Europe just a bit, right?




It is documented that not all Jews were Zionist, yet Zionism succeeded and now we have Israel, as of course not all Muslims actively pursue the colonization of Europe where as others wish to establish an Islamic Caliphate.

What is known is that far more Muslims are emigrating to Europe than Europeans leaving for the Middle East. 



> Unlike you, I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories.




Okay



> I'm not sure what is that "entire European Governments" you are talking about.... (snip)




European Union Ministers of Justice, Ministers of Interior and Foreign Affairs  have approved a creation in Africa and Middle East of special camps for immigrants who inundated Europe. The decision was taken in Luxemburg after the “revolt” of Eastern European countries; Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Latvia declined to comply with imposed by Brussels  66,000 persons´ quotas on immigrants, qualifying them as “illegal”. Prague threatened to start a law suit in the European Court, Hungary on Tuesday closed its border with Serbia and approved a law which punishes illegal border crossing with jail or deportation. Berlin was sharply criticized for its unilateral decision of opening Germany´s borders to immigrants, and Germany´s neighbors: Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Croatia, and Slovenia  unilaterally closed borders with Germany.



> As for manipulating immigration policies to foster fear, that is rather colorful.




I don't believe I insinuated that.



> What else was decided at ShadowCon?




The details may not yet be made available to the public.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> The Muslims of Turkey need to acknowledge the Armenian Persecution and make reparations. The Muslims of Egypt need to acknowledge the injustices against the Copts and make reparations. The Muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh need to acknowledge their atrocities against the Hindu and Shieks and make reparations...list goes on, including the 200 or so girls that were kidnapped in Nigeria. At least the memes with the ridiculous Michelle Obama were funny.
> 
> This is very much similar to how South Africa acknowledged the atrocities under the Apartheid Regime, established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and began making reparations, as in post Nazi Germany...etc.
> 
> Feel free to keep on enjoying your handful of Imams on radio, youtube and Mosque while the atrocities continue.




There is not a nation over 100 years old nor major faith on the face of the earth without blood on their hands, and most don't care to mention them.  Apologies have been rare, and reparations rarer still.


----------



## Sadras

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There is not a nation over 100 years old nor major faith on the face of the earth without blood on their hands, and most don't care to mention them.  Apologies have been rare, and reparations rarer still.




True, but this misconception and line of propaganda that this religion's history is and has always been a religion of peace needs to be corrected. As I said upthread, the religion is 1200-1400 years of age - and we all know about Christianity's history at that age.


----------



## Ryujin

Sadras said:


> The Muslims of Turkey need to acknowledge the Armenian Persecution and make reparations. The Muslims of Egypt need to acknowledge the injustices against the Copts and make reparations. The Muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh need to acknowledge their atrocities against the Hindu and Shieks and make reparations...list goes on, including the 200 or so girls that were kidnapped in Nigeria. At least the memes with the ridiculous Michelle Obama were funny.
> 
> This is very much similar to how South Africa acknowledged the atrocities under the Apartheid Regime, established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and began making reparations, as in post Nazi Germany...etc.
> 
> Feel free to keep on enjoying your handful of Imams on radio, youtube and Mosque while the atrocities continue.




A ten second search turned this up.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/turkis...condolences-to-armenians-for-genocide/5379069


----------



## Sadras

Ryujin said:


> A ten second search turned this up.
> 
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/turkis...condolences-to-armenians-for-genocide/5379069





I admit this is a major first step for Turkey. Interestingly that article (and it's link) paints Turkey and USA in a much worse light - given Obama/USA's treatment of the entire affair and the Syrian scandal which occurred a month before.

Wiki does mention the below quote re the same Prime Minister 



> In 2007, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan issued a circular that calls the government institutions to use the phrase "Events of 1915" (in Turkish, 1915 Olayları) instead of the phrase "so-called Armenian genocide" (in Turkish, sözde Ermeni soykırımı).




It doesn't appear that Turkey has not yet recognised it as a Genocide. It is like saying Germany killed a few Jews in the war along with some Homosexuals, Christians and Romani and we are sorry but we need to forgive and forget the past and not hold grudges and move forward. That is as per your link "a repackaging" of the events.
That is not an acceptance of a Genocide - that is political pandering to the EU. Turkey is still very much a Genocide Denier (and we all know what the worldview is on Holocaust Deniers) and sadly Turkey has USA's backing.

These links might further help illuminate the matter.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...dismisses-european-armenia-genocide-vote.html

http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...an-genocide-undermines-national-identity.html


----------



## Ryujin

Sadras said:


> I admit this is a major first step for Turkey. Interestingly that article (and it's link) paints Turkey and USA in a much worse light - given Obama/USA's treatment of the entire affair and the Syrian scandal which occurred a month before.
> 
> Wiki does mention the below quote re the same Prime Minister
> 
> It doesn't appear that Turkey has yet recognised it as a Genocide. It is like saying Germany killed a few Jews in the war along with some Homosexuals, Christians and Romani and we are sorry but we need to forgive and forget the past and not hold grudges and move forward. That is as per your link "a repackaging" of the events.
> That is not an acceptance of a Genocide - that is political pandering to the EU. Turkey is still very much a Genocide Denier (and we all know what the worldview is on Holocaust Deniers) and sadly Turkey has USA's backing.
> 
> These links might further help illuminate the matter.
> http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...dismisses-european-armenia-genocide-vote.html
> 
> http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...an-genocide-undermines-national-identity.html




Well, technically speaking asking the current government of Turkey to apologize for the Armenian Genocide is sort of like asking the former Soviet Union to apologize to families of people executed by the Romanov dynasty. The Sultanate was abolished and replaced by a republic in 1922. Admittedly there is precedent for such and yes, there must at the very least be a full admission of events, but there is a disconnect. In Germany, people elected a government that performed the genocide. The Ottoman Empire was essentially a Caliphate.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> Very dramatic.



*Sound of omnious organ music in the background*



> It is documented that not all Jews were Zionist, yet Zionism succeeded and now we have Israel, as of course not all Muslims actively pursue the colonization of Europe where as others wish to establish an Islamic Caliphate.



Who are those Muslims who actively persue the colonization of Europe? Any organization similar to the WZO out there? What is the percentage of refugees and migrants that are there to colonize Europe?



> What is known is that far more Muslims are emigrating to Europe than Europeans leaving for the Middle East.



I love this sort of argument. Its a "I don't mean to imply anything, even if I imply something" type of argument. 

I'm reminded me of the Yellow Peril fears of the nineteen century. 



> European Union Ministers of Justice, Ministers of Interior and Foreign Affairs  have approved a creation in Africa and Middle East of special camps for immigrants who inundated Europe. The decision was taken in Luxemburg after the “revolt” of Eastern European countries; Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Latvia declined to comply with imposed by Brussels  66,000 persons´ quotas on immigrants, qualifying them as “illegal”. Prague threatened to start a law suit in the European Court, Hungary on Tuesday closed its border with Serbia and approved a law which punishes illegal border crossing with jail or deportation. Berlin was sharply criticized for its unilateral decision of opening Germany´s borders to immigrants, and Germany´s neighbors: Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Croatia, and Slovenia  unilaterally closed borders with Germany.



So, if Eastern European countries have revolted, it isn't the _entire_ European governements, as you said, right? And this doesn't demonstrate that it isn't politicians betting on the islamophobia or plain old xenophobia of some of their voters to score points.



> I don't believe I insinuated that.



Yup: 







> Do you think that entire European Governments exaggerate the influence of Islam in their countries by altering the immigration policies? You do know it is really in an attempt to preserve their culture and heritage.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...vs-Persecuted-Christians/page26#ixzz3oXJhjyqZ



You say its "an attempt to preserve their culture and heritage". Seems like you're saying the manipulation of immigration policies is done to scare Europeans so they would approve of protective mesures.


----------



## Ryujin

There's far more immigration to North America from China than there is emigration from North America to China. Careful now! It looks like the Buddists are colonizing Canada!


----------



## Sadras

Ryujin said:


> Well, technically speaking asking the current government of Turkey to apologize for the Armenian Genocide is sort of like asking the former Soviet Union to apologize to families of people executed by the Romanov dynasty. The Sultanate was abolished and replaced by a republic in 1922. Admittedly there is precedent for such and yes, there must at the very least be a full admission of events, but there is a disconnect. In Germany, people elected a government that performed the genocide. The Ottoman Empire was essentially a Caliphate.




Yes BUT, they don't even acknowledge it as a Genocide nevermind apologise or make reparations. Very much a white-washing of Islamic history.


----------



## Ryujin

Sadras said:


> Yes BUT, they don't even acknowledge it as a Genocide nevermind apologise or make reparations. Very much a white-washing of Islamic history.




Yes, that would be why I very specifically stated, "...there must at the very least be a full admission of events." 

"Islamic history", or "history"? I would say the latter. After all, do we refer to the systemic subjugation of Jews in Europe as "Christian History", or just "history"? This isn't hair splitting but rather pointing out a specific inequity in phrasing, that is aimed at supporting a premise.


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> *Sound of omnious organ music in the background*




Organ music is always fun.



> Who are those Muslims who actively persue the colonization of Europe?




They're probably all related to the same 19 muslims that flew the planes into the WTC buildings and Pentagon. Careful now, if you don't believe the official story you become a conspiracy theorist.



> Any organization similar to the WZO out there?




Not that I'm aware of. 



> What is the percentage of refugees and migrants that are there to colonize Europe?




Well like the USA government's intelligence prior  9-11, I have no knowledge of it.



> So, if Eastern European countries have revolted, it isn't the _entire_ European governements, as you said, right?




What is your definition of entire European Governments? I didn't state the EU. The government of Hungary, Austria...etc



> And this doesn't demonstrate that it isn't politicians betting on the islamophobia or plain old xenophobia of some of their voters to score points.




You are welcome to that opinion, but I do believe there are people in power who genuinely push a policy to protect their culture and heritage.  



> Yup: You say its "an attempt to preserve their culture and heritage". Seems like you're saying the manipulation of immigration policies is done to scare Europeans so they would approve of protective mesures.




No it doesn't. Let me try this another way.
Governments of Western Countries, identify the changes that an influx of a muslim population might bring about in their country, and therefore change immigration policies.


----------



## Umbran

Sadras said:


> Yes BUT, they don't even acknowledge it as a Genocide nevermind apologise or make reparations. Very much a white-washing of Islamic history.




Yes, well, give them time.

It sometimes takes the Catholic Church *hundreds of years* to apologize for some of their wrongdoings.  Pope John Paul II only got around to admitting the church was wrong and apologized to Galileo in 1992.  He also apologized....

for Catholic Involvement in the African slave trade in 1993.

for the religious wars and burning people at the stake after the Protestant Reformation in 1995

for the 1204 Crusader attack and sacking of Constantinople, the apology came in 2001 - 800 years after the fact.

And this was all John Paul II.  It took an exceptional man to make this happen.  

It isn't like apologies are ever timely.


----------



## Kramodlog

And Buddhism isn't a religion of peace! Just look at what they are doing to the Muslims of Myanmar and Sri Lanka! http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/03/opinion/sri-lankas-violent-buddhists.html?_r=0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...he-rohingya-migrant-crisis-in-southeast-asia/

When will de Dalai Lama apologize!?


----------



## Sadras

Ryujin said:


> Yes, that would be why I very specifically stated, "...there must at the very least be a full admission of events."




Right, I missed that line.



> "Islamic history", or "history"? I would say the latter. After all, do we refer to the systemic subjugation of Jews in Europe as "Christian History", or just "history"? This isn't hair splitting but rather pointing out a specific inequity in phrasing, that is aimed at supporting a premise.




Islamic. I'm referring to situations where Islam played (in some still plays) a major role in the policies utilised and actions of the government or people at the time against Non-Muslims. I know they have their own in-fighting but I was not addressing that part of the discussion with regards to Islamophobia with @_*goldomark*_.


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> And Buddhism isn't a religion of peace! Just look at what they are doing to the Muslims of Myanmar and Sri Lanka! http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/03/opinion/sri-lankas-violent-buddhists.html?_r=0
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...he-rohingya-migrant-crisis-in-southeast-asia/
> 
> When will de Dalai Lama apologize!?




Wow, you will stretch and pick at anything to argue with me. I'm flattered. LOL. Where did you get so many straws from?

The only reference I made to Buddhism, and it was only after you brought it up, was that it didn't have the same views on apostacy as Islam does. I made no personal assumption on whether it is a religion of peace, or how I felt about what happened to the muslims of Myanmar and Sri Lanka. And didn't even mention the Dalai Lama.
However all these kind of actions do not surprise me, and neither should they anyone, as the number of muslims begin to increases in the areas where Islam is a minority. What we are witnessing is human nature.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> Organ music is always fun.



This is why I ask cute women to play with my organ.



> They're probably all related to the same 19 muslims that flew the planes into the WTC buildings and Pentagon. Careful now, if you don't believe the official story you become a conspiracy theorist.



So, Al Qaeda is now an organisation that is trying to colonize Europe?



> Not that I'm aware of.



Not looking good for the organized colonization of Europe by Muslims. 



> Well like the USA government's intelligence prior  9-11, I have no knowledge of it.



So, your basing your statement on what you feel, fear in this instance, but not facts?



> What is your definition of entire European Governments?



That would mean all European governments, as the word "entire" would lead us to believe. 



> You are welcome to that opinion, but I do believe there are people in power who genuinely push a policy to protect their culture and heritage.



But that doesn't mean it is a rational policy.   



> Governments of Western Countries, identify the changes that an influx of a muslim population might bring about in their country, and therefore change immigration policies.



"Might". So, it doesn't mean it is happening or will. It is the fear of a possibility, of a slippery slope. Not something that is rational or factual. It is base on islamophobia.

The Guardian as an interesting article and poll about people's perception of Muslims and Christians in their countries. Bascially, people overestimate the number of Muslims in their country (not a stretch to think they exagerate influence too) and underestimate the number of Christians. Interesting read.  http://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...bably-wrong-about-almost-everything?CMP=fb_gu


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> Wow, you will stretch and pick at anything to argue with me. I'm flattered. LOL. Where did you get so many straws from?




It isn't always about you, princess. It was a response to [MENTION=27897]Ryujin[/MENTION]'s post. http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...tians/page27&p=6730733&viewfull=1#post6730733


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> It isn't always about you, princess.




Keep it respectful, please.  Not a moderator command, just a personal request.


----------



## Sadras

Umbran said:


> Yes, well, give them time...(snip)...It isn't like apologies are ever timely.




All true. My initial post was that a lack of acknowledgement by the responsible Islamic world can give rise to Islamophobia.


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> Its not always about you, princess




What good is it to be princess if I get no love. Empty title.


----------



## Ryujin

Sadras said:


> Right, I missed that line.
> 
> Islamic. I'm referring to situations where Islam played (in some still plays) a major role in the policies utilised and actions of the government or people at the time against Non-Muslims. I know they have their own in-fighting but I was not addressing that part of the discussion with regards to Islamophobia with @_*goldomark*_.




I would disagree, based on my example to which you responded. The reasons for the persecution of Jews, in Medieval Europe, were also based in religion and yet we do not refer to that as Christian. That's basic inequity of reporting. It's not done because that's essentially the majority of us and we don't want to recognize, nor apologize for, the actions of our fore-bearers. Such a simple admission. So hard to make.


----------



## Ryujin

Sadras said:


> What good is it to be princess if I get no love. Empty title.




One free pink unicorn with every princess title.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Sadras said:


> True, but this misconception and line of propaganda that this religion's history is and has always been a religion of peace needs to be corrected. As I said upthread, the religion is 1200-1400 years of age - and we all know about Christianity's history at that age.



A religion professor once pointed out to me that every world religion over 800 years old goes through a period of zealotry and militaristic expansion, sometimes by people hijacking the faith, sometimes backed by holy writ.

The Bible has several Genocides, for instance.  In one, God tells the Israelites to kill everyone, man, woman and child, even though- similarly to the story of Sodom & Gomorrah- they plead for mercy for their foes, because God has already been patient with those to be slaughtered, and they did not listen.  In Deuteronomy 20, we find this:



> 16 But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, 17 but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded, 18 that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you in against the Lord your God.




Think about that.  In the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah, God has already shown that He is perfectly capable of leveling cities without aid.  So why does He need Israelites to commit genocide in His name, getting their hands all bloody?  He could have done the deed himself and said "I have opened unto you a new land for your people." or the like.  

Occam's Razor suggests that sections of the Bible like this were not transcriptions of God's word, but rather, were written by those seeking to justify their actions with a veneer of religious legitimacy.

So right there, both Christianity and Judaism lose the right to claim that they have "always" been religions of peace. And that's before we get to things like The Spanish Inquisition, certain Crusades,  support of slavery and- mostly for Protestants- the KKK.

Hinduism has a history of atrocities against Dalits & Buddhists, plus ongoing endorsements of certain human rights violations.

Buddhists, in turn, have a history of attacking Christians & churches in Sri Lanka and Muslims & mosques in Burma.

Mormons don't like to talk about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but it happened.  As did calls for slaughtering Missourians, attempted assassinations of certain political officials, killings of ex-Mormons to redeem them and the like.  All this despite being a relatively young faith.

NOBODY gets to take the high ground.


----------



## Kramodlog

Dannyalcatraz said:


> NOBODY gets to take the high ground.




When it comes to Islam, I think there is also a problem that it is seen as more dangerous than other religions. It is not just a question of refusing to apologize for past crimes.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

goldomark said:


> When it comes to Islam, I think there is also a problem that it is seen as more dangerous than other religions. It is not just a question of refusing to apologize for past crimes.




I think a large part of _that_ has to do with the modern 24 hour news cycle.  It isn't as if the Islamic world & the Judeo-Christian world haven't been at loggerheads for centuries, after all.

Prior to the rise of televised mass media and its eventual shift to an instantaneous reportage model bolstered by the ubiquity of the amateur reporters & their cell phone cameras, news of evil done in each (well, any) faith's name took time.  Some stuff simply never got reported.  Couple that with amateurs not having the professional's journalistic ethical framework driving (but admittedly not forcing) them to provide neutral and full context for what is reported...


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I think a large part of _that_ has to do with the modern 24 hour news cycle.  It isn't as if the Islamic world & the Judeo-Christian world haven't been at loggerheads for centuries, after all.
> 
> Prior to the rise of televised mass media and its eventual shift to an instantaneous reportage model bolstered by the ubiquity of the amateur reporters & their cell phone cameras, news of evil done in each (well, any) faith's name took time.  Some stuff simply never got reported.  Couple that with amateurs not having the professional's journalistic ethical framework driving (but admittedly not forcing) them to provide neutral and full context for what is reported...




The 3 hour news repeat cycle, fostered by cable network news (generic, as opposed to just CNN), has done much to erode the journalistic ethic. We now have supposed news sources, what I now prefer to refer to as 'media outlets', taking blogger posts as Gospel and running with them, on national broadcasts.


----------



## Janx

goldomark said:


> When it comes to Islam, I think there is also a problem that it is seen as more dangerous than other religions. It is not just a question of refusing to apologize for past crimes.




One of the complications we have in our PC world is that we got folks insisting something's bad, and folks insisting that everything's good.

What if a religion really is bad software?

What if the "it's all good" crowd are giving the bad software a leg up by not recognizing the wolf in the flock?

I'm sure every religion has bad sections in their book.  And every religious group has done bad stuff.

But most religions I can burn a copy of their holy book and not have a mass riot in other countries happen.  Anybody who thinks the rules of their religion applies to everybody has bad software.


----------



## Kramodlog

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I think a large part of _that_ has to do with the modern 24 hour news cycle.  It isn't as if the Islamic world & the Judeo-Christian world haven't been at loggerheads for centuries, after all.
> 
> Prior to the rise of televised mass media and its eventual shift to an instantaneous reportage model bolstered by the ubiquity of the amateur reporters & their cell phone cameras, news of evil done in each (well, any) faith's name took time.  Some stuff simply never got reported.  Couple that with amateurs not having the professional's journalistic ethical framework driving (but admittedly not forcing) them to provide neutral and full context for what is reported...




I agree. The catalyst was 9/11, after that Islam was under the distorting lens of continious news. In the past it was the Red Scare and the aforementioned Yellow Peril (that as has evolved into "China will surpass the US!!1!"). Now its Muslims.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Janx said:


> I'm sure every religion has bad sections in their book.  And every religious group has done bad stuff.
> 
> But most religions I can burn a copy of their holy book and not have a mass riot in other countries happen.  Anybody who thinks the rules of their religion applies to everybody has bad software.



True, but again, if you look at the Islamic world's reactions to Koran burning, media coverage implications to the contrary, you won't find the riots to be 1) spontaneous or 2) widespread.  Those actions are usually sponsored by anti-American nations or radicalized imams, and are representative of only a minority of the populace as a whole.  Sure, there were demonstrations in Iran, but what about the Muslim populations in the Far East?  Or Canada?  Eastern Europe?

...and just try burning a Bible- or American Flag- in the southern USA. Screw "riots in other countries", you may have to run for cover yourself.


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> True, but again, if you look at the Islamic world's reactions to Koran burning, media coverage implications to the contrary, you won't find the riots to be 1) spontaneous or 2) widespread.  Those actions are usually sponsored by anti-American nations or radicalized imams, and are representative of only a minority of the populace as a whole.  Sure, there were demonstrations in Iran, but what about the Muslim populations in the Far East?  Or Canada?  Eastern Europe?
> 
> ...and just try burning a Bible- or American Flag- in the southern USA. Screw "riots in other countries", you may have to run for cover yourself.




As a photographer I've had to make sparsely attended charity events look like the Poll Tax Riots in scope. It's difficult, but can be done. As a result I'm frequently (though not always) skeptical of 'riot' footage.


----------



## Kramodlog

Janx said:


> One of the complications we have in our PC world is that we got folks insisting something's bad, and folks insisting that everything's good.



I think this is again due to 24h news. The idea that everything must be balanced means you need two side of a coin. Vaccines cause autism? Two people with different discourses are there to comment. Global warming? Dichotomous talking heads again. Mosque near Ground Zero? Dichotomy. ISIS? Dichotomy. And two views clashing makes for good ratings, so there is a financial incentive for the status quo. 

Of course, getting rid of that ethical obligation might lead to an echo chamber where you just hear what you like. Facebook, in other words. Not desirable either. What is the solution then?



> What if a religion really is bad software?



What if the problem are religions and not just one religion? What are they if not creation myths and superstition? Why should religious superstitions be considered anymore more acceptable than believing that Friday the 13th means bad luck, souls come from space, Earth is flat, Santa Claus is real and the Moon landind is an hoax?

There is some good in religions? Sure, no contest. But there is lots of bad. 

Islam can lead to bad stuff? Sure, but so does any other religion. Why discriminate some irrational beliefs and not others? Can we really mesure how 1.5 billion people as less rational than 1 billion? Why not discriminate against all irrationality? 

Remove religions from schools. Education is a public matter, not a private matter. It takes a village to raise a child, not a Bible or a Qor'an. Private schools? Get rid of those schools, religious or not. Kids aren't the property of their parents. They are individuals who aren't fully autonomous and are uninformed. They need to get proper information to be able to make decisions for themselves when they are older. Religious schools only teach creation myths and superstitions. This is not what would-be adults need.  

Let kids chose when they are 18. Or maybe 16, I don't know. Before that, no religion on the public dime. No genital mutilation to sign a contract with the Genocidal One. No teaching of Nessi. 



> But most religions I can burn a copy of their holy book and not have a mass riot in other countries happen.



Today. With the burning happing in civilisations that let secularism grow and express itself while theocracies exist parallel to them. Blasphamy was serious business not too long ago in Western countries. Not all countries have changed this way. 

I say this to argue that Islam's problem is not about the content of the Qor'an, but about who, when and where the content is used. 



> Anybody who thinks the rules of their religion applies to everybody has bad software.



Is it a problem linked to religions or how religions are easy to instrumentalize?


----------



## Sadras

Getting back to some questions you had that I never had time for...



goldomark said:


> I'm saying that if you believe that making and distributing Christian films are signs of Christian influence in the US, than it should apply to Muslim films too. Shouldn't your logic apply to all?




The only reason I brought up Christian movies within the US, is to reflect that, from my perspective, Christianity does not seem to have the level of influence within US as sometimes people on the net like to insinuate. 



goldomark said:


> Yes, I know, but when I say that you're lumping Islam into one homogenous body, it is because you present things as if Islam, thus Muslims, thinks the same about apostacy. If you agree there are many Islams, why talk as if their is one view of apostacy? I'm willing to bet that the standard for apostacy you use is Saudi Arabia. Certainly not Albania, because if Albania was used, apostacy wouldn't be a problem for Islam, right?




I specifically never mentioned details re the apostacy. My original post only mentions that Islam has a different view to apostacy compared to other faiths.



> And yet you critic me for critiquing you, right after you say critiquing the Muslim world is your personal mission. Double standards, as you put yourself above critics while critic others.




We have somehow covered this, but just to clarify - I mentioned a number of factors in which I (personal opinion) find Islamophobia justifiable. Critiquing the Muslim world is not my personal mission, however correcting a white-washing of history is. Just like I have challenged or critiqued Christianity, I so do with other religions - we just happened to land on Islam in these last few pages.



> But you had to make the debate about something else, cause it is very important for you that we should fear Muslims or that they are bad




Europe has come along way having battled sexism, gender preference, strict religiosity, limitation on freedom/speech, communism...etc - so when large masses of immigrants flood into their countries with a different culture, mindset and ideology it is only natural for a people to develop a fear or mistrust against them. You further need to appreciate that these are homelands of cultures and heritages - and there is a real sense to defend that. It isn't the salad-societies of South Africa, USA, Canada and Australia.



> so out of nowhere comes apostacy.




It is not, in my view, out of nowhere. You must respect freedom of choice/thought. Liberation of the mind. The line Islam takes on apostacy reflects against that. Secret apostastes, I imagine, are very much like closet gays - fearing the shame, judgement and perhaps disownment by their families/communities.   



goldomark said:


> This is why I ask cute women to play with my organ.




That right there is discrimination.



> So, Al Qaeda is now an organisation that is trying to colonize Europe?




No, I'm not an intelligence gathering agency is what I was getting at. Although that statement does sound bad. 



> Not looking good for the organized colonization of Europe by Muslims.




According to Shadowcon, it is suspected that muslims posses the ability to easily impregnate their female partners and thereby initiate human multiplication on a level superior to that of Atheists and Christians of Europe. It is this method, according to a top Shadow official that Europe will be subsumed into the Greater Caliphate. It is certainly an evolved approach, much like the evolution of conquering countries through finance as opposed to military might.    



> So, your basing your statement on what you feel, fear in this instance, but not facts?




Well it is a fact less Greeks and Italians are emigrating to Africa & the Middle East as opposed to the Middle Easterners and Africans emigrating to Greece and Italy.



> That would mean all European governments, as the word "entire" would lead us to believe




Entire European Governments does not necessarily equal the EU. In my mind it is synonymous with entire European Countries, which certainly does not equal the EU.   



> But that doesn't mean it is a rational policy.




Why? Do you personally not believe that culture, heritage and a certain way/style of life is worth defending?    



> "Might". So, it doesn't mean it is happening or will. It is the fear of a possibility, of a slippery slope. Not something that is rational or factual. It is base on islamophobia.




Prevention is better than a cure. Human nature. 



Ryujin said:


> I would disagree, based on my example to which you responded. The reasons for the persecution of Jews, in Medieval Europe, were also based in religion and yet we do not refer to that as Christian. That's basic inequity of reporting. It's not done because that's essentially the majority of us and we don't want to recognize, nor apologize for, the actions of our fore-bearers. Such a simple admission. So hard to make.




For starters the inquisitions are collectively called the Christian Inquisitions and at the time it was supported by many of the higher  Church hierarchy. We will have to disagree on this issue.


----------



## Ryujin

Sadras said:


> For starters the inquisitions are collectively called the Christian Inquisitions and at the time it was supported by many of the higher  Church hierarchy. We will have to disagree on this issue.




The most commonly used expression is "The Spanish Inquisition", rather than "Christian Inquisition", but then again nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.


----------



## Sadras

Ryujin said:


> The most commonly used expression is "The Spanish Inquisition", rather than "Christian Inquisition", but then again nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.




Yes there were other Inquisitions though, the Spanish one is just the most famous. And you cannot deny that the Roman Catholic church did not have influence within the Spanish Inquisition. Therefore it falls within the History of Christianity.


----------



## Sadras

Dannyalcatraz said:


> A religion professor once pointed out to me that every world religion over 800 years old goes through a period of zealotry and militaristic expansion, sometimes by people hijacking the faith, sometimes backed by holy writ.




I'm not disputing, but I'm curious, where did the professor get this magical number of 800?



> NOBODY gets to take the high ground.




I'm not sure why this was addressed to me.


----------



## Ryujin

Sadras said:


> Yes there were other Inquisitions though, the Spanish one is just the most famous. And you cannot deny that the Roman Catholic church did not have influence within the Spanish Inquisition. Therefore it falls within the History of Christianity.




I denied nothing about The Church's involvement. If you look back and reread, you'll see that my claim is with respect to how the language used with respect to such incidents downplays the involvement of religion, while the language used to describe incidents involving Islamic nations or groups tends to do precisely the opposite.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Sadras said:


> I'm not disputing, but I'm curious, where did the professor get this magical number of 800?




As he stated, from his research, and I think he was making a few points with that observation.

First, it takes a while for a religion to gain enough legitimacy and/or political pull to accumulate sufficient adherents, landholdings and gear to commit atrocities of a historically observable scale* without getting eradicated in response.

Second, it takes a certain amount of time for the founders and first few generations to die out, leading to an opportunity for others to put their own spin on the faith's doctrines.

Taking the first two points into account, the third point is that, with the passing of time, certain adherents of the faith clamoring for the use of force to "right the wrongs" done to prior generations of the faith have the physical and political resources to do so. 

Fourth, and most germaine, that the term "religion of peace" is an almost meaningless phrase after a certain point because no long-lasting faith tradition has managed to remain free of humans making a literal bloody mess in the religion's name.



> I'm not sure why this was addressed to me.




Because it was part of our ongoing discussion about whether Islam's claim of being a "religion of peace", and you referred to this as "propaganda".

As I point out, nobody's faith is blameless.  And, while YOU may not have intended this, in the broader context of people calling out Islam as not being a "religion of peace" have often conveniently ignored their own faiths' violent histories.  If that was not your intent, apologies.  But it happens so routinely in reports of such commentary that I felt I had to make the point.





* small-scale slaughters might dissapear into mortality data covering war, brigandry, disease, etc., without being reliably attributable to the sect in question.


----------



## Sadras

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Fourth, and most germaine, that the term "religion of peace" is an almost meaningless phrase after a certain point because no long-lasting faith tradition has managed to remain free of humans making a literal bloody mess in the religion's name.




I like this.



> Because it was part of our ongoing discussion about whether Islam's claim of being a "religion of peace", and you referred to this as "propaganda". As I point out, nobody's faith is blameless.  And, while YOU may not have intended this, in the broader context of people calling out Islam as not being a "religion of peace" have often conveniently ignored their own faiths' violent histories.  If that was not your intent, apologies.  But it happens so routinely in reports of such commentary that I felt I had to make the point.




Cool. My critique of Christianity's history begins way before the 800 year mark. It actually deals with how just a few centuries after they received the Word they decide to become the oppressors (like the Romans were to them) - especially against the pagans of Greece and Rome. So just after the dawn of this peaceful religion, in its supposed honeymoon stage, as you said above, humans were 'making a literal bloody mess in the religion's name.' The foundations of this religion (very much like those of Islam) are built with the blood of the unbelievers. Not at all something to boast about. The difference is a large portion of the Christian world has apologised and acknowledged mistakes it has made in the past. What has the Islamic world* done? 

As Umbran said we have to give them more time - which goes to my point that they still fall in that dangerous period in their religion's timeline if we have to compare it to Christianity's history during the same timeline. Hence a reason for Islamophobia. 

With regards to critique on Christianity I haven't even touched the Iconoclast periods, the formation of the Bible...etc all still below the 800 year mark.

*Again when I mean the Islamic world - I mean the nations under the influence of Islam since they don't have a Pope or Patriarchs (like the Christian Orthodox Church) or any other official figurehead for their religion, that I know of.


----------



## Sadras

Ryujin said:


> I denied nothing about The Church's involvement. If you look back and reread, you'll see that my claim is with respect to how the language used with respect to such incidents downplays the involvement of religion, while the language used to describe incidents involving Islamic nations or groups tends to do precisely the opposite.




Ah sorry I completely misread your position. Well then getting back to your original question - you feel I should change my critique on Islamic History to be a critique on the specific country's History because we refer to the Spanish Inquisition and not the Christian Inquisition? Well I did mention that various governments (as they are part of the Islamic world) acknowledge their atrocities. All those governments were/are influence strongly by Islam so I'm not sure why you feel we should separate this History as somehow a separate to Islamic History. When Muslims persecute themselves en masse that is considered Islamic History, it is the same if they persecute non-Muslims en masse using religion as their vehicle or policy maker.


----------



## Ryujin

Sadras said:


> Ah sorry I completely misread your position. Well then getting back to your original question - you feel I should change my critique on Islamic History to be a critique on the specific country's History because we refer to the Spanish Inquisition and not the Christian Inquisition? Well I did mention that various governments (as they are part of the Islamic world) acknowledge their atrocities. All those governments were/are influence strongly by Islam so I'm not sure why you feel we should separate this History as somehow a separate to Islamic History. When Muslims persecute themselves en masse that is considered Islamic History, it is the same if they persecute non-Muslims en masse using religion as their vehicle or policy maker.




Yup, you missed it. Still do, apparently, as it's consistency that I want and it's impossible, because you are indicative of the larger issue.


----------



## Sadras

Ryujin said:


> Yup, you missed it. Still do, apparently, as it's consistency that I want and it's impossible, because you are indicative of the larger issue.




Well, from my point of view, you seem to be missing the point. In every instance we were discussing people, who had the same ideology (in this case Islam). Their lack of acknowledgement in their errors is indicative of a larger issue which you seem to miss.


----------



## Ryujin

Sadras said:


> Well, from my point of you, you seem to be missing the point. In every instance we were discussing people, who had the same ideology (in this case Islam). Their lack of acknowledgement in their errors is indicative of a larger issue which you seem to miss.




How can I be missing a point that I've explicitly stated?


----------



## Sadras

Ryujin said:


> How can I be missing a point that I've explicitly stated?




and 



> "Islamic history", or "history"? I would say the latter. After all, do we refer to the systemic subjugation of Jews in Europe as "Christian History", or just "history"?




When I'm speaking about the Islamic world, I'm speaking about governments influenced via Islam. You're isolating one instance of the conversation and attempting to acknowledge it as a white-washing of history, when I am speaking of the Islamic world and Islamic history in a much broader sense (and funny enough got called for that if you recall). So when I refer to Islamic History I'm referring across the board to other nations, you are the one isolating the conversation to Turkey alone.

So for you the conversation exists as Spanish Inquisition, Turkish white-washing....etc
For me the conversation is Christian Inquisitions, Islamic white-washing...etc


----------



## Ryujin

Sadras said:


> and
> 
> When I'm speaking about the Islamic world, I'm speaking about governments influenced via Islam. You're isolating one instance of the conversation and attempting to acknowledge it as a white-washing of history, when I am speaking of the Islamic world and Islamic history in a much broader sense (and funny enough got called for that if you recall). So when I refer to Islamic History I'm referring across the board to other nations, you are the one isolating the conversation to Turkey alone.
> 
> So for you the conversation exists as Spanish Inquisition, Turkish white-washing....etc
> For me the conversation is Christian Inquisitions, Islamic white-washing...etc




I'm not 'trying' to do anything. I'm stating a simple, demonstrable fact that when something involves the West, it's simply history, but when it's the Middle East, for example, it's suddenly 'Muslim History." You did it yourself. It is how the conversation has been framed. It's wrong. 

Do you want a more recent example? Were the actions of The United States and other Western nations in Iraq, in 2003 onward, part of 'history' or 'Christian History'? Go back and listen to the words of GWB and other Western leaders, and you would be hard pressed not to call it 'Christian History' by your definitions. That's not how it's referenced, nor should it be. It's just history.


----------



## Sadras

Ryujin said:


> I'm not 'trying' to do anything. I'm stating a simple, demonstrable fact that when something involves the West, it's simply history, but when it's the Middle East, for example, it's suddenly 'Muslim History."




It depends on the context. We were speaking about Muslim Refugees. We were speaking about the Islamic World. We were speaking about their ideology. We were speaking about their History in relation to Islam. So yes Islamic history.  



> You did it yourself. It is how the conversation has been framed.




Again yes, because I'm talking about a people with a particular ideology.



> Its wrong.




Is it wrong to address muslim dominated nations collectively as the Islamic World and therefore their collective history as Islamic History? Has the politically correct crowd forbidden that terminology too? Geez they move so fast. 



> Do you want a more recent example? Were the actions of The United States and other Western nations in Iraq, in 2003 onward, part of 'history' or 'Christian History'? Go back and listen to the words of GWB and other Western leaders, and you would be hard pressed not to call it 'Christian History' by your definitions. That's not how it's referenced, nor should it be. It's just history.




You know full well that was politics and had nothing to do with religion.

The breakup of India was due to Islamists not politics. The policies enforced on the Copts in Egypt is due to Islamic influence within their laws. The persecution of Zoroastrians is because they are not muslims. The persecution of the Armenians in Turkey is because they were predominantly Christian. The kidnapped girls in Nigeria were Christian. And I'm not even touching Saudi or any of the other dozen examples I can choose from.

GWB and the rest of the criminal brigade attacked Iraq and Afghanistan because 

(A) They were muslim nations; OR
(B) They were not Christian nations; OR
(C) Other - Big Business, Policy Pushing, Oil...etc   

 This is what the largest Christian religion on earth had to say about the 'War with Error' (current)
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-and-the-churchs-witness-against-war

and perhaps you missed this too at the time with all the lies the media and politicians were forcing down our throats
(then)

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/12/w...t-mentioning-us-urges-military-restraint.html


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> The only reason I brought up Christian movies within the US, is to reflect that, from my perspective, Christianity does not seem to have the level of influence within US as sometimes people on the net like to insinuate.



Again, I ask you how influencial do you think I said Christians are in the US?



> I specifically never mentioned details re the apostacy. My original post only mentions that Islam has a different view to apostacy compared to other faiths.



And that is lumping all Muslims together as views on apostacy varies according to sects, countries and individuals. Don't you agree? If there is one view accross all the Muslim world, what is it?



> Europe has come along way having battled sexism, gender preference, strict religiosity, limitation on freedom/speech, communism...etc - so when large masses of immigrants flood into their countries with a different culture, mindset and ideology it is only natural for a people to develop a fear or mistrust against them



There is a lot of falsehood in what you say. You're lumping all Muslim immigrants together as if they all believe the same things and that what they believe is inherently antagonist to "European values". That is is not factual. One reason why some Muslims immigrate to Europe is because they share liberal values. Then their is the number of immigrants. As I pointed out, the number of Muslims is way lower than you think and that people think. So, that large mass is a mirage. http://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...ou-are-probably-wrong-about-almost-everything

So people's fears are not justified as their is not grounded in reality. It is just islamophobia and that leads to discrimination of people that do not deserve it. 



> It is not, in my view, out of nowhere.



Yes, you mentioned apostacy in a conversation that wasn't about apostacy. It came out of nowhere.  



> No, I'm not an intelligence gathering agency is what I was getting at.



That has been obvious for a while. But you also ignore information when it is given to you. Like how people overestimate the number of Muslims in their country and underestimate the number of Christians. Intelligence is just a clique away. http://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...ou-are-probably-wrong-about-almost-everything



> According to Shadowcon, it is suspected that muslims posses the ability to easily impregnate their female partners and thereby initiate human multiplication on a level superior to that of Atheists and Christians of Europe. It is this method, according to a top Shadow official that Europe will be subsumed into the Greater Caliphate. It is certainly an evolved approach, much like the evolution of conquering countries through finance as opposed to military might.



Yeah, well ShadowCon is not well informed. Muslims do not make more babies than Europeans. Those silly facts that are just a clique away. Better ignore them. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/the-eurabia-myth-deserves-a-debunking/article20387697/



> Well it is a fact less Greeks and Italians are emigrating to Africa & the Middle East as opposed to the Middle Easterners and Africans emigrating to Greece and Italy.



That doesn't means Muslims should be feared. 



> Entire European Governments does not necessarily equal the EU. In my mind it is synonymous with entire European Countries, which certainly does not equal the EU.



I never mentioned the EU. But you are the one who said "entire European Governments". All I pointed out is that using "entire" wasn't accurate as they do not all have the same policies. 



> Why? Do you personally not believe that culture, heritage and a certain way/style of life is worth defending?



Not against imaginary threats. Europe already went down that ugly road with Judaism.  



> Prevention is better than a cure. Human nature.



And that leads to discrimination. Human nature.


----------



## Ryujin

It was politics and had nothing to do with religion? Why apply that distinction here, when religion was frequently referenced, when you make the distinction with respect to 'Muslim nations'? What President of the United States has ever been elected without referencing God? So if God is referenced in American politics it's just politics, but if he's referenced in the Middle East it's 'Islamic politics'? You have power hungry men cravenly using people's beliefs to manipulate their actions, in both cases, but it's only called out on the 'other side'?

It's just 'politics.' It's just 'history.' Specific labels are unnecessary.


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> And that is lumping all Muslims together as views on apostacy varies according to sects, countries and individuals. Don't you agree? If there is one view accross all the Muslim world, what is it?




My initial quote (BELOW) references the religion not the people - you are welcome to discuss how the religious texts impacts on its followers but that is a different discussion altogether. However you might be inclined to research the various religions with regards to apostacy and we can continue this conversation further.




			
				Sadras; said:
			
		

> (snip)....but I don't believe Hinduism, Taoism, Christianity, Shintuism or Buddhism speak about apostacy in the same manner that Islam does.






			
				goldomark; said:
			
		

> There is a lot of falsehood in what you say. You're lumping all Muslim immigrants together as if they all believe the same things and that what they believe is inherently antagonist to "European values". That is is not factual. One reason why some Muslims immigrate to Europe is because they share liberal values.




Are you saying at its RAW Islam is not inherently antagonistic to European Values? I also said it is natural for people to feel threatened when a people of a different ideology begin to enter their countries en masse. I don't see what the issue with my sentence is.



> Then their is the number of immigrants. As I pointed out, the number of Muslims is way lower than you think and that people think. So, that large mass is a mirage.




Yes this is not in dispute. 



> So people's fears are not justified as their is not grounded in reality. It is just islamophobia and that leads to discrimination of people that do not deserve it.




But at what point do the number of immigrants become too much? At what point do you consider their phobia to be rational for the indigenous society/culture? 



> That has been obvious for a while.



You're so mean to the princess.



> But you also ignore information when it is given to you. Like how people overestimate the number of Muslims in their country and underestimate the number of Christians.




Your information regarding the perception of people is not being contested. However actual numbers are broadcasted as to how many refugees are actually entering the countries. So that information is privy to all those 'irrational people' 



> Intelligence is just a clique away.




If only the CIA or FBI had you working with them pre 9-11. 



> Yeah, well ShadowCon is not well informed. Muslims do not make more babies than Europeans. Those silly facts that are just a clique away. Better ignore them.




Well ShadowCon could certainly use your expertise, however you might want to do a little more research as there are conflicting articles out there including that of wiki so lets just put this one on the backburner given the experts on both sides.   



> That doesn't means Muslims should be feared.







> I never mentioned the EU. But you are the one who said "entire European Governments". All I pointed out is that using "entire" wasn't accurate as they do not all have the same policies.




What? They don't need to have the same policies for them to create limitations for refugees. 



> Not against imaginary threats.




Okay.  



> Europe already went down that ugly road with Judaism.




Yeah, its not the same, different road.



> And that leads to discrimination. Human nature.




Also true, however discrimination does not invalidate their fear.


----------



## Sadras

Ryujin said:


> It was politics and had nothing to do with religion? Why apply that distinction here, when religion was frequently referenced, when you make the distinction with respect to 'Muslim nations'? What President of the United States has ever been elected without referencing God? So if God is referenced in American politics it's just politics, but if he's referenced in the Middle East it's 'Islamic politics'? You have power hungry men cravenly using people's beliefs to manipulate their actions, in both cases, but it's only called out on the 'other side'?
> 
> It's just 'politics.' It's just 'history.' Specific labels are unnecessary.




I see you completely ignored the fact that we are having two different conversations. 

In any event, in the instance of the West our religious authorities are generally different to our politicians. Many times (as they have in the past and even present) these two groups have colluded. In the instance of the war on Iraq and Afghan, as I have shown you, the largest sect of the Christian religion did not agree with GWB and Co's actions despite GWB invoking his deity during press conferences. 
When it comes to Egypt's Governing Law, the religion of Islam plays a strong role. https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=39960. Which means that experts in the religion were most probably consulted in the formulation of the law.

That is very different to having a politician (a complete layman) invoking his deity publicly without the backing of major Christian authorities. I'm not saying that some Christian denominations did not jump onto GWB's violent campaign of greed, but that it is very different having religious dogma influence law. Furthermore the tearing apart of India was on religious reasons. The Armenian persecution was done by the Ottoman Empire which was not a secular state.

USA is a secular state. UK is a secular state - no matter what god the president or prime minister invoke publicly. The majority of the muslim nations are not secular, therefore religion plays a large role.  

And again I reiterate
You are talking about the Spanish Inquisition, Egyptian Policy...
I'm discussing Christian Inquisitions, Islamic Policy...


----------



## Ryujin

No, we're having the same conversation. As I said, no American President in recent memory has been elected without referencing God. The British Monach, currently Queen Elizabeth II, is the Supreme Governor of the
Church of England.

If we're actually having two different conversations, as you say, then the difference is that I'm calling for consistency in language, rather than canting speech to suit a debating position.


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> Again, I ask you how influencial do you think I said Christians are in the US?






> The difference is that in some Western countries Christians actually have power and influence over politics and the media, and are pushing their agenda. The US is the perfect example. Just look at the influence of Christians in the same sex unions or abortion debate. It isn't irrational to fear Christian influence in that context.




As an overall percentage I'm not sure. I'm sure there is a Christian Lobby attempting to push their agenda, but I'm presuming its Big Business that usually calls the shots.


----------



## Sadras

Ryujin said:


> No, we're having the same conversation. As I said, no American President in recent memory has been elected without referencing God. The British Monach, currently Queen Elizabeth II, is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.




The days of the Pharaoh are very much behind us and even then the clergy and Pharaohs didn't always agree. To insinuate that somehow GWB or Queen Elizabeth have the same religious standing within Christianity as the Pope is ludicrous and that IS what you are insinuating if you are attempting to reflect that the war on Afghan and Iraq were mandated by religious reasons, because that IS what you have to prove in order for it to be considered a Christian war - whereas as I only have to prove that Islam influenced the actual laws of the lands which lead to the persecution/discrimination of non-Muslims to prove its part of Islam's history since I'm speaking of the Islamic world.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> My initial quote (BELOW) references the religion



And as I stated many many times, there isn't really one Islamic religion, as it is interpreted and applied in various ways by different sects. That pesky point you keep ignoring. 

To make a comparison, Catholics do not have the same interpretation of the Bible, or exactly the same Bible, as Evangelicals. Both are Christians even if they do not have the exact same religion. Why is Islam different and homogenous according to you?



> Are you saying at its RAW Islam is not inherently antagonistic to European Values?



First point: there isn't any raw Islam. It varies like Christianity, as stated above. Second point: European values vary. Abortions laws in Ireland are very restrictive, something some conservative Musims would approve of and more liberal ones would condemn. Same sex unions aren't allowed or recognized in every European country, which would please some conservative Muslims and displease more liberal ones. France has some very restrictive hate speech laws, which might please some Muslims, anger others and make a US citizen go mad. Muslims are just like Europeans, they have various opinions. Even some native Europeans oppose freedom of speech, separation of church and state, same sex unions...

But even if we say you're right, that Islam goes against European values, Christian values aren't that different from Islam and European values still happened. 



> I also said it is natural for people to feel threatened when a people of a different ideology begin to enter their countries en masse. I don't see what the issue with my sentence is.



Well, you keep saying there is one Muslim ideology, which isn't the case, values aren't necessarely antagonistic and they are a minority, not a mass. Since you're wrong on all counts it would mean people's fears aren't justified. 



> Yes this is not in dispute.



And yet just above you constest it by saying Muslims enter European countries in masses. You're holding to contradictory positions. 



> But at what point do the number of immigrants become too much?



What if its never? What if migrants were simple people and not a bad addition to a country?



> Your information regarding the perception of people is not being contested. However actual numbers are broadcasted as to how many refugees are actually entering the countries. So that information is privy to all those 'irrational people'



The actual numbers about Muslims immigrants are easily accessable and yet people's perception are still distorted. That means people aren't informed and their fear isn't base in rationality.



> Well ShadowCon could certainly use your expertise, however you might want to do a little more research as there are conflicting articles out there including that of wiki so lets just put this one on the backburner given the experts on both sides.



Better ignore info that doesn't fit the narrative. Got it.    



>



You're confused by me saying Muslims shouldn't be feared? That explains a lot. 



> What? They don't need to have the same policies for them to create limitations for refugees.



Your comment about "entire European Governments" was about governments fearing the influence of Islam. Which isn't the case. At least the "entire" part.



> Yeah, its not the same, different road.



Very similar one. It is about politics being dominated by fears not backed by facts and letting those fears lead to discrimination. It probably won't end in extermination camp this time around, but discrimination is growing. 



> Also true, however discrimination does not invalidate their fear.



Facts invalidate their fear. Facts like there is no one Islamic ideology, Muslims are a minority, they do not have a lot influence on politics and the media...


----------



## Ryujin

Sadras said:


> The days of the Pharaoh are very much behind us and even then the clergy and Pharaoh's didn't always agree. To insinuate that somehow GWB or Queen Elizabeth have the same religious standing within Christianity as the Pope is ludicrous and that IS what you are insinuating if you are attempting to reflect that the war on Afghan and Iraq were mandated by religious reasons, because that IS what you have to prove in order for it to be considered a Christian war - whereas as I only have to prove that Islam influenced the actual laws of the lands which lead to the persecution/discrimination of non-Muslims to prove its part of Islam's history since I'm speaking of the Islamic world.




So prove the reverse; that the 'Islamic' attacks are actually purely for religious reasons.

*EDIT* Further to that I will state that American laws and British laws, as two examples, were founded upon Christian principles. That does not mean that actions by those governments make them Christian actions.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> As an overall percentage I'm not sure. I'm sure there is a Christian Lobby attempting to push their agenda, but I'm presuming its Big Business that usually calls the shots.




As you'll notice if you go read my quote again, I didn't say it was the only or major source of influence. Just that it had some, like you just said. Sigh.


----------



## Sadras

Ryujin said:


> So prove the reverse; that the 'Islamic' attacks are actually purely for religious reasons.




Instead of playing your 'purely' game, how about this, how about you give me the proper collective noun which you're ok with when I'm referring specifically to the history of Muslim nations, because if I google History of Islam, which is ok with the rest of the educated world, I get this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam which reflects in general on every muslim country and its laws. 

So I have to ask, do you really have a problem with me shortening the phrase from History of Islam to Islamic History? Or do you have a problem when I speak of the white-washing of Islamic History? Is it better to say the white-washing of the History within Muslim countries? Do you want more words?

EDIT: Which is funny because initially you wanted less words: From the white-washing of Islamic History to the white-washing of History. I'm guessing the term 'Islamic' must have been offensive to you in that sentence.


----------



## Ryujin

As I said, the word "history" works just fine for me. I'm sorry that you don't see the inequity in reporting. I'm out.


----------



## billd91

Sadras said:


> EDIT: Which is funny because initially you wanted less words: From the white-washing of Islamic History to the white-washing of History. I'm guessing the term 'Islamic' must have been offensive to you in that sentence.




Well, duh. He's been pretty obvious about that from the start.


----------



## Staffan

Ryujin said:


> The most commonly used expression is "The Spanish Inquisition", rather than "Christian Inquisition", but then again nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.



Actually...
[video=youtube_share;o85NK1EEnMY]http://youtu.be/o85NK1EEnMY[/video]


----------



## Umbran

Sadras said:


> So I have to ask, do you really have a problem with me shortening the phrase from History of Islam to Islamic History? Or do you have a problem when I speak of the white-washing of Islamic History? Is it better to say the white-washing of the History within Muslim countries? Do you want more words?




If I may, I think the basic issue is this:  No matter what wikipedia may say, when you lump "history of states that happen to be Islamic" under "history of Islam", and even more under "Islamic history", you have an implicit assumption that the historic events are relevant, and historic decisions made, largely *because* of Islam.  As opposed, for example, due to other socio-economic factors, or the individual personalities of leaders, that aren't really specific to Islam.  

Basically, you are giving Islam top billing, and that may not be accurate for all issues.


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> And as I stated many many times, there isn't really one Islamic religion, as it is interpreted and applied in various ways by different sects. That pesky point you keep ignoring.




The Quran has some passages about apostacy, I'm not talking about the Hadith or the Ahadith. I'm not talking about its application either, I'm speaking about the reference of apostacy within the Quran solely.



> First point: there isn't any raw Islam. It varies like Christianity, as stated above. Second point: European values vary. Abortions laws in Ireland are very restrictive, something some conservative Musims would approve of and more liberal ones would condemn. Same sex unions aren't allowed or recognized in every European country, which would please some conservative Muslims and displease more liberal ones. France has some very restrictive hate speech laws, which might please some Muslims, anger others and make a US citizen go mad. Muslims are just like Europeans, they have various opinions. Even some native Europeans oppose freedom of speech, separation of church and state, same sex unions...




I don't necessarily disagree with your points but there are other things one must consider, for instance:



> *Religion and Identity.* Muslims in Germany, Britain, and France were twice as likely as the general public to consider religion a significant part of their daily lives, according to a 2007 Gallup poll. A Pew 2006 poll shows that Muslims in Europe are much more likely to identify themselves by their religion before their nationality. However, the Gallup poll also shows that religious affinity does not make Muslims less likely to identify with their host countries.
> Even some Muslims who aren't particularly religious may be drawn to projecting a strong Islamic identity in response to feelings of isolation and their perceptions of the moral permissiveness of Western culture.
> 
> *Culture and Democracy.* Some argue that Muslim culture is at odds with Europe on issues such as freedom of expression, the rights of women, and the separation of church and state. Financial Times columnist Christopher Caldwell, in his 2009 book Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West, concludes: "Europe finds itself in a contest with Islam for the allegiance of its newcomers. For now, Islam is the stronger party in that contest, in an obvious demographic way and in less obvious philosophical way."
> Caldwell points out the cultural disconnect Islam is causing for Europeans: On the one hand, Europeans expect a strong division between church and state. On the other, Europeans' aspirations for tolerance impede their ability to criticize Islam in the same way they have historically criticized Christianity. There have been numerous cases of Muslims using Europe's hate speech laws to defend against what they consider defamation of Islam. Meanwhile, cases such as the 2004 murder of Theo van Gogh (BBC) for his film "Submission," critical of treatment of women in Islam, are considered evidence of intolerance by Muslims toward freedom of expression.
> 
> Cesari and Brookings' Vaisse note understanding the line between criticism and bigotry will take time for all Europeans. Cesari contends Muslims need to learn that criticism is part of the democratic process and that the "inability to hear one another" may be the greatest problem of the Euro-Muslim debate.






			
				goldomark; said:
			
		

> But even if we say you're right, that Islam goes against European values, Christian values aren't that different from Islam and European values still happened.




It has taken years, and as I have stated upthread, Islam is only around the 1400 year mark in terms of age... 


> Well, you keep saying there is one Muslim ideology, which isn't the case



Can one criticise Islam as freely as one does Christianity? Yes or No? It is a simple question.



> And yet just above you constest it by saying Muslims enter European countries in masses. You're holding to contradictory positions.




Sigh. You do know your table from the Guardian reflected muslims already in the country and not the refugees entering the country right? It is two different exercises.



> What if its never? What if migrants were simple people and not a bad addition to a country?




And there it is. This comment here reflects that you have absolutely no comprehension of the European people. I have repeatedly stated that you and me live in salad societies which is quite different to those of Europe. There is a strong sense within the homeland countries to protect the heritage and culture of the people. 
Since you said ‘never’ lets run with that leftist hypothesis – minority grows to a point where:
A once Christian dominated nation is now littered with mosques.
Arabic becomes an official language of the nation.
A new burgeoning ecomonic market regarding Halal foods leads to the natives losing out on revenue unless they conform and cater to muslim dietary requirements.
…etc
All this will make the natives feels like their nation has been taken over by foreigners. The Europeans nations are not searching to form some mangled version of Canada or the States.



> The actual numbers about Muslims immigrants are easily accessable and yet people's perception are still distorted. That means people aren't informed and their fear isn't base in rationality.




At what point to the immigrants cease or slow down. You have stated never. I have shown you why that would not be appealing to a European nation. Interestingly Gadaffi  had said “If I go down, Europe goes black. 



> Better ignore info that doesn't fit the narrative. Got it.




It is not about ignoring the info, but I have found differing info to you on the net, starting with wiki. I could just as easily say you are ignoring my info, instead I have been reasonable and countered that we ignore the experts for now. There is no reason to be bitchy.   



> You're confused by me saying Muslims shouldn't be feared? That explains a lot.




Your original comment made no sense with what I had written. 



> Your comment about "entire European Governments" was about governments fearing the influence of Islam. Which isn't the case. At least the "entire" part.




Now you have backtracked again. Why is the ‘entire’ part not the case? Have entire nations not made new policies due to these waves of immigrants?



> Very similar one. It is about politics being dominated by fears not backed by facts and letting those fears lead to discrimination. It probably won't end in extermination camp this time around, but discrimination is growing.




Okay. My issue in this debate is not the policies which will lead to discrimination. That is a result of the Islamophobia. The debate between us is: Is Islamophobia justified. You believe not, I have stated in which instances I can excuse it. Whether or not it leads to discrimination is not the topic. 



> Facts invalidate their fear. Facts like there is no one Islamic ideology,




Criticism of the Religion, Apostacy, Religion over State (to name a few) are pretty strong issues within Islam. I’m not saying all muslims are the same, but one can also not be blind to these issues that exist with this religion either. 



> Muslims are a minority




At what point is the minority allowed to request special privileges? Secondly, Europeans do not want to minorities to grow – again they are not the States or Canada. You are asking nations to accept thousands of foreigners – it is alarming to see so many foreigners enter a country at one time, Xenophobia will kick in, this is natural.
It is essentially racism, but you must understand x people (Greeks) are used to dealing with x people (Greeks) everyday, not large masses of Muslims.  Greece already suffered +/-400 years under the Ottoman rule, and since Turkey never accepts blame  - both for the Genocide of the Armenian and the illegal occupation of Cyprus, nevermind their false teaching regarding the ownership of the Greek islands of their coastline.  
So how about if Communist Russians came in droves and settled in a State of America…I can’t imagine America would do nothing. And I wouldn’t blame them.



> they do not have a lot influence on politics and the media...



People of Europe worry about their children’s children and what their homeland country will look like when they’ve grown up. Again this might be alien for you to understand since you live on the other side of the pond so we generally live for the now and perhaps our children


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I have repeatedly stated that you and me live in salad societies which is quite different to those of Europe. There is a strong sense within the homeland countries to protect the heritage and culture of the people.
> Since you said ‘never’ lets run with that leftist hypothesis – minority grows to a point where:
> A once Christian dominated nation is now littered with mosques.
> Arabic becomes an official language of the nation.



Given what we know about population dynamics, those possibilities are..._remote_...at best, barring a successful mass slaughter of Europeans by Muslims or some kind of natural catastrophe or plate that doesn't affect the immigrants' population.


> A new burgeoning ecomonic market regarding Halal foods leads to the natives losing out on revenue unless they conform and cater to muslim dietary requirements.



Economically improbable in any meaningful sense.

In the area of the Dallas/FW metroplex in which I reside, there has been a huge influx of Indian and Arabic people.  This HAS changed the local tapestry of business, but not as you predict.

One theater that has struggled for the past 15 years was bought out (for the third time) and now shows predominantly Indian films.  But not a single thriving business has been replaced nor restructured their business model significantly to kowtow to the immigrants.  Grocery stores still sell beef & pork, though some have added a new subsection to their "International" aisle.  If someone wants halal, kosher, or Hindu-specific products, their best bet is to shop at one of the growing number of ethnic markets...the largest of which ALSO sell bog-standard products as would be found in a mainstream American grocery.

There have been a host of new Indian and Mediterranean/Middle Eastern restaurants pop up...and many of them withered away in just months, just like all the other restaurants of other cuisines that are found here.  One space a block from my house has been occupied by 4 Mexican restaurants in the past 15 years, and is now on its second Indian slot.



> At what point is the minority allowed to request special privileges?




Depends on the country, the minority, and the "special privileges" being requested.  And if the privileges are indeed special, of course.



> Secondly, Europeans do not want to minorities to grow – again they are not the States or Canada. You are asking nations to accept thousands of foreigners – it is alarming to see so many foreigners enter a country at one time, Xenophobia will kick in, this is natural.
> It is essentially racism, but you must understand x people (Greeks) are used to dealing with x people (Greeks) everyday, not large masses of Muslims. Greece already suffered +/-400 years under the Ottoman rule, and since Turkey never accepts blame - both for the Genocide of the Armenian and the illegal occupation of Cyprus, nevermind their false teaching regarding the ownership of the Greek islands of their coastline.
> 
> So how about if Communist Russians came in droves and settled in a State of America…I can’t imagine America would do nothing. And I wouldn’t blame them.




Americans DID do something when the xenophobia kicked in...and when it abated, things returned to business as usual.
http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classro...vities/presentations/immigration/polish3.html

Please believe that Americans have their own rich heritage of xenophobia _despite_ our "melting pot" rhetoric.  Besides the Russians & Poles, America has tried to keep out each new ethnicity of immigrants hitting its shores- Irish, Italians, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc.- and some of it even gets codified into law.  That's why Cubans have rules that apply to them  but not to Dominicans, Hatians, and the like.  That's why Puerto Ricans, Amercian Samoans, and others in American protectorates & territories may be legally natural born citizens (depending on which one specifically), but can't vote in presidential elections or even become president.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> The Quran has some passages about apostacy, I'm not talking about the Hadith or the Ahadith. I'm not talking about its application either, I'm speaking about the reference of apostacy within the Quran solely.



Well, if application isn't an issue, the Bible states that we can stone women who weren't virgins when they married, stone children who aren't respecful of their parents and stone homosexual men, giving a new meaning to the expression "getting stoned". Oh, and slaves should obey their masters, not try to be free and masters shouldn't set them free.



> It has taken years, and as I have stated upthread, Islam is only around the 1400 year mark in terms of age...



So what? Age doesn't mean more or less instrumentalization of a religion to justify violence. Catholics and Anglicans in Uganda persecute homosexuals even if Christianity is 2,000 years old. After 2,000 years, Catholics in Ireland still oppress women by deny them access to abortions if they choose. 



> Can one criticise Islam as freely as one does Christianity? Yes or No? It is a simple question.



Yes. You've been doing it rather well.



> Sigh. You do know your table from the Guardian reflected muslims already in the country and not the refugees entering the country right?



As if islamophobia in Europe only started with the current events or that people won't overestimate the importance of the refugees when they overestimate regular immigration.



> And there it is.



Nope. You asked what I thought, not what Europeans thought. You keep moving the goal post. 



> This comment here reflects that you have absolutely no comprehension of the European people.



Says the guy from South Africa. You really think Europe isn't diverse?



> I have repeatedly stated that you and me live in salad societies which is quite different to those of Europe.



First off, not all European societies are homogenous. Just check out Switzerland, Luxembourg, Belgium and Romania. Secondly, plot twist, Europe is diverse already. How many languages, religions, ethnic groups do you think there is there? Thirdly, I do not live in a mix society. I come from Québec and it is rather homogenous. 



> There is a strong sense within the homeland countries to protect the heritage and culture of the people.
> Since you said ‘never’ lets run with that leftist hypothesis – minority grows to a point where:
> A once Christian dominated nation is now littered with mosques.
> Arabic becomes an official language of the nation.
> A new burgeoning ecomonic market regarding Halal foods leads to the natives losing out on revenue unless they conform and cater to muslim dietary requirements.
> …etc



Here lies the problem with what you're saying: none of this has happened, is happening or will happen. If someone is afraid of what you listed it isn't rational because it isn't based on any fact. It is thus an irrational fear. Why is irrationality is ok with you, is mind boggling. Might as well say that Muslim immigrants will increase the number of unicorns in Europe, unicorns impale people, thus Europeans are justified to fear Muslims. 



> All this *will make* the natives feels like their nation has been taken over by foreigners.



"Will make". So it hasn't happened yet. And there isn't any credible sign it will. 



> The Europeans nations are not searching to form some mangled version of Canada or the States.



Sure. It is impossible the European union becomes the United-States of Europe. Impossible, I tell you!

And I must say I'm surprised the US is presented as a model of diversity and multiculturality. What happened to the American Melting Pot?



> At what point to the immigrants cease or slow down. You have stated never.



Nope. Your question was "at what point do immigrants become too much". My answer was that maybe there can't be too many immigrants.  



> I have shown you why that would not be appealing to a European nation.



Nope. You haven't showed me that there is evidence of the Islamisation of Europe.



> Interestingly Gadaffi  had said “If I go down, Europe goes black.



And that is a credible source for you? Did you know Putin was in Ukraine to stop antisemitism?



> we ignore the experts for now.



Yeah, truthiness is the way to go.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness



> Your original comment made no sense with what I had written.



And what was the sense of what you had written? 



> Now you have backtracked again. Why is the ‘entire’ part not the case?



Because it is not? Not all European governments, like you said, fear the Islamisation of Europe. Unless your saying that all government are islamophobic right now. I'm not even sure how someone can be ok with that.



> Okay. My issue in this debate is not the policies which will lead to discrimination. That is a result of the Islamophobia. The debate between us is: Is Islamophobia justified. You believe not, I have stated in which instances I can excuse it. Whether or not it leads to discrimination is not the topic.



You excuse ignorance, fictional facts and prejudices. I'm not sure why this seems acceptable to you. Excusing antisemitism didn't do any good, quit the opposite. If you excuse it, you excuse the the discrimination that comes with it. They aren't separated issues as islamophobia leads to discrimination.



> Criticism of the Religion, Apostacy, Religion over State (to name a few) are pretty strong issues within Islam.



Again, that homogenous block. 



> I’m not saying all muslims are the same,



Pretty much. You even excuse people who believe it cause for some reason that is justified to believe things that aren't true.



> but one can also not be blind to these issues that exist with this religion either.



That exist in Islamist groups and ideology. That darn nuance thing. 



> At what point is the minority allowed to request special privileges?



People confuse equal treatment to special treatment. A lot of people who are against same sex unions say that it is giving special rights to homosexuals when it is just about giving them the same rights as straight people. 



> Secondly, Europeans do not want to minorities to grow



I didn't know you were Europe's spokesperson on the question of minority growth. 



> You are asking nations to accept thousands of foreigners – it is alarming to see so many foreigners enter a country at one time, Xenophobia will kick in, this is natural.



But shouldn't be excused or pandered too. That is my point. It should be opposed. Complacency is not acceptable as nothing good comes out of xenophobia.



> So how about if Communist Russians came in droves and settled in a State of America…I can’t imagine America would do nothing. And I wouldn’t blame them.



Why stop at the abuse of mccarthyism? Why not say that you wouldn't blame klansmen for thinking that black men were out to rape white women?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Ryujin said:


> It's rather comical when the group in power complains about "oppression" because they're losing their privileged position and becoming just regular citizens. I wonder if that's how white South Africans felt as Apartheid was coming to an end?



IIRC, that is how all privileged groups react to a deduction in privilege or supremacy . It's a bonafide psychological thing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Some more on American xenophobia:

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswi...-about-jeb-bush-tying-anchor-babies-to-asians


----------



## Sadras

Umbran said:


> If I may, I think the basic issue is this:  No matter what wikipedia may say, when you lump "history of states that happen to be Islamic" under "history of Islam", and even more under "Islamic history", you have an implicit assumption that the historic events are relevant, and historic decisions made, largely *because* of Islam.  As opposed, for example, due to other socio-economic factors, or the individual personalities of leaders, that aren't really specific to Islam.
> 
> Basically, you are giving Islam top billing, and that may not be accurate for all issues.




To clarify the issues I did name: The tearing apart of India largely due to muslim Indians preferring self-governance than being governed by Hindus; the laws within the Egypt which negatively affect non-Islamic religions; the refusal of a supposed secular state, IMO, (Turkey) to recognise a genocide of a Christian minority performed within an Islamic Caliphate, the persecution of Christians and Indigenous religions in the middle East by muslims; and the abduction of 200 Christian girls in Nigeria. If those things to you do not predominantly give Islam top billing, then I apologise, but from my point of view - they do.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> To clarify the issues I did name: The tearing apart of India largely due to muslim Indians preferring self-governance than being governed by Hindus;



Is it that surprising that people with a different culture want to govern themselves or is it only something that happens among Muslims?



> the laws within the Egypt which negatively affect non-Islamic religions;



Is it that surprising that a majority makes laws that oppress a minority or is it something that only happens with Muslims?



> the refusal of a supposed secular state,



Heh.



> (Turkey) to recognise a genocide of a Christian minority performed within an Islamic Caliphate,



The US federal government doesn't recognize the genocide. It must mean the US is a Islamist nation.



> the persecution of Christians and Indigenous religions in the middle East by muslims;



Indigenous populations were persecuted in the Americas. It must mean Muslims colonized the continents.



> and the abduction of 200 Christian girls in Nigeria.



Women treated as a commodity!? That is a first.


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> Is it that surprising that people with a different culture want to govern themselves or is it only something that happens among Muslims?




My issue was, that the split of India relates to Islamic History. Do you disagree that India's separation forms part of the spread of Islam and therefore can be considered Islamic History?



> Is it that surprising that a majority makes laws that oppress a minority or is it something that only happens with Muslims?




My issue was that the oppressive laws put into effect to affect non-Muslims as a result of the majority (the lawmakers) being Muslim. Do you disagree this should be considered as part of Islamic History within Egypt?   



> Heh.




You're excused.



> The US federal government doesn't recognize the genocide. It must mean the US is a Islamist nation.




I did not argue that Turkey was an Islamist government for you to make this statement. At this point it seems like you will take issue with anything I write just because. Seems like an awful amount of time to waste. Also, there is a difference with calling a nation Islamic and Islamist (as I learned in this thread).



> Indigenous populations were persecuted in the Americas. It must mean Muslims colonized the continents.




Again see my point above. This has nothing to do with the issue being discussed. 



> Women treated as a commodity!? That is a first.




Sigh.


----------



## Sadras

The link reflects why presidents should at least have the minimum schooling requirements....it is not about discrimination as some would like to insinuate. But hey, dumb presidents further the Man's Agenda to rape and pillage a nation's resources, which of course is ok to the Politically Correct, but let us not dare 'discriminate' against the illiterate.

https://www.enca.com/south-africa/watch-zuma-present-number-member-who-have-left-anc

By the way there are many more of these on the web of this high calibre president. Probably the reason why he didn't understand that his security for his "house" cost the nation R245 million (currently over 18 million dollars) and has no intention to pay it back.


----------



## Ovinomancer

doctorbadwolf said:


> IIRC, that is how all privileged groups react to a deduction in privilege or supremacy . It's a bonafide psychological thing.




It's funny how privilege theory predicts that any arguments against it from the people it declares privileged are proof that privilege theory is correct.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> My issue was, that the split of India relates to Islamic History.



I know, and it is ridiculus. If Québec, Scotland and Catalonia ever get independence, would that be part of Catholic history since those are majoritarily Catholic?



> My issue was that the oppressive laws put into effect to affect non-Muslims as a result of the majority (the lawmakers) being Muslim.



So, using your logic, Apartheid was due to the people in power being Christians?



> I did not argue that Turkey was an Islamist government for you to make this statement.



The hyperbole went unnoticed, I see.



> Again see my point above. This has nothing to do with the issue being discussed.



It does. I'm pointing out that what you say is part of Islamic History, really is just History. 

If you want to make a case that in Islam has been instrumentalized to justify a lot of terrible stuff, sure, I agree with you. Its been used to do bad stuff too. No question about it. But to say everything that happens in countries with Muslims is due to Islam, is a broad and islamophobic generalization.

I'll also disagree with you is you say that the instrumentalization is due to Islam being more prone than other religions or ideologies to violene and other terrible stuff Liberalism, the dominant ideology in the Western world, prones freedom of religion, of thought, of speech, civil rights, etc. It shouldn't be easy to instrumentalization it to justify greed, violence, oppression, etc, right? Yet it was in the name of freedom that Irak was invaded. It is in the name of freedom (to oppress homosexuals) that some people in the US oppose same sex unions. The cultural genocide of Native Americans? It was for their own good. They needed to learn the benefits of civilization. Liberty included!

Instrumentalization just requires people who are willing to make the unacceptable acceptable by being manipulative.


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> I know, and it is ridiculus. If Québec, Scotland and Catalonia ever get independence, would that be part of Catholic history since those are majoritarily Catholic?




Yes if the division was predominantly over religious grounds. I would easily throw that into Catholic history.



> So, using your logic, Apartheid was due to the people in power being Christians?




In South Africa's Apartheid regime, the policies in effect were to the benefit of the whites not the Christians. It was a skin colour issue.



> It does. I'm pointing out that what you say is part of Islamic History, really is just History.




I'm not just disputing that it can be called just History or that even there are similarities with non-Islamic nation's history. The dispute was raised that its misleading or disingenuous when I call it Islamic history (there was another word utilised but I forget it now) even when I'm referring to instances where the religion played a major role.  



> But to say everything that happens in countries with Muslims is due to Islam, is a broad and islamophobic generalization.




Of course I don't think everything derived in Muslim dominated nations is due to Islam, but I'm also not willing to ignore http://www.loc.gov/law/help/apostasy/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Malaysia#Political_issues and the other issues I mentioned...etc


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> Yes if the division was predominantly over religious grounds. I would easily throw that into Catholic history.



So, basically, since you're pretty much putting all event that happened in the Middle-East under Islamic History, you're saying pretty much everything happens because of Islam.



> In South Africa's Apartheid regime, the policies in effect were to the benefit of the whites not the Christians. It was a skin colour issue.



Benefits had nothing to do with what you said.







> My issue was that the oppressive laws put into effect to affect non-Muslims as a result of the majority (the lawmakers) being Muslim.
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...vs-Persecuted-Christians/page34#ixzz3pDeGYuYf



The majority in power in South Africa was Christian, so Apartheid was a results of Christianity. #apartheidchristianhistory



> I'm not just disputing that it can be called just History



So why put the extra label only when it comes to Muslims? Why do you find it important to mention Islam above all other religions or ideology or nation?



> or that even there are similarities with non-Islamic nation's history.



Its almost as if were all humans! Who would have thought.



> The dispute was raised that its misleading or disingenuous when I call it Islamic history (there was another word utilised but I forget it now) even when I'm referring to instances where the religion played a major role.



Nope. The dispute came from you forcing that label on as soon as a Muslim is involved, whether Islam is a motivating actor or not, but not put that label when a Christian is involved. It shows a double standard. It seems to be a will to demonstrate that "Islam is bad, look how it plays a role in all those bad things", whether it did or not. 



> Of course I don't think everything derived in Muslim dominated nations is due to Islam, but I'm also not willing to ignore http://www.loc.gov/law/help/apostasy/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Malaysia#Political_issues and the other issues I mentioned...etc



Why not? You're willing to ignore and excuse islamophobia in Europe.


----------



## Istbor

I thought this was Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians and not History vs Islamic History?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Istbor said:


> I thought this was Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians and not History vs Islamic History?




I'm not sure you can rely on the thread title anymore after 300+ posts.


----------



## Istbor

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm not sure you can rely on the thread title anymore after 300+ posts.




Agreed, just getting very tired of this particular back and forth since no side shows any sign of relenting.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Istbor said:


> Agreed, just getting very tired of this particular back and forth since no side shows any sign of relenting.



Welcome to the internetz.


----------



## trappedslider

Istbor said:


> Agreed, just getting very tired of this particular back and forth since no side shows any sign of relenting.




it's what happens when side enjoys repeating themselves over and over again about how bad the other side is, you'll notice the same drum beat will appear in every political thread on here.


----------



## Umbran

trappedslider said:


> it's what happens when side enjoys repeating themselves over and over again about how bad the other side is, you'll notice the same drum beat will appear in every political thread on here.




There is certainly a pattern - a period of fairly lively discussion, some of which is constructive and in which some people learn some things, followed by what I might call, for lack of a better phrase, a long partisan tail, in which the people with entrenched positions on the subject continue to butt heads fairly repetitively.


----------



## trappedslider

Umbran said:


> There is certainly a pattern - a period of fairly lively discussion, some of which is constructive and in which some people learn some things, followed by what I might call, for lack of a better phrase, a long partisan tail, in which the people with entrenched positions on the subject continue to butt heads fairly repetitively.




yup, tangentially related to the original topic would it be okay to do an AMA thread about my Faith in the AMA section?


----------



## Ovinomancer

trappedslider said:


> yup, tangentially related to the original topic would it be okay to do an AMA thread about my Faith in the AMA section?




Mad respect for your insane levels of courage.


----------



## Umbran

trappedslider said:


> yup, tangentially related to the original topic would it be okay to do an AMA thread about my Faith in the AMA section?




That you'd have to ask Morrus about.


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> So, basically, since you're pretty much putting all event that happened in the Middle-East under Islamic History, you're saying pretty much everything happens because of Islam.




Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.



> Benefits had nothing to do with what you said.The majority in power in South Africa was Christian, so Apartheid was a results of Christianity. #apartheidchristianhistory




In terms of consistency, for me, policies that affect one Muslim minority in a country is part of Islamic history - as it strengthens one version of Islam over another.
However I'm not denying that discrimination policies existed within Christian History. In fact the Dutch Reformed Church supported Apartheid, despite the fact that it had Coloured and Black divisions. So I will admit Apartheid forms part of Christian History - whereby it was supported by a the white NG Kerk Christians within South Africa but rejected by the majority of Christianity abroad. 

One must also keep in mind, the coloured (mixed race as defined in SA) communities were Christian yet suffered under Apartheid, furthermore the black Christians were also affected by Apartheid as the below quote reflects

"Between 1976 and 1994 the Black Church and its theologians were vocal as representatives of the oppressed black majority in South Africa, emphasising the awareness that they also belong to the Kingdom of God."



> So why put the extra label only when it comes to Muslims? Why do you find it important to mention Islam above all other religions or ideology or nation?




We are discussing Islamophobia not the phobia of any other religion/ideology. Your position is that policies put in place that safeguards Islam and negatively affect non-muslims has no bearing on Islam, the spread thereof or for that matter Islamic History. I disagree. We can leave it at that or we could continue.



> Nope. The dispute came from you forcing that label on as soon as a Muslim is involved, whether Islam is a motivating actor or not, but not put that label when a Christian is involved. It shows a double standard. It seems to be a will to demonstrate that "Islam is bad, look how it plays a role in all those bad things", whether it did or not.




Again we are talking about Islamophobia which phobia would include the history of that religion or followers of that religion. 

For the record, I include the spread of Christianity, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the wars between Catholics vs Protestants...etc under Christian History. We are not discussing Christian-phobia. Would you like us to discuss it?   



> Why not? You're willing to ignore and excuse islamophobia in Europe.




I can sympathise with any homeland nation when it feels like its people, language, culture, heritage might be threatened or eroded. Safeguards are continuously put in place to protect such things  in communities and countries around the world, despite situations like a refugee crisis. We do not call those out  those safeguards as irrational, but somehow our fear of a particular group of people is deemed irrational.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> In terms of consistency, for me, policies that affect one Muslim minority in a country is part of Islamic history - as it strengthens one version of Islam over another.



In terms of consistency you need to try again. You were talking about how Coptic Christians were affected by discriminatory laws in Egypt. A country ruled by a military regime by the way. A military regime that ironically evicted elected Muslim fundamentalists.



> We are discussing Islamophobia not the phobia of any other religion/ideology. Your position is that policies put in place that safeguards Islam and negatively affect non-muslims has no bearing on Islam, the spread thereof or for that matter Islamic History. I disagree. We can leave it at that or we could continue.



But you fail to demonstrate that is is done because of Islam. Like Pakistan becoming an independent country. It happened because there was a desire of independence by a population who's religion is incidentally Islam.



> For the record, I include the spread of Christianity, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the wars between Catholics vs Protestants...etc under Christian History. We are not discussing Christian-phobia. Would you like us to discuss it?



You're missing the critic that you're putting everything in the Islamic History file as soon as one actor might be Muslim, instead of when Islam is actually a motivator. See Egypt and Pakistan above.



> I can sympathise with any homeland nation when it feels like its people, language, culture, heritage might be threatened or eroded.



Al Qaeda says that it feels the US and Israel are threatening culture and heritage in the Middle-East. 

Remember, all that is needed is to "feel" threaten to get your sympathy. No need to actually be threatened.


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> You were talking about how Coptic Christians were affected by discriminatory laws in Egypt. A country ruled by a military regime by the way. A military regime that ironically evicted elected Muslim fundamentalists.




They do not have to be Muslim fundamentalists to negatively affect Coptic Christians. Our conversation did not border on degrees of Islamism.  



> But you fail to demonstrate that is is done because of Islam. Like Pakistan becoming an independent country. It happened because there was a desire of independence by a population who's religion is incidentally Islam.




So India was torn apart because of Muslim Indians wanting their independence from Hindu Indians, but you don't see how this has anything to do with the religion? Ok. So if we remove the religious element between the Indians, do you think the Indians would have separated? 



> You're missing the critic that you're putting everything in the Islamic History file as soon as one actor might be Muslim, instead of when Islam is actually a motivator. See Egypt and Pakistan above.




Out of interest do you believe that Islamic History ended with the compilation of the Hadith? or even earlier when Mohammed died? Does it not deal with the spread of the religion, even if that includes the tearing apart of another nation?



> Al Qaeda says that it feels the US and Israel are threatening culture and heritage in the Middle-East.
> 
> Remember, all that is needed is to "feel" threaten to get your sympathy. No need to actually be threatened.




Interesting, are you saying the US and Israel as governments have performed less atrocities than Al-Qaeda?


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> They do not have to be Muslim fundamentalists to negatively affect Coptic Christians. Our conversation did not border on degrees of Islamism.



But the military regime would need to be motivated by Islam and be Islamism. By all accounts it is secular and motivated by power and greed. No? 

Now if you say the military in power are Muslims, that is true, but it doesn't mean they are motivated by Islam. Unless you believe Muslism always act in accordance with Islam. Do you? 



> So India was torn apart because of Muslim Indians wanting their independence from Hindu Indians, but you don't see how this has anything to do with the religion?



What if they never considered themselves to be Indians, but a different people with a different cutlure, language and herirage? You know, that stuff you feel sympathy when people want to defend it. What if they were a minority that was oppressed within colonial India? What if they were a people who were conquered by the Sikh Empire, then the British and just wanted to govern themselves after an history of servitude? 

Yes Islam is part of their cultural identity, but the motivator for independence is not Islam, but the desire for self-governance, like it was for the USians under British rule, Slovakians and Czechs in Czechoslovakia, or the Scottish independendists, to name a few examples. Why would in this case it would be different?



> Out of interest do you believe that Islamic History ended with the compilation of the Hadith? or even earlier when Mohammed died? Does it not deal with the spread of the religion, even if that includes the tearing apart of another nation?



I'm not even sure why you'd think that.



> Interesting, are you saying the US and Israel as governments have performed less atrocities than Al-Qaeda?



I'm saying your low standards for sympathy would mean you should have some sympathy for Al Qaeda. They feel they are defending the Middle-East's culture and heritage after all. I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you do not have any sympathy, meaning you do not really apply your standards to everyone equally. Your sympathy just goes according to your positive prejudices.


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> But the military regime would need to be motivated by Islam and be Islamism.




Earlier you were insisting I don't paint Muslims in a homogeneous group and yet here you are arguing for it.    



> By all accounts it is secular and motivated by power and greed. No?  Now if you say the military in power are Muslims, that is true, but it doesn't mean they are motivated by Islam. Unless you believe Muslism always act in accordance with Islam. Do you?




Are you denying that Islam has affected some of their laws and/or policy making?



> What if they never considered themselves to be Indians, but a different people with a different cutlure, language and herirage? You know, that stuff you feel sympathy when people want to defend it. What if they were a minority that was oppressed within colonial India? What if they were a people who were conquered by the Sikh Empire, then the British and just wanted to govern themselves after an history of servitude?




Can you please back that up with some actual evidence. 



> I'm not even sure why you'd think that.




You have not bothered to define Islamic History from your perspective. 



> I'm saying your low standards for sympathy would mean you should have some sympathy for Al Qaeda. They feel they are defending the Middle-East's culture and heritage after all. I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you do not have any sympathy, meaning you do not really apply your standards to everyone equally. Your sympathy just goes according to your positive prejudices.




LOL! Hey agreed I might have bias and that this (what I posted) was my personal opinion from the very first post. You might want to reread that. As for having sympathy for Al Qaeda - a terrorist organisation. No. Apparently when one makes a statement about sympathy, one needs to stipulate every exception or proviso in case the 'Gotcha' mentality comes calling. Ludicrous.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> Are you denying that Islam has affected some of their laws and/or policy making?



And because of that you would include the policies of Egypt's secular military regime in Islamic History? By your logic, this means that because some laws were affected by Christianity in South Africa that Apartheid is part of Christian History.



> Can you please back that up with some actual evidence.



The Sikh Empire conquered parts of Pakistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_Empire



> You have not bothered to define Islamic History from your perspective.



Because it is irrelevant. My point is that it isn't Islamic History just because Muslims are involved in an event. Now you seem to believe so. The problem isn't the definition of Islamic History, but that you seem to think that Muslims are always motivated by Islam. 



> LOL! Hey agreed I might have bias and that this (what I posted) was my personal opinion from the very first post.



So your bias is that you feel that every bad thing done by a Muslim must be linked to Islam by labelling it Islamic History, whether or not Islam was a motivator?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

violent Muslim extremests re an extreme minority. and Islams history may involve conquest, but it is nowhere near as murder laden as that of Christianity. even the conquest has vastly more civilized than any armed conflict between Christians and non Christians. Or two sets of Christians for that matter. before Ottomans especially, Muslims prettymuch just did not rape murder and pillage as part of conquest, nor did they force  coversion. at all.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Sadras said:


> I see you completely ignored the fact that we are having two different conversations.
> 
> In any event, in the instance of the West our religious authorities are generally different to our politicians. Many times (as they have in the past and even present) these two groups have colluded. In the instance of the war on Iraq and Afghan, as I have shown you, the largest sect of the Christian religion did not agree with GWB and Co's actions despite GWB invoking his deity during press conferences.
> When it comes to Egypt's Governing Law, the religion of Islam plays a strong role. https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=39960. Which means that experts in the religion were most probably consulted in the formulation of the law.
> 
> That is very different to having a politician (a complete layman) invoking his deity publicly without the backing of major Christian authorities. I'm not saying that some Christian denominations did not jump onto GWB's violent campaign of greed, but that it is very different having religious dogma influence law. Furthermore the tearing apart of India was on religious reasons. The Armenian persecution was done by the Ottoman Empire which was not a secular state.
> 
> USA is a secular state. UK is a secular state - no matter what god the president or prime minister invoke publicly. The majority of the muslim nations are not secular, therefore religion plays a large role.
> 
> And again I reiterate
> You are talking about the Spanish Inquisition, Egyptian Policy...
> I'm discussing Christian Inquisitions, Islamic Policy...



you know that most Muslims live in Asia, right? Most Muslims live quite peacefully in democratic nations that have or have had female heads of state, etc. Iran and the Saudis dont actually represent the "Muslim world"' it turns out. 
The US is secular on paper. Bush's govt used Christianity and the idea of it and Islam as existentially incompatable ideologies to justify war. that is simple fact. the opinion of the pope onthe matter is irrelevant. most Americans are protestant. Many conservatives consider catholicism an idol worshipping cult, and/or say that Catholics aren't Christians. 

Islamiphobia is unjustified scumbaggery.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Ovinomancer said:


> It's funny how privilege theory predicts that any arguments against it from the people it declares privileged are proof that privilege theory is correct.




That is nonsense, and you probably know it. 

It can seem that way, because your privilege distorts your way of looking at the world around you, but things like white and male privilege are observably, provably extant circumstances, not theories. Well, not theories in the colloquial sense. Obviously, even many things we treat as scientific fundamentals are technically theories in the jargon science usage of the term.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> violent Muslim extremests re an extreme minority. and Islams history may involve conquest, but it is nowhere near as murder laden as that of Christianity. even the conquest has vastly more civilized than any armed conflict between Christians and non Christians. Or two sets of Christians for that matter. before Ottomans especially, Muslims prettymuch just did not rape murder and pillage as part of conquest, nor did they force  coversion. at all.




The violent Muslim extremists may be a small minority when compared to the number of Muslims in the world, but there are still huge numbers of them.  What's more, they control multiple governments in the Middle East and some strong groups trying to take other such governments.


----------



## Ovinomancer

doctorbadwolf said:


> That is nonsense, and you probably know it.
> 
> It can seem that way, because your privilege distorts your way of looking at the world around you, but things like white and male privilege are observably, provably extant circumstances, not theories. Well, not theories in the colloquial sense. Obviously, even many things we treat as scientific fundamentals are technically theories in the jargon science usage of the term.




I rest my case.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> I rest my case.




Yeah, that was pretty bad.  He also doesn't seem to understand that disparity between races does not equal privilege.  There are other reasons that the disparity is present other than white people intentionally granting other white people some sort of mythical racial privilege.  Culture is the culprit.  There are some minority cultures who don't view school as important as it should be and they suffer economically as a result.  Some minority cultured are scholastically inclined and they do very well and have great success.  "White Privilege" doesn't seem to affect them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> "White Privilege" doesn't seem to affect them.




Spoken like someone who is most probably not a member of a minority.  What "seems" and what actually is are often 2 different things.

I'm a black guy living in the southern USA.  I'm a lawyer with an MBA and other letters behind my name as well.  My Dad is an MD.  My Mom was a HS music teacher, both of my grandmothers were elementary teachers, and both grandfathers were multiply-degreed college professors.  One was even an administrator.

...and each of us has dealt with the consequences of "White Privilege" on nearly a daily basis.

And I can guarantee you that a member of almost any minority group in the USA has their own stories to tell as well.

"White Privilege" isn't about conscious discrimination or granting of favorable treatment.  It is about unconscious or even institutionalized preference of Caucasians over others.

If I go into a jewelry store or car dealership where I am not known, the assumption is that I don't have the money to pay for things.  Despite the fact that I'm dressed as nicely as anyone else, I am either a waste of salesmen's time or worse, a thief.  (Or once, an employee of the Cadillac dealership by another customer- he handed me his keys so I could go take it into the back lot; I was there getting a Cadillac serviced myself.)


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm a black guy living in the southern USA.  I'm a lawyer with an MBA and other letters behind my name as well.  My Dad is an MD.  My Mom was a HS music teacher, both of my grandmothers were elementary teachers, and both grandfathers were multiply-degreed college professors.  One was even an administrator.
> 
> ...and each of us has dealt with the consequences of "White Privilege" on nearly a daily basis.




Such as?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ever been told that what you're selling- something you bought for yourself- is stolen?

Ever been followed from the moment you entered a music store because they thought you were a shoplifter?

Ever been arrested coming out of a church where you had just been an altar server?

Ever been told you could not test drive a car?

Ever had someone assume you were an illegal immigrant despite being a 3rd generation American?

Ever had someone assume you were staff and not a customer?

Ever had someone ASTONISHED that you were articulate, well-informed or otherwise well-educated?

All of those happened to me or someone in my family.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Ever been told that what you're selling- something you bought for yourself- is stolen?




Every time I walk out of a store and they ask to see my items and receipt.  That's why I refuse.  It's an insult and an accusation.



> Ever been followed from the moment you entered a music store because they thought you were a shoplifter?




Nope, but that racism and/or profiling, not white privilege.  



> Ever been arrested coming out of a church where you had just been an altar server?




Again, racism (assuming no valid reason for the police to be there or suspect you) is not white privilege.  All police don't engage in those acts and white people are victims of those situations as well, even if not as often.



> Ever been told you could not test drive a car?
> 
> Ever had someone assume you were an illegal immigrant despite being a 3rd generation American?




Same as above.



> Ever had someone assume you were staff and not a customer?
> 
> Ever had someone ASTONISHED that you were articulate, well-informed or otherwise well-educated?




Yes to both of those.



> All of those happened to me or someone in my family.



Racism exists.  I've heard people talking about being "jewed" by someone.  I once on a bus had someone come up to me and tell my that my daughter who had light hair when she was a baby had some Aryan in her.  I've experienced racism as well, even though I am white.  Racism is not evidence that there is some deliberate systemic privilege that is being granted to white people.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Ever been told that what you're selling- something you bought for yourself- is stolen?
> 
> Ever been followed from the moment you entered a music store because they thought you were a shoplifter?
> 
> Ever been arrested coming out of a church where you had just been an altar server?
> 
> Ever been told you could not test drive a car?
> 
> Ever had someone assume you were an illegal immigrant despite being a 3rd generation American?
> 
> Ever had someone assume you were staff and not a customer?
> 
> Ever had someone ASTONISHED that you were articulate, well-informed or otherwise well-educated?
> 
> All of those happened to me or someone in my family.




The argument wasn't the racist s exist, though.  It was the privilege theory is impervious to criticism.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> I rest my case.




That's a horribly weak resting place.

First off, your case is an absolute - *ANY* argument made against privilege by one who has it will be declared a proof privilege by the theory.  The absolute there is the weak spot - so long as we find a single case in which that isn't done, your case goes down.  But, that's the lesser issue, honestly, so let us let that issue of basic rhetoric slide.

More importantly, you have asserted any argument made against privilege by one who has it will be declared an example of privilege *BY THE THEORY*.  As opposed to it being claimed as proof of privilege *BY THE PERSON ARGUING*.  You effectively have made an argument against a faulty argument, not against the theory itself.

We can have an argument over the theory that the earth is basically round.  If the side arguing for roundness does a really poor job, is that an indication that the world is flat?  Reality is what it is, no matter how well we state our arguments about it.  

Here's the thing - "privilege theory" as you call it, does not predict what you say.  Privilege theory does predict that many who have privilege will be blind to it.  That the privileged will argue against it is not really a thing of privilege theory, it is a practical result of general human psychology - whether you were blind to it or not, once you (generic, not you, Ovinomancer specifically) are told you are privileged, one will often reject it, as it implies there is some responsibility that you're not living up to some responsibility, and rather frequently folks are not willing to accept such.

So, those who are speaking about privilege should not argue that arguments against it are evidence of privilege.  They are a matter of being human.  In that, you have a point - folks who do this are being sloppy in their discussion.  The existence of privilege can be demonstrated through sheer statistics, and the _ad hominem_ of "Yeah, the privileged all react like that," isn't helpful or constructive.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> That's a horribly weak resting place.
> 
> First off, your case is an absolute - *ANY* argument made against privilege by one who has it will be declared a proof privilege by the theory.  The absolute there is the weak spot - so long as we find a single case in which that isn't done, your case goes down.  But, that's the lesser issue, honestly, so let us let that issue of basic rhetoric slide.
> 
> More importantly, you have asserted any argument made against privilege by one who has it will be declared an example of privilege *BY THE THEORY*.  As opposed to it being claimed as proof of privilege *BY THE PERSON ARGUING*.  You effectively have made an argument against a faulty argument, not against the theory itself.
> 
> We can have an argument over the theory that the earth is basically round.  If the side arguing for roundness does a really poor job, is that an indication that the world is flat?  Reality is what it is, no matter how well we state our arguments about it.
> 
> Here's the thing - "privilege theory" as you call it, does not predict what you say.  Privilege theory does predict that many who have privilege will be blind to it.  That the privileged will argue against it is not really a thing of privilege theory, it is a practical result of general human psychology - whether you were blind to it or not, once you (generic, not you, Ovinomancer specifically) are told you are privileged, one will often reject it, as it implies there is some responsibility that you're not living up to some responsibility, and rather frequently folks are not willing to accept such.
> 
> So, those who are speaking about privilege should not argue that arguments against it are evidence of privilege.  They are a matter of being human.  In that, you have a point - folks who do this are being sloppy in their discussion.  The existence of privilege can be demonstrated through sheer statistics, and the _ad hominem_ of "Yeah, the privileged all react like that," isn't helpful or constructive.




No, the way the theory is constructed can easily be used to defend the theory against attacks by the privileged.  That you can argue that it doesn't have to do that is somewhat immaterial if the overwhelming majority of privilege theory's application is exactly as I have characterized it.  Further, you yourself used only one rational for argument against the theory by the so-called privileged -- that of human hubris.  Hate to tell you, but that's exactly how privilege theory predicts the privileged will act, so that's a failed counter and further evidence that privilege theory is unassailable.

Whenever privilege theory is invoked, any argument against the validity of the theory is reacted to exactly as doctorbadwolf did:



			
				doctorbadwolf said:
			
		

> That is nonsense, and you probably know it.
> 
> It can seem that way, because your privilege distorts your way of looking at the world around you, but things like white and male privilege are observably, provably extant circumstances, not theories. Well, not theories in the colloquial sense. Obviously, even many things we treat as scientific fundamentals are technically theories in the jargon science usage of the term.




He said that even thinking that it might be wrong is evidence that the theory is correct.  Further, he said that the theory isn't really a theory, but more of a law, as it's clearly a scientific fundamental.  How it accurately classified race or class, or what metric of privilege it uses to determine the relative level of privilege is unsaid and unsayable, but has the force of Science(tm) behind it, so questioning it is probably un-scientific as well as wrong to boot.

Privilege theory was born as one tool in a toolbox to help classify social interactions.  It wasn't correct or incorrect, but it was occasionally useful.  However, it's been entirely hijacked by people like doctorbadwolf, and as it's now used it's unassailable.  In fact, any attempt to question it just leads to accusations of failure to understand.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Let me put it differently: simply put, things my Caucasian friends take for granted, I can't.

Whenever I go car shopping, there is an assumption that I don't have the money to buy a car at that dealership; that I don't belong.  When I tried to buy my first car solo in the 1990s, I had $20k for a downpayment, and dressed as was typical of the preppy/yuppie types around the area.  I was looking for something in the $30-45k range.  

I shopped all the major makers, sometimes multiple dealerships by the same maker.  Sometimes I took a white buddy with me.  I was often ignored for 30min to an hour before anyone would talk to me.  Many places refused me a test drive.  

My buddy?  HIM they talked to.  Sometimes, if I walked in ahead of him, they'd walk past me to greet him.

When I finally got to test drive something I wanted and decided to buy it, the salesman assumed I had bad credit.  He offered me a financing rate 3% higher than the loan my bank had already pre-approved me for.  I asked him point-blank if he had checked with them, and he told me he had.  I handed him a business card and told him to call back and talk to _my_ banker, using my actual name.

This isn't one car buying trip.  *This is typical of every new car buying excursion my family has had for the past 20 years.*. IOW, I cannot take for granted that I will be respected as a customer.

When my Dad was arrested coming out of church, the assumption was that an entire congregation of blacks saying he had just been an altar server for the past 90 minutes was lying to protect one of their own.  Do you honestly think cops would arrest a white kid with a similar alibi?  IOW, I cannot take for granted that my rights of liberty will be taken for granted.

When I went to a black tie event as the arm candy for an invitee friend of mine, I got out my tuxedo & my opal stud set.  I was the only black guest there.  Many guests- some who had ignored the black tie portion of the invite and got admitted anyway- assumed I was supervising the staff.  IOW, I cannot take freedom of association for granted.

So, "White Privilege" isn't so much that people are going out of their way to give white people special treatment.  It is that there are underlying unconscious cultural assumptions that blacks (and other minorities) are not solvent, educated, truthful, and generally don't belong.

See also "criming while white" on Twitter and Scalzi's blog:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/


----------



## Eltab

MY White Privilege card says "Irish need not apply".

Which points out that the modern problem is NOT somebody's 'privilege', it is a failure of cultural assimilation.
(Usually such 'privilege' is claimed - in accusation form - by somebody who thinks of himself as an outsider.)


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Ever been told that what you're selling- something you bought for yourself- is stolen?
> 
> Ever been followed from the moment you entered a music store because they thought you were a shoplifter?
> 
> Ever been arrested coming out of a church where you had just been an altar server?
> 
> Ever been told you could not test drive a car?
> 
> Ever had someone assume you were an illegal immigrant despite being a 3rd generation American?
> 
> Ever had someone assume you were staff and not a customer?
> 
> Ever had someone ASTONISHED that you were articulate, well-informed or otherwise well-educated?
> 
> All of those happened to me or someone in my family.




Actually, as a late middle-aged white male, I can say that I've had more than half of those happen to me.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ryujin said:


> Actually, as a late middle-aged white male, I can say that I've had more than half of those happen to me.



To the Caucasian forumites who have responded likewise, I now ask: how often?  Was it a singular event, or commonplace?


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To the Caucasian forumites who have responded likewise, I now ask: how often?  Was it a singular event, or commonplace?




But you didn't ask that and now you qualify 

To put it simply, I do not deny that the racial bias exists. What I do say, is that anecdotal evidence is just as meaningless in such a debate as it is in any other. It's sloppy debate.

To answer this question when I was younger, say 20 years ago, I had exactly the same experience that you did in dealerships. I was routinely denied test drives and was ignored by salesmen. I was followed in stores. In one case I was derisively told when purchasing a motorcycle that my financing hadn't come through yet, by a snotty sales rep.. I dropped two credit cards on his desk and asked him to which he would prefer to charge the entire amount. That shut him up pretty quickly. These days at 5'9" and 190 pounds, sporting a shaved head and Van Dyke, I am still fairly routinely followed in stores. As to people being astonished that I'm articulate, I'm not particularly so. It's intelligence and knowledge that surprises them, rather than any native ability to relate such.


----------



## Kramodlog

The anecdote game is a bad one. Anyone can have a experience that does't fit with what should happen to someone who is privilege or not. Stats are more telling, as they represent odds of something happening and tendancies. 

Odds are a black person will have a harder time finding housing than a white person. A white person doesn't need to be racist to benefit from that. Being white comes with the privilege of having less odds of being discriminated when looking for housing. 

Odds are a black person will face jail time if he/she is found with marijuana on their person and that jail time will be longer. A white person has less odds of facing jail time they are found with pot on them, and if they end up in jail, odds are their time there will be shorter. 

There are many more examples involving homosexuals, Asians, women, trans, Arabs...

White heterosexual males, just have more favorable odds, or less disfavorable odds, when it comes to a lot of things. Not everything, you can be a white man and still face discrimination, but being privileged does mean you will never face any. 

One reason why there is so much push back is that odds and tendacies are rather abstract from an individual standpoint. Plus privilege is a terrible word. Try to say to a single white mother on welfare that she is privileged (compared to statistics of black women in a similar situation). A Frank Luntz would be needed to find a better word and concept, but he works for the Dark Side.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

goldomark said:


> Odds are a black person will face jail time if he/she is found with marijuana on their person and that jail time will be longer. A white person has less odds of facing jail time they are found with pot on them, and if they end up in jail, odds are their time there will be shorter.



I have a cousin serving 30 years in Angola prison for his first offense, armed robbery.  It is utterly undisputed by the prosecution that he was passed out cold in the getaway car when the robbery occurred, and had been for some time previous.

Under the law, persons who are co-conspirators can be given the same sentence as those who commit the crime in principal.  However, that requires certain amounts of proof...including whether or not the co-conspirator was still a participant in the conspiracy.



> One reason why there is so much push back is that odds and tendacies are rather abstract from an individual standpoint. Plus privilege is a terrible word. Try to say to a single white mother on welfare that she is privileged (compared to statistics of black women in a similar situation). A Frank Luntz would be needed to find a better word and concept, but he works for the Dark Side.




That was part of what Scalzi's point was.  Being white doesn't guarantee a rosy future, it just shifts odds in your favor.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> Odds are a black person will have a harder time finding housing than a white person. A white person doesn't need to be racist to benefit from that. Being white comes with the privilege of having less odds of being discriminated when looking for housing.
> 
> Odds are a black person will face jail time if he/she is found with marijuana on their person and that jail time will be longer. A white person has less odds of facing jail time they are found with pot on them, and if they end up in jail, odds are their time there will be shorter.




Odds are that I will have a harder time finding housing than another white person if I dress in baggy pants and a t-shirt.  Odds are that if a white guy dressed in that same baggy pants walks into a car dealership next to a middle eastern man in a button down shirt, slacks and dress shoes, that white guy will be ignored.

People in professions that deal with money profile based on economics, not color.  They do it because it works.  If it didn't, they wouldn't do it.  Sometimes they will misjudge someone doing it that way, but not so often that it doesn't make sense to continue the practice.  

It's unfortunate, but as a whole the black and hispanic communities are economically worse off.  I'm not talking about disparity in the same job as a white person where both are equally qualified.  That's racism.  I'm talking about the much higher drop-out rates that black and hispanic people have when compared to the white community.  That's a cultural/social difference that results in most of the economic disparity.  Drop outs who work as grocery clerks are not going to make as much as educated people.  

White privilege isn't the problem, and it really doesn't exist.  Most of what is called white privilege is racism and/or economic in nature.  What needs to be done is to shift the views of the black and hispanic communities so that they view education as more important than they currently view it and become more educated.  If they shift their attitudes towards education, they will simultaneously shift their economic situation higher and the "white privilege" issues will be greatly diminished.  Racism will never be gotten rid of completely.  

Please note that I'm not saying that every individual in those communities holds that general view.  There are many individuals who do value education and they are making far more than the bulk of their community.

Oh, and just to drive the point home that economics is the major issue, I will also face far more jail time than a rich person who is accused of the same crime.  Even simple drug accusations.  Money matters.  I couldn't get away with a tenth of what Lindsey Lohan and other rich and famous people get away with on a regular basis.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I have a cousin serving 30 years in Angola prison for his first offense, armed robbery.  It is utterly undisputed by the prosecution that he was passed out cold in the getaway car when the robbery occurred, and had been for some time previous.
> 
> Under the law, persons who are co-conspirators can be given the same sentence as those who commit the crime in principal.  However, that requires certain amounts of proof...including whether or not the co-conspirator was still a participant in the conspiracy.




http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/justice/exonerated-prisoner-update-michael-morton/

http://listverse.com/2013/03/27/10-people-who-were-wrongfully-accused-of-heinous-crimes/

Prosecutors do screwed up things and it happens very often to white people, too.  They are zealous and often ignore evidence in order to get convictions.

That said, I do understand that there is a disproportionate number of black people in jail for crimes that white people are accused of.  This country has a lot of racism that still needs to go away.  That racism results in the disparity between white and black inmates, not some deliberate privilege being accorded to people who are white.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Odds are that I will have a harder time finding housing than another white person if I dress in baggy pants and a t-shirt. Odds are that if a white guy dressed in that same baggy pants walks into a car dealership next to a middle eastern man in a button down shirt, slacks and dress shoes, that white guy will be ignored.




And 


> White privilege isn't the problem, and it really doesn't exist.




http://metro.co.uk/2015/04/30/racis...nd-white-person-in-the-united-states-5175699/
_This has nothing to do with clothes._

I don't shop in raggedy clothing.  Odds are- unless I'm going play volleyball or to the gym- I'm wearing over $3000 in clothing & jewelry.  My Dad wears a sportscoat (or suit), tie and french cuffs every weekday, as do I whenever I'm with clients or in court.

It doesn't matter what we wear, we _routinely_ get ignored at car dealerships.  As in, that is our norm, not an exception.

Controlling for all non-racial factors, blacks pay $700 more per automobile than do whites, are 50% more likely to be stopped by police while driving, and less likely to be responded to by politicians or potential employers.



> Prosecutors do screwed up things and it happens very often to white people, too. They are zealous and often ignore evidence in order to get convictions.




Again,_ "white privilege" does not mean that nothing bad happens to Caucasians,_ but rather, certain bad things happen to minorities at rates much higher than would be predicted in race-neutral probability studies.  As the vid linked to above points out, despite marijuana use being statistically identical between blacks and whites, blacks are 4x more likely to do jail time.

As someone who worked (briefly) in Texas' public defender's system, that isn't just because of juries.  Whites are far more likely to be offered plea deals and never see a jury than are blacks or Hispanics.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Heh... a paralegal VS lawyer discussion. This should be interesting.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> White privilege isn't the problem, and it really doesn't exist.  Most of what is called white privilege is racism and/or economic in nature.



Wouldn't you say that being white makes you less likely the target/victim of racism and that is a privilege that comes with being white? That being heterosexual makes you less likely to be the target/vitim of discrimination? Or cisgender. Or being a man.

You focus a lot on race, but privilege isn't just about race. 



> What needs to be done is to shift the views of the black and hispanic communities so that they view education as more important than they currently view it and become more educated.  If they shift their attitudes towards education, they will simultaneously shift their economic situation higher and the "white privilege" issues will be greatly diminished.



Yeah, no racial stereotypes here. Might as well say Asians value education and do not face racism because of it.


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> Wouldn't you say that being white makes you less likely the target/victim of racism and that is a privilege that comes with being white? That being heterosexual makes you less likely to be the target/vitim of discrimination? Or cisgender. Or being a man.
> 
> You focus a lot on race, but privilege isn't just about race.
> 
> Yeah, no racial stereotypes here. Might as well say Asians value education and do not face racism because of it.




It's now a privilege to not be a victim?!


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> Wouldn't you say that being white makes you less likely the target/victim of racism and that is a privilege that comes with being white? That being heterosexual makes you less likely to be the target/vitim of discrimination? Or cisgender. Or being a man.




Less likely?  Sure.  A privilege?  No.  A privilege is something others deliberately grant you.  Nor are any of those things you mentioned limited to white people, so it's not even something special to them.  Not once in my life have I been pulled aside by a white conspiracy and told to extend privileges like these to other white people.  Nor have I heard mention of it from any of my white friends.



> You focus a lot on race, but privilege isn't just about race.




Why would I focus on other things in a conversation about *white* privilege?


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And
> 
> 
> http://metro.co.uk/2015/04/30/racis...nd-white-person-in-the-united-states-5175699/
> _This has nothing to do with clothes._
> 
> I don't shop in raggedy clothing.  Odds are- unless I'm going play volleyball or to the gym- I'm wearing over $3000 in clothing & jewelry.  My Dad wears a sportscoat (or suit), tie and french cuffs every weekday, as do I whenever I'm with clients or in court.
> 
> It doesn't matter what we wear, we _routinely_ get ignored at car dealerships.  As in, that is our norm, not an exception.




That's still economic profiling, which is fairly accurate.  I don't for a minute believe that that many people are so blatantly racist that they are ignoring you guys based solely on skin color.  Some probably are, but the majority of those salesmen are trying to make money and if they thought that black people were as a whole, as economically sound as white people, you wouldn't be getting ignored like that.  



> Controlling for all non-racial factors, blacks pay $700 more per automobile than do whites, are 50% more likely to be stopped by police while driving, and less likely to be responded to by politicians or potential employers.




Color does play a role in those things.  How many of those stopped by police are in primarily black communities where black crime is high?  I'm not saying that stopping people based on color is right, but often race does play a logical role in things.  When 90% of illegal immigrants are hispanic, it's logical, not racist to use 90% of your anti-illegal immigration resources targeting illegal hispanics.  It's not racist, because it's just responding to factual numbers.  Numbers also play a role in being responded to by politicians.  In the vast majority of elections, Obama's election being the aberration, black people haven't turn out to vote as much as white people do.  I'm also curious to know if black politicians ignore black constituents.  

I don't have enough knowledge of employers or what might contribute to paying more for cars other than just race, so I'm not going to respond further on those comments.



> Again,_ "white privilege" does not mean that nothing bad happens to Caucasians,_ but rather, certain bad things happen to minorities at rates much higher than would be predicted in race-neutral probability studies.  As the vid linked to above points out, despite marijuana use being statistically identical between blacks and whites, blacks are 4x more likely to do jail time.
> 
> As someone who worked (briefly) in Texas' public defender's system, that isn't just because of juries.  Whites are far more likely to be offered plea deals and never see a jury than are blacks or Hispanics.




What do you mean by statistically identical?  Same percentage of each population, or same approximate total number of users?


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> A privilege is something others deliberately grant you.



I'm not sure where you get that privileges are things that are all consciously given. For example, first impressions aren't always a concious rational process. 



> Nor are any of those things you mentioned limited to white people,



I didn't say it is limited to white people. And, again, I'll say that it doesn't mean that individuals who are part of a demographics that has some privileges can't face discrimination either. 

What I said is that odds favor men, white people, heterosexuals, cisgender people... And you agree that this, so I'm not sure what your issue is. If you want to say privilege is not an ideal word or concept, I agreed with that in an earlier post. Do you have a better word to suggest to discribe real social phenomenoms?



> Why would I focus on other things in a conversation about *white* privilege?



Because the post that started the conversation did exclusively focus on skin color. It was, surprisingly, about privileges another poster has. Those can include skin color, but also gender, sexual orientation, gender identity... http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...tians/page36&p=6740422&viewfull=1#post6740422


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> I don't for a minute believe that that many people are so blatantly racist that they are ignoring you guys based solely on skin color.



And here is the crux of the issue. That the relatively discrimination free* life you enjoy prevents you from believing that other people face discrimination based on stupid things like skin color, gender or sexual orientation. 


*That doesn't mean bad things do not happen to you.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> It's now a privilege to not be a victim?!




If you have a word or concept that won't make you use interrobangs, feel free to share.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> What I said is that odds favor men, white people, heterosexuals, cisgender people... And you agree that this, so I'm not sure what your issue is. If you want to say privilege is not an ideal word or concept, I agreed with that in an earlier post. Do you have a better word to suggest to discribe real social phenomenoms?




Culture.  Most of what is described are the result of the cultures of the minority groups.  The black and hispanic cultures result in far more drop outs than the white culture.  As a result, those communities are far poorer and have more of those young people become involved in crime.  That paints a negative picture to other cultures about those groups.  Those cultures need to be altered.  If they were and that negative picture were to be erased, "white privilege" would go with it.  Why?  Because it isn't that being white gives me some sort of advantage over the baseline.  It's that the negative image gives those cultures a disadvantage.  Erase that disadvantage and things should equal out. 



> Because the post that started the conversation did exclusively focus on skin color. It was, surprisingly, about privileges another poster has. Those can include skin color, but also gender, sexual orientation, gender identity... http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...tians/page36&p=6740422&viewfull=1#post6740422



There are slightly different issues that affect the different categories listed here.  Right now I'm discussing "white privilege", and the things that go into why the different races are treated differently don't line up perfectly with the other categories, so I'm not addressing them right now.  Perhaps a different thread would be good for those.


----------



## Ryujin

Maxperson said:


> Less likely?  Sure.  A privilege?  No.  A privilege is something others deliberately grant you.  Nor are any of those things you mentioned limited to white people, so it's not even something special to them.  Not once in my life have I been pulled aside by a white conspiracy and told to extend privileges like these to other white people.  Nor have I heard mention of it from any of my white friends.
> 
> Why would I focus on other things in a conversation about *white* privilege?




A 'privilege' is something that you receive, over and above what is generally available. It need not be consciously given, in order to be privilege. In fact I would argue the term "white privilege" refers to the institutionalized conscious AND unconscious boons granted to whites, by society. If you can compare statistics for people of different race and/or ethnic origin who are of the same general socio-economic strata and see different results in day-to-day life, then you can demonstrate that this privilege exists. It seems to me that this has been rather convincingly done.


----------



## Maxperson

Ryujin said:


> A 'privilege' is something that you receive, over and above what is generally available. It need not be consciously given, in order to be privilege. In fact I would argue the term "white privilege" refers to the institutionalized conscious AND unconscious boons granted to whites, by society. If you can compare statistics for people of different race and/or ethnic origin who are of the same general socio-economic strata and see different results in day-to-day life, then you can demonstrate that this privilege exists. It seems to me that this has been rather convincingly done.




I'm arguing that I don't receive anything over and above the baseline. As proof of that, there are other cultures/races that receive what I do.  The remaining cultures have been set up due to a variety of factors, racism being one of them, so that they receive less than the baseline.  I don't receive more.  All that the statistics show is that there is a disparity.  They don't show that I receive more than the baseline due to my color.  If I don't get more than the baseline, there is no privilege. 

Now, if you can show that the minority cultures are the baseline, getting what they are supposed to be getting and that I'm getting more than that due to my color, THEN we have some sort of white privilege happening.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> Less likely?  Sure.  A privilege?  No.  A privilege is something others deliberately grant you.




Not necessarily, but I am not sure it is worth having that argument.  By digging into details of definition, we misdirect into missing the point.

The point is that, statistically speaking, some groups have it easier than others.  You can call this by different names, but names have power, so what name you choose changes how you think about it.

You can speak about "cultural racial and sexist bias", for example, but that puts the focus on the victims of the bias.  It can be a real help, instead, to put the focus on those who are *not* selected against, and instead look at those who are on the positive side of that bias.


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> If you have a word or concept that won't make you use interrobangs, feel free to share.




So sorry, I didn't see your feelings there when I interrobanged.  Please allow me to rephrase:

It's now a privilege to not be a victim?


----------



## Ryujin

Maxperson said:


> I'm arguing that I don't receive anything over and above the baseline. As proof of that, there are other cultures/races that receive what I do.  The remaining cultures have been set up due to a variety of factors, racism being one of them, so that they receive less than the baseline.  I don't receive more.  All that the statistics show is that there is a disparity.  They don't show that I receive more than the baseline due to my color.  If I don't get more than the baseline, there is no privilege.
> 
> Now, if you can show that the minority cultures are the baseline, getting what they are supposed to be getting and that I'm getting more than that due to my color, THEN we have some sort of white privilege happening.




What you receive, personally, is immaterial to the debate. Just as I stated to Dannyalcatraz your personal experience, your 'anecdotal evidence', is of virtually zero import to the debate. This is something that can be clearly shown to exist, whatever the root cause may be, through straight statistical comparison.


----------



## WayneLigon

Maxperson said:


> Now, if you can show that the minority cultures are the baseline, getting what they are supposed to be getting and that I'm getting more than that due to my color, THEN we have some sort of white privilege happening.




I'd say that the very fact that you consider your experience to BE the 'baseline' is evidence of white privilege.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> Not necessarily, but I am not sure it is worth having that argument.  By digging into details of definition, we misdirect into missing the point.
> 
> The point is that, statistically speaking, some groups have it easier than others.  You can call this by different names, but names have power, so what name you choose changes how you think about it.
> 
> You can speak about "cultural racial and sexist bias", for example, but that puts the focus on the victims of the bias.  It can be a real help, instead, to put the focus on those who are *not* selected against, and instead look at those who are on the positive side of that bias.




I would phrase that as 'some groups have it worse than others.'  The issue isn't that whites get more*, it's that others get less.  The goal is to have everyone get what whites get, not that whites drop down to the baseline that others have.  In that sense, speaking of privilege is silly, you need to speak directly to the issues that prevent others from obtaining the baseline: racism, cultural assumptions, etc.  Choosing to phrase the issue in terms of the baseline having privilege that they need to feel guilty over having and then give up to the less fortunate doesn't address the fundamental issues facing some minority groups.  It's grist for those that wish to indulge their White Guilt.

*accepting this premise arguendo


----------



## Ovinomancer

WayneLigon said:


> I'd say that the very fact that you consider your experience to BE the 'baseline' is evidence of white privilege.




And that's another place to rest the case that you cannot argue against the theory (as used) if you are part of the designated privileged class.  The only way to be considered as having legitimate input is only if you accept your place within the theory -- which means you can't argue that your place isn't correct.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> Culture.  Most of what is described are the result of the cultures of the minority groups.  The black and hispanic cultures result in far more drop outs than the white culture.  As a result, those communities are far poorer and have more of those young people become involved in crime.  That paints a negative picture to other cultures about those groups.  Those cultures need to be altered.  If they were and that negative picture were to be erased, "white privilege" would go with it.  Why?  Because it isn't that being white gives me some sort of advantage over the baseline.  It's that the negative image gives those cultures a disadvantage.  Erase that disadvantage and things should equal out.



Your argument that people are responsable for the discrimination they face crumbles when it is applied to other groups. Asian face racism even if they meet your gold standard on culture (http://www.economist.com/news/brief...successful-minority-they-are-complaining-ever). Is homosexual culture responsable for homophobia? Is female culture to blame for discrimination women face? Might as well say women cause their own rape. 



> Right now I'm discussing "white privilege", and the things that go into why the different races are treated differently don't line up perfectly with the other categories, so I'm not addressing them right now.



Better ignore stuff that invalidates your theory.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> It's now a privilege to not be a victim?




Oh, I wasn't clear. Sorry. 

*ahem*

What word or concept would you prefere be used?


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> Oh, I wasn't clear. Sorry.
> 
> *ahem*
> 
> What word or concept would you prefere be used?




Perhaps I wasn't clear:  the words don't matter, the concept is flawed.  Are you actually arguing that people should feel guilt or acknowledge they have a privilege because they are not a victim?


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> The only way to be considered as having legitimate input is only if you accept your place within the theory



Not at all. It is that your anecdotale evidence is not evidence that privilege doesn't exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence#Faulty_logic


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> Your argument that people are responsable for the discrimination they face crumbles when it is applied to other groups. Asian face racism even if they meet your gold standard on culture (http://www.economist.com/news/brief...successful-minority-they-are-complaining-ever).



Your failure in that cite is that the discrimination against Asians is coming from the same source that advocates for white privilege -- ie, it's not discrimination against Asians for the assistance of whites, it's discrimination against Asians so that more other minorities can be uplifted.  Asians aren't being discriminated against on behalf of whites, they're being discriminated against on behalf of other minorities.


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> Not at all. It is that your anecdotale evidence is not evidence that privilege doesn't exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence#Faulty_logic




I have supplied no anecdotal evidence.  Find a different strawman.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> Perhaps I wasn't clear:  the words don't matter, the concept is flawed.



Maybe another would make you feel the concept isn't flawed. Just look at how you and Max focus on the word.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> I have supplied no anecdotal evidence.  Find a different strawman.






> Not at all. It is that anecdotale evidence is not evidence that privilege doesn't exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence#Faulty_logic




There you go, the quote is fix and now you understand anecdotale evidence is not a valid arguement.


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> Maybe another would make you feel the concept isn't flawed. Just look at how you and Max focus on the word.




Hah. Good one.  The argument is about privilege theory, so when I respond and talk about privilege theory and privilege, I'm just focusing on that word.  You are truly a virtuoso with the strawmen.

But, if I mistake you and you actually think this, supply a different word for your argument.  Rephrase it without using privilege.  Let's see how it works out then.  Until then, I will continue to engage a discussion about privilege using the word privilege, and shan't be overly concerned that you believe the problem only rests in my dislike of the word.


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> There you go, the quote is fix and now you understand anecdotale evidence is not a valid arguement.




"[T]he quote is fix..." 

Huh?  What quote is fixed.  What is at all different here from your previous statement?  Nothing has changed, I haven't presented anecdotal evidence, you're still arguing a strawman.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> Asians aren't being discriminated against on behalf of whites, they're being discriminated against on behalf of other minorities.



This is caused by other minorities? 







> It is true that although Asian-Americans do remarkably well at school and university, and have high average incomes, in the workplace they are under-represented in top jobs. A “bamboo ceiling” seems to apply. Asians do well in the lower and middle levels of companies and professions, but are less visible in the upper echelons. Buck Gee, Janet Wong and Denise Peck, Asian-American executives who put together data from Google, Intel, Hewlett Packard, LinkedIn and Yahoo for a report published by Ascend, an Asian-American organisation, found that 27% of professionals, 19% of managers and 14% of executives were Asian-American (see chart)
> 
> A similar effect is visible in the law. In 2014, whereas 11% of law-firm associates were Asian, 3% of partners were.
> 
> At the very top of the tree, Asian-Americans are nigh-invisible. According to a study of Fortune 500 CEOs by Richard Zweigenhaft of Guilford College, in 2000 eight were Asian-American, and in 2014 ten were, whereas the women’s tally in the same period rose from four to 24. Academia, similarly, is stuffed with Asian-American professors, but among America’s 3,000 colleges there are fewer than ten Asian-American presidents, says Mr Gee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have interesting racial theories.
Click to expand...


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> Your argument that people are responsable for the discrimination they face crumbles when it is applied to other groups. Asian face racism even if they meet your gold standard on culture (http://www.economist.com/news/brief...successful-minority-they-are-complaining-ever). Is homosexual culture responsable for homophobia? Is female culture to blame for discrimination women face? Might as well say women cause their own rape.
> 
> Better ignore stuff that invalidates your theory.




That was a fairly impressive Strawman.  I never said people are responsible for the discrimination they face, but they are partially responsible for their economic situation.  That in turn makes them partially responsible for the economic discrimination discrimination they face, but does not make them in any way responsible for racism against them.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> The argument is about privilege theory, so when I respond and talk about privilege theory and privilege, I'm just focusing on that word.



Indeed. You seem to think that "privilege" shouldn't be used to discribe the difference in treatement based on race, gender or gender identity, some people will face in there life. 

Unless you disagree that people can be treated differently based on race or gender? That would be another matter.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> Huh?




Oh, you're confused. To many posts at the same time for you. No problem.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> It is true that although Asian-Americans do remarkably well at school and university, and have high average incomes, in the workplace they are under-represented in top jobs. A “bamboo ceiling” seems to apply. Asians do well in the lower and middle levels of companies and professions, but are less visible in the upper echelons. Buck Gee, Janet Wong and Denise Peck, Asian-American executives who put together data from Google, Intel, Hewlett Packard, LinkedIn and Yahoo for a report published by Ascend, an Asian-American organisation, found that 27% of professionals, 19% of managers and 14% of executives were Asian-American (see chart)




That's very impressive.  One minority claiming such a high percentage.  There are a lot of minorities, as well as white people, and almost 20% of managers are from that one.  Don't be gulled into thinking that just because a number isn't 50% or higher that it's low.  You have to put it in perspective.  Asian Americans are 5.6% of the U.S. population, so you'd expect them to hold about 5.6% of the top jobs if all was equal.  They hold far more than their fair share.


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> This is caused by other minorities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that although Asian-Americans do remarkably well at school and university, and have high average incomes, in the workplace they are under-represented in top jobs. A “bamboo ceiling” seems to apply. Asians do well in the lower and middle levels of companies and professions, but are less visible in the upper echelons. Buck Gee, Janet Wong and Denise Peck, Asian-American executives who put together data from Google, Intel, Hewlett Packard, LinkedIn and Yahoo for a report published by Ascend, an Asian-American organisation, found that 27% of professionals, 19% of managers and 14% of executives were Asian-American (see chart)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asians make up about 5% of the US population.  They appear, by this data, to be strongly overrepresented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A similar effect is visible in the law. In 2014, whereas 11% of law-firm associates were Asian, 3% of partners were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is very much in line with their percentage of the population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the very top of the tree, Asian-Americans are nigh-invisible. According to a study of Fortune 500 CEOs by Richard Zweigenhaft of Guilford College, in 2000 eight were Asian-American, and in 2014 ten were, whereas the women’s tally in the same period rose from four to 24. Academia, similarly, is stuffed with Asian-American professors, but among America’s 3,000 colleges there are fewer than ten Asian-American presidents, says Mr Gee.
> 
> You have interesting racial theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Asians make up about 5% of the population.  In 2014, by your statistics, they held 5% of the top spots in Fortune 500 companies.  Where's the problem, again?
> 
> Please do more math problems.  I like these.
Click to expand...


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Asians make up about 5% of the US population.  They appear, by this data, to be strongly overrepresented.
> 
> That is very much in line with their percentage of the population.
> 
> Again, Asians make up about 5% of the population.  In 2014, by your statistics, they held 5% of the top spots in Fortune 500 companies.  Where's the problem, again?
> 
> Please do more math problems.  I like these.




Hah!  Beat you to it.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> I never said people are responsible for the discrimination they face, but they are partially responsible for their economic situation.That in turn makes them partially responsible for the economic discrimination discrimination they face, but does not make them in any way responsible for racism against them.


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> Indeed. You seem to think that "privilege" shouldn't be used to discribe the difference in treatement based on race, gender or gender identity, some people will face in there life.



Yup, it's misleading and casts non-victims as somehow having a special privilege just because they're non-victims.  


> Unless you disagree that people can be treated differently based on race or gender? That would be another matter.



Pretty sure my explicit statements that things like racism are the root causes of disparity, unlike a fictional 'privilege' for not suffering racism, show that I have no disagreement that people can be treated differently based on race or gender.  


goldomark said:


> Oh, you're confused. To many posts at the same time for you. No problem.



Hey, man, you're the one making nonsensical strawmen arguments.  Maybe you should slow down a bit, catch a breather, watch a game, and then come back?


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> View attachment 71422




So you have no valid rebuttal to the argument.  Good to know.


----------



## Morrus

goldomark said:


> View attachment 71422




This is not an appropriate form of debate.  If you've nothing useful to say, go post in another thread.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> goldomark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asians make up about 5% of the US population.  They appear, by this data, to be strongly overrepresented.
> 
> That is very much in line with their percentage of the population.
> 
> Again, Asians make up about 5% of the population.  In 2014, by your statistics, they held 5% of the top spots in Fortune 500 companies.  Where's the problem, again?
> 
> Please do more math problems.  I like these.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A classic mistake. You check the wrong population numbers. Like for lawyers, Asian "population" is 11%, not 5,6%.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> Ovinomancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A classic mistake. You check the wrong population numbers. Like for lawyers, Asian "population" is 11%, not 5,6%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they are overrepresented in the profession of lawyer.  They are perfectly represented in the position of senior partner of a law firm.  Until they are underrepresented somewhere, the fact that they are overrepresented in a similar area isn't terribly meaningful.  It just means that a many Asians make good lawyers, but about as many Asians as everyone else make good senior partners.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> Yup, it's misleading




So what word or concept would you like to use instead?


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> Until they are underrepresented somewhere




Only 3% are partners.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> Only 3% are partners.




Statistics don't conform nice and neatly, though.  Asians are a little underrepresented in partnerships, but are extremely overrepresented in upper management per your own numbers.  About 3.5 times higher for upper management and 2.5 times higher for executives.  Overall, they are overrepresented.


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> So what word or concept would you like to use instead?



If you want a different word, that's on you.  I'm not the one seeking to use a different word.

You don't get to assign me homework.


goldomark said:


> Only 3% are partners.



Yup, and that's pretty close the 5%.  If it stays low there, maybe then we need to look at it.  Given the turnover rate of partners nationally, I'm not concerned that it's a tad low at the moment.  Especially given that they are either over-represented or dead on in other fields.
p


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> Overall, they are overrepresented.



But it isn't about overall stats, but how they are underrepresented at the top and how that is a sign of discrimination.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> If you want a different word, that's on you.



I'm generally fine with it. You have the issue with it being used.



> You don't get to assign me homework.



You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.



> Yup, and that's pretty close the 5%.



But 3% far from 11%, which is the number of Asian lawyers. So they are underrepresented as partners, which is evidence of discrimination.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> But it isn't about overall stats, but how they are underrepresented at the top and how that is a sign of discrimination.




They aren't, though.  Per your own numbers they are overrepresented at the top by huge margins.  Focusing one one particular industry that just happens to be currently under the norm for asians is disingenuous.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> But 3% far from 11%, which is the number of Asian lawyers. So they are underrepresented as partners, which is evidence of discrimination.




The 11% number is irrelevant, except to note that they are overrepresented as lawyers in general.  5.6% is the number that should be partners if the numbers were spot on.    They are currently 2.6% under in one field, but very much over 5.6% in upper management in general.  If that general number falls under 5.6%, we have a problem.  Individual field numbers will fluctuate up and down, sometimes being lower than 5.6% and sometimes higher.  That's normal and not a problem at all.


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> I'm generally fine with it. You have the issue with it being used.



No, I have a problem with the concept.  You introduced this ridiculousness about a problem with the word.  Do not put words in my mouth again.



> You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.




Is that really the best you can do, and do you really think such schoolyard tactics are convincing counterarguments?


> But 3% far from 11%, which is the number of Asian lawyers. So they are underrepresented as partners, which is evidence of discrimination.




Wait.  Let me understand you completely.  You are saying that if a minority is overrepresented in one area, failure to maintain the overrepresentation in management of that area is evidence of discrimination?

Let's run with that.  Who do you want to be underrepresented in law partners to correct the 'discrimination' of Asians not being properly overrepresented?  Which other group needs to have fewer partners so we can correct this wrong?


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> Please allow me to rephrase:
> 
> It's now a privilege to not be a victim?




When victimization is a norm, yes.

And, that, in fact, is a major part of the point of discussing it as privilege - a privileged person may not recognize how common issues are.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> When victimization is a norm, yes.
> 
> And, that, in fact, is a major part of the point of discussing it as privilege - a privileged person may not recognize how common issues are.




I reject the concept of non-victimhood being a privilege.  I don't do this because I'm white, or male, or highly educated.  I do that because it's abominable to me to suggest that you should feel guilty for not being a victim.  It's a perverse kind of inverse victim shaming, where the objective is not to suggest it's the victims fault for being a victim, but instead suggest that it's the non-victims fault for not being a victim.

Further, you're just reinforcing my point with statements like "a privileged person may not recognize how common issues are" in response to my statement.  I've been very upfront that I think there are serious issues left to resolve, and that steps can be taken, so I readily admit that there are still common issues that affect some minorities.  But I don't feel guilty that I don't suffer some of those common issues, nor should I.  

Privilege theory, as you note, started as a platform for discovering how things like institutional racism continue can continue to exist in an egalitarian society.  For that, it's an interesting theory that has had some insights, and some of those useful, in identifying why institutional racism lingers in some ways in the US despite all the effort to wipe it out.  But it should remain there -- as a tool to examine things and make occasional suggestions.  Instead it's now this perverted monstrosity, decrying privilege in whites as a bad thing (instead of as just a thing with some explanative power) and finding the need to make sure that the 'privileged' know that they should feel guilty and that they should take steps to distance themselves from their 'privilege' by becoming advocates for the theory.  In that, it just assuages white guilt, doesn't address any problems, and exists as a crutch for victim mentality.  In it's popular incarnation, privilege theory is a cancer -- it's destructive and serves in no way to make the system better.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> I reject the concept of non-victimhood being a privilege.  I don't do this because I'm white, or male, or highly educated.  I do that because it's abominable to me to suggest that you should feel guilty for not being a victim.




The real point of talking about privilege is not to make people feel guilt.  I know that's what many people use it for, but that isn't the constructive use.  Again, don't conflate use with the validity of the idea.

The real point is awareness.  maybe you are aware.  Many others are not.  Even those who are intellectually aware can (and *do*) use the concept to maintain their awareness when going into an area where they are a bit blind.  It is likewise a tool for those who are victims - they can become very, very angry that those with privilege "just don't get it".  It is important to understand *why* they don't get it - it isn't really their fault, as they lack the context to be able to understand easily, and will reject the idea that they are in a superior position. 

Yes, there are those who use it as a club, and don't fight ignorance constructively - that's an issue of people, not the theory.


It comes down to the difference between accountability and responsibility:  

In ethics and governance, accountability is answerability, blameworthiness, liability, and the expectation of account-giving.  This is where guilt comes in, in the "blameworthiness".

Responsibility may refer to: being in charge, being the owner of a task or event.  This isn't about guilt, but about being the one who is supposed to take action.

In software production, for example, there's a "Business Owner", who is accountable for whether or not the software succeeds in its mission.  It is the developer who is responsible for writing code.  Or, if you will, consider Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire" - We didn't start the fire.  It was always burning since the world's been turning.  You are not accountable for being in a position of privilege - you were likely born there, and it isn't your fault.  You are, however, responsible for using that position wisely, and being aware of it when speaking with those who are not in your position.



There is also the matter of the "Tone Argument".  The person in the superior position really doesn't get to choose how the victim talks about their problems. Very specifically, the argument, "Your words/tone make me feel guilty, making *me* attacked, and now *I* am a victim..." is a non-starter, a misdirection that makes the discussion is about how the privileged feel, rather than about the racism/sexism or other problem.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> There is also the matter of the "Tone Argument".  The person in the superior position really doesn't get to choose how the victim talks about their problems. Very specifically, the argument, "Your words/tone make me feel guilty, making *me* attacked, and now *I* am a victim..." is a non-starter, a misdirection that makes the discussion is about how the privileged feel, rather than about the racism/sexism or other problem.




I may not get to choose how the victim talks about their problems, but if they do so angrily and/or attack me, that person is not going to get what they want.  That sort of behavior is also a non-starter, as it makes the discussion about the fight, rather than racism/sexism or other problem.  If the victim doesn't talk about their issue calmly and rationally, I am not going to listen to that person.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> The real point of talking about privilege is not to make people feel guilt.  I know that's what many people use it for, but that isn't the constructive use.  Again, don't conflate use with the validity of the idea.
> 
> The real point is awareness.  maybe you are aware.  Many others are not.  Even those who are intellectually aware can (and *do*) use the concept to maintain their awareness when going into an area where they are a bit blind.  It is likewise a tool for those who are victims - they can become very, very angry that those with privilege "just don't get it".  It is important to understand *why* they don't get it - it isn't really their fault, as they lack the context to be able to understand easily, and will reject the idea that they are in a superior position.
> 
> Yes, there are those who use it as a club, and don't fight ignorance constructively - that's an issue of people, not the theory.



I don't think you can actually separate something from it's mainstream use, though.  Take the Confederate flag, as an example.  For some, it's a symbol of remembrance and history, but for others it's a symbol of oppression and bigotry.  Both are right within their views, but only one of those viewpoints really matters.  And that's as should be, at least for government.

As for using it as a club, it's not some people,  You yourself used it as a club to dismiss others as being sufficiently unaware of common issues because they were privileged.  Don't mistake a lack of screaming or mean intent as not using the theory as a club.  You've bought into the idea that privilege has explanatory power past it's actual use, which was just one possible way to explain things.  Like most such theories, it simplifies a great deal to see if such a blunt tool might turn up something interesting.  But you can't mistake that blunt tool for anything with actual explanatory power, or something that can be generalized into a theory of how we need to act to fix anything.  There's no solution in privilege theory -- it's only used to show who's in the club and who the heretics are.




> It comes down to the difference between accountability and responsibility:
> 
> In ethics and governance, accountability is answerability, blameworthiness, liability, and the expectation of account-giving.  This is where guilt comes in, in the "blameworthiness".
> 
> Responsibility may refer to: being in charge, being the owner of a task or event.  This isn't about guilt, but about being the one who is supposed to take action.
> 
> In software production, for example, there's a "Business Owner", who is accountable for whether or not the software succeeds in its mission.  It is the developer who is responsible for writing code.  Or, if you will, consider Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire" - We didn't start the fire.  It was always burning since the world's been turning.  You are not accountable for being in a position of privilege - you were likely born there, and it isn't your fault.  You are, however, responsible for using that position wisely, and being aware of it when speaking with those who are not in your position.



No.  No.  No.

I am not responsible for using my non-victim status wisely.  I am a non-victim.  There is no special responsibility that falls upon me for being a non-victim of racism.  While it's true that I may not appreciate the difficulty of someone that is a victim of racism - direct or institutional - and that I may not be immediately aware of something that is racist to someone not me, that doesn't obligate me in any way.  I may choose to become aware.  I may choose to try to help.  But I do not have a privilege that obligates me to do what you think I should do.  Not being a victim is not something I need to atone for.




> There is also the matter of the "Tone Argument".  The person in the superior position really doesn't get to choose how the victim talks about their problems. Very specifically, the argument, "Your words/tone make me feel guilty, making *me* attacked, and now *I* am a victim..." is a non-starter, a misdirection that makes the discussion is about how the privileged feel, rather than about the racism/sexism or other problem.



That's not the tone argument, although I will grant that many on tumblr seem to think it is because it obviates them from having to actually attempt to interact as humans and instead justify their wailing while not facing any criticism or questions.  The tone argument is a form of an informal fallacy, and as such must be used in place of an argument against a position.  Specifically, it's the tone of the argument that's used.  So, if I said, 'I reject your opinion because I don't like the way you said it, it was mean,' *that's *a tone argument.  If, instead, I say, "I reject that theory because it's designed to make people feel guilty for being non-victims," that's _not _a tone argument because it's a rational and logical argument that can be supported and isn't dismissing your arguments based on the tone you used to make them.  

Further, you've just again proved that there's no argument that can be made by the supposed privileged class against privilege theory because privilege theory predicts that all arguments made by the privileged class are just further examples of their privilege.  Only this time you're misusing logical fallacies to get there, so maybe that's not evidence of privilege theory... no, I'll go with still evidence against privilege theory because you went looking for a logical fallacy to use to show that I'm just not aware of my privilege.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> That's still economic profiling, which is fairly accurate.




In what way shape or form is it accurate economic profiling for a car salesman to ignore someone wearing $3k+ in clothing or another who is wearing full-on business attire, better than most of the people employed in the dealership?



> I don't for a minute believe that that many people are so blatantly racist that they are ignoring you guys based solely on skin color. Some probably are, but the majority of those salesmen are trying to make money and if they thought that black people were as a whole, as economically sound as white people, you wouldn't be getting ignored like that.




Stop conflating racism with white privilege.  They are related and have similar effects, but they're not the same.

White privilege means that nearly any white person- but for those seriously dressed down (see the infamous and probably apocryphal Sam Walton story)- walking through the doors will be thought of as a potential customer.  It means that a Caucasian shopping for a car doesn't have to think all that seriously about how he or she is dressed when shopping for a BMW.

In contrast, based on past experience, if my father or I go car shopping wearing one of our $800 sports-coats and otherwise sporting our best, we can still expect to be ignored by at least a couple salesmen.  This even happened at a dealership in which one of my relatives worked- he was the first one to talk to us.  (He had to finish with another customer before he got to us...and made the sale.). _What we wear is largely immaterial._. The sales personnel don't see the quality of our finery.

Now _this_- black guys kicked out of a Wal-Mart for "walking too slowly" and not shopping (despite having items in the cart)- is racism:
http://www.infowars.com/police-admi...k-walmart-shoppers-who-were-walking-too-slow/
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/0...tore-for-walking-too-slow-one-arrested-video/

Ditto this- a young black teenager who is assumed to have defrauded a toney clothing store with his debit card because he couldn't possibly have had the money to pay for it legitimately.  The card was assumed to be fake, even though the charge was approved.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/barneys-accused-stealing-black-teen-article-1.1493101

Or this- beaten for buying pastry.
http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...s_another_racist_beating__in_whole_foods.html

Or for being in a hotel.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...stakenly-tackled-white-cops-article-1.2353983

Harvard prof Henry Gates was arrested for B&E and questioned for four hours...despite providing photographic ID that proved the house he was perp-walked out of was his own.

Where privilege comes in is that it is extremely rare for such things to happen to whites, and thus, that possibility isn't part of their mental state when shopping, whereas members of the black community have those scenario in mind almost every time.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> They aren't, though.



Let's see. A population that constitute 11% of lawyers and only 3% of them ge to be patners. It would seem they are. And that is just one example.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> The 11% number is irrelevant



Well lets make up numbers then, cause real ones aren't to your liking.


----------



## Ryujin

I would argue that 'white privilege' is a direct product of systemic racism, but would agree that likening the two is conflation. I find people stating that it's the baseline to be rather disturbing. The centre is clearly skewed.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> No, I have a problem with the concept.



Ok. Privilege is the proper word to use then. Glad this is cleared up. So men, heterosexuals, white people, etc, have privileges, like being relatively immuned from discrimination. 



> Wait.  Let me understand you completely.  You are saying that if a minority is overrepresented in one area, failure to maintain the overrepresentation in management of that area is evidence of discrimination?



Nope.


----------



## Sadras

doctorbadwolf said:


> you know that most Muslims live in Asia, right? Most Muslims live quite peacefully in democratic nations that have or have had female heads of state, etc. Iran and the Saudis dont actually represent the "Muslim world"' it turns out.




Does Afghanistan represent the Muslim world? Does Eqypt? Does Nigeria? Does Pakistan? Do all of them together. How democratic are the laws regarding Apostacy practiced in over 20 'Muslim' nations? These are rhetorical questions, I earnestly do not mind how you answer, but please do not paint me out as saying that the Muslim world is just Iran and Saudi.


----------



## Sadras

goldomark said:


> And because of that you would include the policies of Egypt's secular military regime in Islamic History? By your logic, this means that because some laws were affected by Christianity in South Africa that Apartheid is part of Christian History.




Well I have admitted to that right upthread? Discrimination/separation was very much used within Christian denominations to push their agendas. I did the research and you convinced me.



> The Sikh Empire conquered parts of Pakistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_Empire




Thanks will look into it when I get a moment.



> Because it is irrelevant. My point is that it isn't Islamic History just because Muslims are involved in an event. Now you seem to believe so. The problem isn't the definition of Islamic History, but that you seem to think that Muslims are always motivated by Islam.




Not in every instance. When state policies which ensure a religion remains dominant and negatively affects apostates and religions not of the same faith - then I personally believe that falls into the history of that religion.  It explains why that religion might have remained dominant, it explains why that religion might have grown or why the other reigions in the area diminished. Its fine we can disagree on this point.  

But let us look at the reverse. The History of Coptic Christianity - we will look at the affects on the religion's growth including policies made by the states - so why is the reverse not true for you regarding Islamic history?



> So your bias is that you feel that every bad thing done by a Muslim must be linked to Islam by labelling it Islamic History, whether or not Islam was a motivator?




No I never said that.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> Let's see. A population that constitute 11% of lawyers and only 3% of them ge to be patners. It would seem they are. And that is just one example.




You never answered Ovinomancer's question.  What races are we going to deliberately under represent as partners in order over represent Asian partners?  Racial make-up only = 100%, so in order to give Asians nearly double their racial make-up as partners, someone else has to be discriminated against.  Who do you think it should be?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Stop conflating racism with white privilege.  They are related and have similar effects, but they're not the same.



Why?  They are inextricable.  White privilege is, in essence, the lack of racist oppression and the attendant inability to notice.  Privilege isn't something outside of racism, it was conceived as a tool to study institutional racism.



> White privilege means that nearly any white person- but for those seriously dressed down (see the infamous and probably apocryphal Sam Walton story)- walking through the doors will be thought of as a potential customer.  It means that a Caucasian shopping for a car doesn't have to think all that seriously about how he or she is dressed when shopping for a BMW.



No, that's racism. Privilege would be that whites don't have to worry about racism.



> Harvard prof Henry Gates was arrested for B&E and questioned for four hours...despite providing photographic ID that proved the house he was perp-walked out of was his own.



To be correct, Gates was arrested for lipping off to the officer.  While I'll agree that still reeks of racism, it's important to get the particulars correct, else you open yourself to specious arguments based on your factual misrepresentations.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Ryujin said:


> I would argue that 'white privilege' is a direct product of systemic racism, but would agree that likening the two is conflation. I find people stating that it's the baseline to be rather disturbing. The centre is clearly skewed.




No, privilege isn't a result of systemic racism, it's the state of not being racially oppressed and therefore not having to think about it.  Privilege is the result of not being a victim of racism.  Which is why it's a ridiculous argument outside of a narrow look at how institutional racism can persist.  There it has some explanatory power in that it suggests that not being a victim inclines the not victim to not recognize racism towards others.  It's just a 'you see what you're used to' argument.

As for it being the baseline, I'm worried that you're worried that not being a victim of racism should be the baseline.  What baseline would you suggest, in place of that?


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> Ok. Privilege is the proper word to use then.



The complaint about privilege being the improper word to you was your argument.  I'm super happy to see that, after a number of posts back and forth, that you've decided to disagree with yourself and paint it as me suddenly becoming reasonable.



> Glad this is cleared up. So men, heterosexuals, white people, etc, have privileges, like being relatively immuned from discrimination.



Yes, that's the concept I reject.  Glad you finally caught up.



> Nope.



Now you're arguing in bad faith, as you just answered differently to Maxperson when you said that 3% of partners out of 11% of lawyers is discrimination, but here, where I clearly state the implication of that argument, you've flip-flopped.

So, once and for all, do you believe that 3% of partners out of 11% of lawyers is discrimination.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> You never answered Ovinomancer's question.



Because it was ridiculus. No one except him is talking about deliberately under representing a race.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In what way shape or form is it accurate economic profiling for a car salesman to ignore someone wearing $3k+ in clothing or another who is wearing full-on business attire, better than most of the people employed in the dealership?




I couldn't tell a real suit of value from a knockoff.  The same goes for fancy watches.  I have also known people to invest in a nice suit for church, interviews, etc., but who couldn't afford a car at all.  When huge numbers of a race have economic difficulties, it's unfortunate, but the rest tend to be caught up in that profiling.



> Stop conflating racism with white privilege.  They are related and have similar effects, but they're not the same.
> 
> White privilege means that nearly any white person- but for those seriously dressed down (see the infamous and probably apocryphal Sam Walton story)- walking through the doors will be thought of as a potential customer.  It means that a Caucasian shopping for a car doesn't have to think all that seriously about how he or she is dressed when shopping for a BMW.
> 
> In contrast, based on past experience, if my father or I go car shopping wearing one of our $800 sports-coats and otherwise sporting our best, we can still expect to be ignored by at least a couple salesmen.  This even happened at a dealership in which one of my relatives worked- he was the first one to talk to us.  (He had to finish with another customer before he got to us...and made the sale.). _What we wear is largely immaterial._. The sales personnel don't see the quality of our finery.




See my statement above.  Oh, and I do dress up when I go looking at cars.  I don't want to be ignored while the salesmen go help people dressed up more nicely than I am.  Given the choice of white guy in tennis shoes, jeans and a casual button down shirt, or a white guy in a suit, tie, slacks, etc., the salespeople go for the white guy who is dressed up.  They profile for economic reasons.



> Where privilege comes in is that it is extremely rare for such things to happen to whites, and thus, that possibility isn't part of their mental state when shopping, whereas members of the black community have those scenario in mind almost every time.




There are reasons other than privilege for all of that.  Many black and hispanic people are profiled negatively because due to the much lower economic capabilities of that race as a whole, there is an increased number of gang members and criminals.  Poverty is a great creator of crime.  Additionally, racial numbers play a role.  Black people are approximately 13.2% of the population, where white people are approximately 63%.  Given those numbers you'd expect racism to happen much more frequently in the white -> black direction.  Combine both the economics and the sheer number difference, as well as I'm sure other factors I'm not thinking of, and you have what you are calling white privilege, but really isn't.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, that's the concept I reject.



Reject reality? Meh. Not that surprising in an age where people reject global warming, vaccines and evolution.




> but here, where I clearly state the implication of that argument



Nah, it wasn't the implication of that argument. It is something absurde you came up with to discredit a demonstration of discrimination.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> Because it was ridiculus. No one except him is talking about deliberately under represent a race.




Then you think that the number of Asian partners should be 5.6% with normal statistical fluctuations up or down?


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> Then you think that the number of Asian partners should be 5.6% with normal statistical fluctuations up or down?



The real question why you do not think that the number of Asian partners not reflecting the number of lawyers, isn't a sign of discrimination at the top. Do you reject the notion of glass ceiling for women? If not, why reject this "bamboo ceiling"?


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> Reject reality? Meh. Not that surprising in an age where people reject global warming, vaccines and evolution.



Nice false equivalence, however, you haven't yet established that privilege theory is reality.  Do the work.



> Nah, it wasn't the implication of that argument. It is something absurde you came up with to discredit a demonstration of discrimination.



So, 3% partners out of 11% lawyers is discrimination.  I have your agreement that this is so?  



goldomark said:


> The real question why you do not think that the number of Asian partners not reflecting the number of lawyers, isn't a sign of discrimination at the top. Do you reject the notion of glass ceiling for women? If not, why reject this "bamboo ceiling"?



False equivalence.  The existence of one thing does not lend it's reality to something else, even if you phrase it cleverly (and a bit racistly).


----------



## Ryujin

Ovinomancer said:


> No, privilege isn't a result of systemic racism, it's the state of not being racially oppressed and therefore not having to think about it.  Privilege is the result of not being a victim of racism.  Which is why it's a ridiculous argument outside of a narrow look at how institutional racism can persist.  There it has some explanatory power in that it suggests that not being a victim inclines the not victim to not recognize racism towards others.  It's just a 'you see what you're used to' argument.
> 
> As for it being the baseline, I'm worried that you're worried that not being a victim of racism should be the baseline.  What baseline would you suggest, in place of that?




The privilege is the result of 'keeping the other man down', whether consciously or unconsciously. 

Instead of taking the top of the heap as baseline I'll accept mean, mode, median...... pretty much any averaging mathematical construct applied to relevant statistical data.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Ryujin said:


> The privilege is the result of 'keeping the other man down', whether consciously or unconsciously.
> 
> Instead of taking the top of the heap as baseline I'll accept mean, mode, median...... pretty much any averaging mathematical construct applied to relevant statistical data.




So your baseline, ie the goal to normalize, is that everyone suffers some racism?  Surely you can't actually mean that?  

Or is it that you're taking baseline to be the average of everyone today?  That's not usually how baseline is used -- it means the expected, what things are built to.  That would make me much happier if that's the disconnect.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> Or is it that you're taking baseline to be the average of everyone today?  That's not usually how baseline is used -- it means the expected, what things are built to.  That would make me much happier if that's the disconnect.




Baseline is "a line serving as a basis",  "a basic standard or level; guideline:", "a quantity, value, or fact used as a standard for measuring other quantities, values, or facts".  So, choice of the baseline is somewhat arbitrary.  

However, one would not usually use the *top* of what you want as the baseline, though - that's an goal or aspiration, not the baseline experience of people.  As a practical matter, it is common to take an average position as your baseline for comparison.  When you consider that women + minorities outnumber white men, not suffering under these burdens is probably not the average or base experience of Americans.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> Nice false equivalence, however, you haven't yet established that privilege theory is reality.  Do the work.



You assign "homework" now? I must say I enjoy the irony.

Privilege as already been established. That you deny it doesn't mean it wasn't done.



> So, 3% partners out of 11% lawyers is discrimination.



Could be. Underrepresentation can be a sign of discrimination. If only there was an article with more examples showing Asians are underrepresented at the top. 

I must say, I find ridiculus how stubborn denial of privilege can get. And I'm impressed how much denial can veer a conversation away from the initial subject to focus on discrimination of a group in one profession. But I guess when a group is losing (illegitimate) power "death throes" are to be expected. 



> False equivalence.



Why? It seems you do not respect your own (sudden) standard of establishing things. Again, the irony is enjoyed.


----------



## Ryujin

Ovinomancer said:


> So your baseline, ie the goal to normalize, is that everyone suffers some racism?  Surely you can't actually mean that?
> 
> Or is it that you're taking baseline to be the average of everyone today?  That's not usually how baseline is used -- it means the expected, what things are built to.  That would make me much happier if that's the disconnect.




No, my baseline is to demonstrate what the average is, so that variations can be clearly seen from said average. I never said that it was a goal. It's merely a recognition of what _is_. If one group can be seen to be receiving more than this baseline while another receives less, when adjusted for population, then there's a reason for it. Standard statistical analysis. 

And the idea that such a thing would be "everyone suffers some racism", rather than the 'dominant' group receiving the same as does everyone else, demonstrates the very privilege that I'm talking about. Equal opportunity for equal ability isn't racism.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> however, you haven't yet established that privilege theory is reality.  Do the work.




Well, the word "privilege" has existed for a very, very long time.  That we have a word for it is not enough to prove that some form of privilege exists in the world?

After accepting that there are some people who are privileged, and some who are not, it comes down to quibbling over *who* is privileged, and who isn't.

Having higher salaries, not being nearly as subject to police scrutiny, and so on, is not enough to prove that white men generally sit in a place of privilege, to you?

Please, tell us what proof would be required - moving goalposts are not constructive, so we should establish what's called for beforehand..


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> Baseline is "a line serving as a basis",  "a basic standard or level; guideline:", "a quantity, value, or fact used as a standard for measuring other quantities, values, or facts".  So, choice of the baseline is somewhat arbitrary.
> 
> However, one would not usually use the *top* of what you want as the baseline, though - that's an goal or aspiration, not the baseline experience of people.  As a practical matter, it is common to take an average position as your baseline for comparison.  When you consider that women + minorities outnumber white men, not suffering under these burdens is probably not the average or base experience of Americans.



When speaking of how you want something to be, you baseline at that point and track deficiencies.  Unless you don't want society to be free from racism, I fail to understand why your baseline wouldn't be no racism.  That's a coherent and desirable baseline, and it retains usefulness even prior to reaching it because you can track defects and address them.  Privilege theory, on the other hand, establishes a baseline that is, essentially, everyone suffers from some racism.  Then it uses that baseline to look for deficiencies and surpluses.  It then labels surpluses as as undesirable as deficiencies.  Given that the surplus in this case would be a state of suffering no racism, that's a broken concept.



Umbran said:


> Well, the word "privilege" has existed for a very, very long time.  That we have a word for it is not enough to prove that some form of privilege exists in the world?
> 
> After acceptign taht there are some people who are privileged, and who is not, it comes down to quibbling over *who* is privileged, and who isn't.
> 
> Having higher salaries, not being nearly as subject to police scrutiny, and so on is not enough to prove that white men generally sit in a place of privilege, to you?
> 
> Please, tell us what proof would be required - no moving goalposts.



Again, I don't argue that people can be privileged.  The rich and politically connected are certainly privileged over everyone else with respect to the law.  However, I steadfastly* reject that being a non-victim is a privilege.*


----------



## Ovinomancer

Ryujin said:


> No, my baseline is to demonstrate what the average is, so that variations can be clearly seen from said average. I never said that it was a goal. It's merely a recognition of what _is_. If one group can be seen to be receiving more than this baseline while another receives less, when adjusted for population, then there's a reason for it. Standard statistical analysis.




Then I would say that your baseline has no merit.   Further, if you're relying on statistical analysis, you're usually averaging across the sample to achieve a mean, which would result in everyone suffering some level of racism even if your data has non-victims and victims of racism.  Statistics is a poor choice when you can look directly at the data and note who suffers racism and who doesn't.  It's pointless to use statistics to achieve a mean state of 'all suffer some racism' so that you can then use that mean to see which people suffer more or less racism when you could just look at the data to begin with.  Statistics is just offering the pseudoscience of 'but I did math, so it must be true,' which, come to think of it, is one of the major ways statistics is misused and misunderstood.  But that's beside the point.



> And the idea that such a thing would be "everyone suffers some racism", rather than the 'dominant' group receiving the same as does everyone else, demonstrates the very privilege that I'm talking about. Equal opportunity for equal ability isn't racism.



Unless you're suggesting that the dominate group should suffer racism because the less dominate group does, how is your statement anything other than a restatement of my 'no one should suffer racism' as a goal to achieve?  And how would rejecting the idea that privilege = non-victim mean that I show my non-victim status when I say that no one should suffer from racism?

And, of course equal opportunity isn't racism.  Where did that come from?


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> Again, I don't argue that people can be privileged.  The rich and politically connected are certainly privileged over everyone else with respect to the law.  However, I steadfastly* reject that being a non-victim is a privilege.*




Wait. You say the rich have a relative immunity from the law and that is a privilege, but you deny that white people who enjoy a relative immunity from racial discrimination is a privilege?

That is a double standard.


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> You assign "homework" now? I must say I enjoy the irony.



It is little surprise that you still fail to understand what assigning homework means.  It means that you cannot demand that I do work to support or understand your position.  Asking you to 'do the work' to show that you support your positions isn't assigning homework -- it's the expectation that you can actually articulate your position and do the necessary work to get from point A to B.  You haven't done that, you've just stated your position and declared it unassailable.



> Privilege as already been established. That you deny it doesn't mean it wasn't done.



No, it hasn't been established, it's been claimed.  The work that needs doing is showing that it is, indeed, a privilege to not be a victim.



> Could be. Underrepresentation can be a sign of discrimination. If only there was an article with more examples showing Asians are underrepresented at the top.



And still you waffle.  This is indicative of your entire discussion form -- you refuse to actually stake a position yourself, because that would mean that you could actually be engaged and possibly shown wrong.  

Again, if you want there to be more Asian partners, which other group do you suggest should have fewer partners?  It's a simple question, yet I predict that you'll either pretend it does not exist or refuse to answer it.



> I must say, I find ridiculus how stubborn denial of privilege can get. And I'm impressed how much denial can veer a conversation away from the initial subject to focus on discrimination of a group in one profession. But I guess when a group is losing (illegitimate) power "death throes" are to be expected.



Huh.  I'm not impressed by how much you resort to attacking your interlocutors when you find yourself on uncomfortably shifting ground, as you do with the Asian lawyers argument.  

Tell you what, if you completely drop the argument that Asians are discriminated against in the law profession, I'll agree to stop pointing out how badly wrong you are on that point.  I'm a magnanimous guy like that.



> Why? It seems you do not respect your own (sudden) standard of establishing things. Again, the irony is enjoyed.



Instead of engaging the argument that your statement makes a false equivalence the the supposed existence of a glass ceiling must mean that a bamboo ceiling also exists you choose to pivot and make a personal attack on me -- not any of my points, but me.  Classy.

In case you failed to follow, the argument that one thing existing must mean that a similar thing exists is not a good argument.  For instance, horses and unicorns are extremely similar.  They are identical in form except that a unicorn has a horn.  The noted existence of horses says absolutely nothing about the existence of unicorns.  It would be wrong to say 'if you believe that horses exist, why would you not also believe in unicorns.'   That's the level of argument you made, that's the level of argument I called out, and you respond with a 'you do it, too' argument, when I've clearly never made such an argument here (I've made that argument before, but I was young and foolish).


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> Wait. You say the rich have a relative immunity from the law and that is a privilege, but you deny that white people who enjoy a relative immunity from racial discrimination is a privilege?
> 
> That is a double standard.




In what way is it a double standard?  The rich and and politically connected do not face the same law that I do, not because the law is applied unfairly to me but because their money and power can buy them a more lenient law.  That's privilege.  On the racism hand, I don't get a better form of racism applied to me because of my money or power, I just do not suffer from being a victim of racism.  Not being a victim is not a privilege, unless you first assert that everyone should be a victim.  Granted, I am taking it as given that no one is asserting that, and I would be badly wrong if people do assert that as their argument, but given that I believe that no one is making the argument that people should suffer from racism, then I have no privilege by not suffering from racism.

People that suffer from racism are victims, and that needs to stop.  Stopping racism is not helped, in any way, by asserting that it's a privilege to not suffer racism.  That's actively harmful to the intent.  

Privilege theory was originally used to look at how racism continues to exist through the lens of how people see or don't see racism.  I will freely admit that by not being a victim, I am less disposed to notice minor transgressions of racism.  That's trivially true, and freely granted.  And privilege theory was perhaps useful, in the sense that someone needed to write a paper on something obvious by making it unobvious (a common issue with social sciences), to show that this is a factor in the continued existence of racism.  However, that it is a factor (and no arguments that it is a factor in the continuance of racism) it is not the largest or most important factor.  However, some enterprising social warriors got ahold of it and realized that it could be used to justify victim-status seeking behavior by painting white people as having more than not-white people.  This was accomplished by using the word 'privilege' which is a word with loaded connotations, especially against the backdrop of identity and class politics.  Into this arena privilege theory metastasized into it's current incarnation, which is just used as an excuse for people to label whites as privileged and needing to be taken down a notch so that they are no longer privileged.  This has poisoned the racism debate by making non-victimhood something to be ashamed of and/or something that is unfairly taken, while elevating victimhood to a more normal state.  It's okay that you're poorly treated, because it's those privileged white people that did it.  It just explains away the problem into something that you can be angry at all white people for instead of the jerk that actually was racist towards you, or the organization that was racist towards you.  You no longer direct anger towards the appropriate targets, but instead embrace victimhood by spreading out the blame and anger at the 'privileged'.  

Now, have I said or done things that were racist because I didn't understand that it could be taken as such?  Absolutely.  I'm human and I make mistakes.  But at least I try to understand what specifically led to my mistakes and try to correct that rather than decrying that I'm privileged and engaging in false penance by checking my privilege.  But I still refuse to believe that it's in any way helpful to label non-victims as privileged.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ovinomancer said:


> Why?  They are inextricable.  White privilege is, in essence, the lack of racist oppression and the attendant inability to notice.  Privilege isn't something outside of racism, it was conceived as a tool to study institutional racism.




Again, they're related, but not the same.  Privilege is the penumbra of racism,

Racism is conscious and intentional discrimination, privilege, generally speaking, is not.




> No, that's racism. Privilege would be that whites don't have to worry about racism.




Which is what I descibed in what you quoted- Caucasian buyers have no worry that they will be rejected as customers out of hand whereas most blacks do.




> To be correct, Gates was arrested for lipping off to the officer.  While I'll agree that still reeks of racism, it's important to get the particulars correct, else you open yourself to specious arguments based on your factual misrepresentations.




First, I checked the actual arrest report, and you're correct on the charge.  My media source upon which I relied for the story made a factual error.   Still, the underlying facts speak pretty loudly.

Second, let me caution you equally: Don't assume bad intention when simple mistake is sufficient to account for an assertion in a discussion; phrases like "factual misrepresentation" carry a context of deliberate misleading, which can be inflammatory.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

First this:







Maxperson said:


> I couldn't tell a real suit of value from a knockoff.  The same goes for fancy watches.  I have also known people to invest in a nice suit for church, interviews, etc., but who couldn't afford a car at all.  When huge numbers of a race have economic difficulties, it's unfortunate, but the rest tend to be caught up in that profiling.



And this


> That's still economic profiling, which is fairly accurate. I don't for a minute believe that that many people are so blatantly racist that they are ignoring you guys based solely on skin color. Some probably are, but the majority of those salesmen are trying to make money and if they thought that black people were as a whole, as economically sound as white people, you wouldn't be getting ignored like that.




Are mutually incompatible: you can't profess to use accurate economic profiling if you are unable to distinguish between the various visible hallmarks of economic success.  The fact that people are overspending on their clothing (or other consumer goods) in order to conceal their actual wealth is a known occurrence in all forms of mercantile activity.

But to discount those hallmarks out of hand when the person before you is non-Caucasian is problematic for society in general at the very least, and will personally cost you sales as a salesman.  So it behooves the salesman that he at least learn the fundamentals of what those hallmarks are- the better he is at it, the better he'll do.



> See my statement above.  Oh, and I do dress up when I go looking at cars.  I don't want to be ignored while the salesmen go help people dressed up more nicely than I am.  Given the choice of *white guy* in tennis shoes, jeans and a casual button down shirt, or a *white guy i*n a suit, tie, slacks, etc., the salespeople go for the white guy who is dressed up.  They profile for economic reasons.




(Emphasis mine)
See mine.  Even when I do dress for car shopping, I get bypassed for the white guy in jeans & sneakers with depressing regularity.  They're NOT economically profiling, at least, not with any accuracy.  They're discounting persons of color despite having the trappings of wealth.



> There are reasons other than privilege for all of that.




Those are excuses, not reasons.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Ovinomancer said:


> So your baseline, ie the goal to normalize, is that everyone suffers some racism?  Surely you can't actually mean that?
> 
> Or is it that you're taking baseline to be the average of everyone today?  *That's not usually how baseline is used -- it means the expected, what things are built to*.  That would make me much happier if that's the disconnect.



That's not usually how a baseline is used, especially in the social sciences, which this topic would fit into. What field are you getting your baseline definition from?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That's not usually how a baseline is used, especially in the social sciences, which this topic would fit into. What field are you getting your baseline definition from?




Firstly, the dictionary.  Secondly, every discipline that attempts to build toward something sets the baseline design at the desired goal and then measures descrepancies against it.  I'll admit that you're correct in that some people use baseline to describe the here and now, but that goes directly to my point that privilege theory, if it uses that baseline of 'some racism', isn't a useful tool to correct the racism.  Only by setting the acceptable baseline as 'no racism' can you begin to track deviations from that baseline and move to correct them.  Setting the baseline as 'some racism' only labels 'no racism' as a defect from the baseline.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> In what way is it a double standard?




Because you consider immunity to be a privilege only when fits your narrative. Immunity is a privilege or it isn't.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> The work that needs doing is showing that it is, indeed, a privilege to not be a victim.



Immunity from something negative can't be a privilege? You said the rich enjoyed the privileged of being immuned from the law. You're contradicting yourself. I guess whatever fits your narrative.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> In what way is it a double standard? The rich and and politically connected do not face the same law that I do, not because the law is applied unfairly to me but because their money and power can buy them a more lenient law. That's privilege.




To alter your words a bit to illustrate the double standard:
"Caucasians do not face the same law that I do, not merely because the law is applied unfairly to me but also because their race buys them a more lenient treatment from law enforcement and prosecutors. That's privilege."

There was, at least for a while, a site (or twitter hashtag, I forget which) called "criming while white", in which Caucasians described being let off with warnings, etc. for behaviors which media outlets reported got black people arrested.

According to the US Sentencing Commission, blacks get sentences 14-20% longer (depending on whether probation was involved) for a given crime on average compared to their white counterparts.  And blacks were 25% less likely to get a sentence below the sentencing guidelines than were whites.
http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/black_prisoners_tend_to_serve_longer_sentences_than_whites

In its weakest form, privilege is a hassle which has many names- "driving while black", "shopping while black", laughing while black".  At its extreme, it gets people killed.  How many white people worry that they'll be shot dead while carrying a BB gun in the store they're trying to buy it from...in a state with open carry laws?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/justice/walmart-shooting-suit/
http://www.theroot.com/articles/cul...shooting_by_police_his_family_is_still.1.html

BTW: here is the actual store surveillance footage.  It is violent.
http://www.theroot.com/articles/cul...eased_of_walmart_toy_gun_police_shooting.html


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> Because you consider immunity to be a privilege only when fits your narrative. Immunity is a privilege or it isn't.




I am not immune to racism.  I am also not a victim of racism.  If I go to Japan, or Korea, or China, for instance, I'm very likely to be a victim of racism.  However, by not being there, I am not.  I do not have a privilege of being immune to racism.  The rich and powerful are often immune to the law.

Example.  I have worked before in a classified environment.  If I had done 1/10 of what Hillary Clinton has been shown to ahve done(clearly shown, not conjectured or politically assumed, but evidence exists) I would be in jail right now.  If I had even had a scintilla of classified information in an unclassified system (this is the evidence clearly shown), marked, unmarked, doesn't matter, I would be extraordinarily lucky to just have lost my clearance.  The most likely outcome for just that is jail time.  Clinton isn't even charged for an offense that would have, at the barest minimum, cost me my job and at the most likely, put me in jail.

Because it is illegal to have classified information in an unclassified environment.  That it wasn't marked, or that you didn't know, isn't sufficient defense for anyone but the rich and powerful.  Similarly, if I had done what Patraeus had done, I would also be in jail (that's not even a question -- the outcome would have been prision).  So that's not a politically motivated statement, it's just true.

However, if I go to Japan, I will most likely suffer racism for being white.  I don't have any special immunity or different set of rules with regard to racism.  I just happen to be a non-victim.


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> Immunity from something negative can't be a privilege? You said the rich enjoyed the privileged of being immuned from the law. You're contradicting yourself. I guess whatever fits your narrative.




I've been entirely consistent, even answering this kind of question the same way multiple times.  There's much I'll forgive in spirited argument, but you're not even making arguments, you're just throwing bombs.  You cherry pick quotes to respond to and ignore any other discussion present if it allows you to target that cherrypick, misrepresent it, and then attack the misrepresentation.  It's fundamentally dishonest engagement.

If you decide that you can quote whole posts, state your own positions, and stop intentionally misrepresenting others, I'll re-engage you.  But I'm quite tired enough of constantly correcting your misrepresentations of my statements.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> I am not immune to racism.



Heh. Anecdotale evidence is not an argument. We've been over that.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> I've been entirely consistent



And up is down and down is up.


----------



## Ovinomancer

I've reconsidered.  Carry on.


----------



## Ryujin

Ovinomancer said:


> Then I would say that your baseline has no merit.   Further, if you're relying on statistical analysis, you're usually averaging across the sample to achieve a mean, which would result in everyone suffering some level of racism even if your data has non-victims and victims of racism.  Statistics is a poor choice when you can look directly at the data and note who suffers racism and who doesn't.  It's pointless to use statistics to achieve a mean state of 'all suffer some racism' so that you can then use that mean to see which people suffer more or less racism when you could just look at the data to begin with.  Statistics is just offering the pseudoscience of 'but I did math, so it must be true,' which, come to think of it, is one of the major ways statistics is misused and misunderstood.  But that's beside the point.




Taking a statistical mean in no way effects the individual's experience. It inflicts nothing on the subjects. It simply states what it is; the mean. The lawyers vs. partners thing, for example. (pulling numbers out of my butt for the sake of an example) It if on average 10 out of every 100 lawyers reaches the level of partner and the distribution of White to Black lawyers is 50/50, but 8 out of every 10 partners is White, that's a very significant thing to look at. One would presume that, all other factors being equal, the distribution of partners would also be equal; 5 out of 10. If study of that data shows an inequity and that inequity is addressed, that in no way inflicts racism upon the Whites in the group.

That's statistics, in application.



> Unless you're suggesting that the dominate group should suffer racism because the less dominate group does, how is your statement anything other than a restatement of my 'no one should suffer racism' as a goal to achieve?  And how would rejecting the idea that privilege = non-victim mean that I show my non-victim status when I say that no one should suffer from racism?
> 
> And, of course equal opportunity isn't racism.  Where did that come from?




See above.


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> Immunity from something negative can't be a privilege? You said the rich enjoyed the privileged of being immuned from the law. You're contradicting yourself. I guess whatever fits your narrative.




It's pretty simple to flip the narrative on that little item. It's not relative immunity from a negative; it's a higher chance of a positive outcome. THAT is privilege


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Ovinomancer said:


> Firstly, the dictionary.



You may have misunderstood the definition if that is the case. Could you post up what definition you are using?


> Secondly, every discipline that attempts to build toward something sets the baseline design at the desired goal and then measures descrepancies against it.  I'll admit that you're correct in that some people use baseline to describe the here and now, but that goes directly to my point that privilege theory, if it uses that baseline of 'some racism', isn't a useful tool to correct the racism.  Only by setting the acceptable baseline as 'no racism' can you begin to track deviations from that baseline and move to correct them.  Setting the baseline as 'some racism' only labels 'no racism' as a defect from the baseline.



You're not understanding what a baseline is or what it is used for.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> It's pretty simple to flip the narrative on that little item. It's not relative immunity from a negative; it's a higher chance of a positive outcome. THAT is privilege




Yes, but then Ovi's "counter argument", would be something like "having a higher chance of racism isn't positive".


----------



## Ovinomancer

Ryujin said:


> Taking a statistical mean in no way effects the individual's experience. It inflicts nothing on the subjects. It simply states what it is; the mean.



If you're interested in an individual's experience, then, as I said, you don't need any statistics at all, you only need look at the data.  You only use statistics if you want to look at the aggregate.  Since you want to use statistics, then you have to look at the aggregate, and the mean value for your baseline is 'some racism'.  That this is nonsensical when applied to individuals is my point.

Further, using a statistical mean to define your baseline leads exactly to the state of declaring non-victims to be expectional and needing a label to explain why they don't fit the statistical baseline -- hence the emergence of privilege as a term.  But when you look at individuals again, this quickly becomes meaningless because you have victims and not victims.  If you insist on using your statistically determined mean and exceptions to the individuals, you end up with the silliness of labeling those that are not victims as privileged to be not victims.  That's fundamentally my point -- that kind of analysis doesn't lead to truth, and in fact obscures truth.  It's actively harmful. 



> The lawyers vs. partners thing, for example. (pulling numbers out of my butt for the sake of an example) It if on average 10 out of every 100 lawyers reaches the level of partner and the distribution of White to Black lawyers is 50/50, but 8 out of every 10 partners is White, that's a very significant thing to look at. One would presume that, all other factors being equal, the distribution of partners would also be equal; 5 out of 10. If study of that data shows an inequity and that inequity is addressed, that in no way inflicts racism upon the Whites in the group.
> 
> That's statistics, in application.



Yes, it's a very basic application of statistics.  And it is suggestive, but statistics can never, ever show causation.  What you've done is substitute people for a parameterization of people -- you've simplified them to black or white.  You've then run analysis based not on people but on your parameter of people, and found something.  That may be useful (and, in this case, I'd agree bears more investigation), but you've lied to yourself if you think the result that is true for your parameterization is also true when you consider real people.  That's the lie buried in statistics.  It's only useful if you remember to treat it as a dog that bites.

But, all that said and agreed to, your example isn't comparable to the issues of whether or not being white is a privilege, and no amount of statistical jargoning will end up with it being rational to it a privilege to not be a victim.  In your case above, the white people that take the positions of blacks that are unfairly discriminated against are not privileged, the blacks instead are victims.  That you can squint and pretend that their is some kind of extra benefit to being white doesn't hold with the actuality is that it's not one side having more, it's one side getting less.

I'm not arguing that racism doesn't exist, or that it doesn't manifest in ways that superficially appear to favor whites.  I'm instead arguing that such a thing isn't a white privilege, it's a harm against those discriminated.  When you isolate to zero sum games, like your lawyer example, one person losing must equal another person winning.  But the driver here is making people lose through racism, not making people win through existing.







Ryujin said:


> It's pretty simple to flip the narrative on that little item. It's not relative immunity from a negative; it's a higher chance of a positive outcome. THAT is privilege




You realize that fails pretty quickly.  If I have four aces in a poker hand, am I privileged?  Perhaps if I position myself to perfectly receive a cross in front of the goal (soccer reference), am I privileged?  Maybe I work hard and go to school and get a degree, does that make me privileged?

I note that you seem to be not shot today.  Does that make you privileged over people that have been shot?

My answer to all of these rhetoricals (because I believe it to be in good faith to provide an answer to a rhetorical) is:  no.

My underlying and unwaivering point is that it is not a privilege to not be a victim.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> You may have misunderstood the definition if that is the case. Could you post up what definition you are using?




I'd rather not do dictionary games.  Instead, I fully grant that your use of baseline is also correct.



> You're not understanding what a baseline is or what it is used for.



I use them every day.  They are what I build and measure towards.  But the fun thing is that any deviation from baseline is considered to be exceptional and in need of remedy, even if it is an presumed improvement.  This is because the baseline is the agreed upon deliverable, and any deviation introduces unknown change to operation.  So perhaps I'm more influenced by my daily use of baseline than others would be.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Ovinomancer said:


> I'd rather not do dictionary games.  Instead, I fully grant that your use of baseline is also correct.
> 
> 
> I use them every day.  They are what I build and measure towards.  But the fun thing is that any deviation from baseline is considered to be exceptional and in need of remedy, even if it is an presumed improvement.  This is because the baseline is the agreed upon deliverable, and any deviation introduces unknown change to operation.  So perhaps I'm more influenced by my daily use of baseline than others would be.



Ah... I see where you're having the issue. Your use of baseline indicates where you want to get to. Baseline, specially in the social sciences, indicates where you're starting from. So in this case, the baseline would not be no racism. It's your starting point. Is the starting point no racism? No, it isn't. It would have to be that there is a level of racism because unfortunately that is the reality of life. What that average level is, I don't know.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Ah... I see where you're having the issue. Your use of baseline indicates where you want to get to. Baseline, specially in the social sciences, indicates where you're starting from. So in this case, the baseline would not be no racism. It's your starting point. Is the starting point no racism? No, it isn't. It would have to be that there is a level of racism because unfortunately that is the reality of life. What that average level is, I don't know.




Yup, I use baseline as the thing I want to measure against.  On this issue, the thing I want to measure against is my goal -- no more racism.  So I set that as my baseline, and measure against it.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but in social science you usually use the baseline to determine deviations from the norm, not as a means to effect change, yes?

Also, thanks for allowing the graceful walkback.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Ovinomancer said:


> Yup, I use baseline as the thing I want to measure against.  On this issue, the thing I want to measure against is my goal -- no more racism.  So I set that as my baseline, and measure against it.



Right, so it may be an issue of identifying the variables. So, you have your dependent and independent variables. The dependent variable is what you're measuring. The independent variable is the one that you manipulate. So, if we're looking at the topic of racism, we first have to figure out what we are measuring. What you are measuring is racism. You can't measure the lack of something. It's as if I gave you the task of measuring something that is not currently happening. So, we would measure racism. That's our dependent variable. Our independent variable is what we are manipulating. In this case, it would be the race of an individual or group. 

If we were to quantify racism, in your version it may look something like this:

No racism = 0
Max racism = 1
0-----------------------------------1

Assuming that every race feels some kind of racism, you would get something along the lines of this.

White
0------I-----------------------------1
White racism score = .17

Black
0-------------------------I----------1
Black racism score = .67

However, that isn't how racism would be measured in the social science. The baseline is the average. Deviations from the baseline are measured in standard deviations. It would go from-1 to +1. -1 would indicate that this particular race encounter racism 0% of the time, and +1 would indicate that this particular race encounters racism 100% of the time. So the baseline would be at zero. That is where we start from. You either encounter more racism than average, or you encounter less racism than average, depending on your race.

White
-1-----------------------------------0-----------------------------------1

Black
-1-----------------------------------0-----------------------------------1

Where you land on that scale determines the level of racism you encounter compared to the average. 




> Correct me if I'm wrong, but in social science you usually use the baseline to determine deviations from the norm, not as a means to effect change, yes?



That is correct; however, baseline is used to determine if a particular intervention has had any effect. If you were to design an intervention to treat depression, you would want to know how effective that intervention is. If you start off by conceptualizing your baseline as being not depressed, the measure you'll get from your intervention is how depressed are you compared to not being depressed at all. That isn't going to tell us how effective this intervention was. You need a starting point. How depressed were you to start with? Are you actually less depressed after the intervention? the only way to find out is to measure how depressed you are before the intervention.



> Also, thanks for allowing the graceful walkback.



Sometimes I like to teach. I rather take those opportunities to teach others something instead of trolling. But don't get me wrong, there is still a chance that I'll just troll you. To be sure, I think you need to take a baseline measure.


----------



## Ryujin

Ovinomancer said:


> If you're interested in an individual's experience, then, as I said, you don't need any statistics at all, you only need look at the data.  You only use statistics if you want to look at the aggregate.  Since you want to use statistics, then you have to look at the aggregate, and the mean value for your baseline is 'some racism'.  That this is nonsensical when applied to individuals is my point.
> 
> Further, using a statistical mean to define your baseline leads exactly to the state of declaring non-victims to be expectional and needing a label to explain why they don't fit the statistical baseline -- hence the emergence of privilege as a term.  But when you look at individuals again, this quickly becomes meaningless because you have victims and not victims.  If you insist on using your statistically determined mean and exceptions to the individuals, you end up with the silliness of labeling those that are not victims as privileged to be not victims.  That's fundamentally my point -- that kind of analysis doesn't lead to truth, and in fact obscures truth.  It's actively harmful.




The statistics make no conclusions, so racism isn't an issue within them. The statistics _suggest_ areas to investigate and looking at raw numbers, without understanding context, is meaningless. Furthermore such investigation does nothing to harm people on the high end, but rather creates a situation in which the playing field may be levelled. 

When there is inequity, in favour of a specific group, there is privilege.



> Yes, it's a very basic application of statistics.  And it is suggestive, but statistics can never, ever show causation.  What you've done is substitute people for a parameterization of people -- you've simplified them to black or white.  You've then run analysis based not on people but on your parameter of people, and found something.  That may be useful (and, in this case, I'd agree bears more investigation), but you've lied to yourself if you think the result that is true for your parameterization is also true when you consider real people.  That's the lie buried in statistics.  It's only useful if you remember to treat it as a dog that bites.
> 
> But, all that said and agreed to, your example isn't comparable to the issues of whether or not being white is a privilege, and no amount of statistical jargoning will end up with it being rational to it a privilege to not be a victim.  In your case above, the white people that take the positions of blacks that are unfairly discriminated against are not privileged, the blacks instead are victims.  That you can squint and pretend that their is some kind of extra benefit to being white doesn't hold with the actuality is that it's not one side having more, it's one side getting less.




I haven't used the term 'victims'; you have. I also have not stated that statistics show causation. I have stated, explicitly, that they suggest areas for investigation, more than once. I have also mentioned the idea of comparing like samples, with many triangulating points, rather than wholesale analysis. You may have missed that.

You comment on "whether or not being white is a privilege." That isn't quite what this discussion is about. It's a subtle tweak to the running commentary that deflects from the actual discussion.



> I'm not arguing that racism doesn't exist, or that it doesn't manifest in ways that superficially appear to favor whites.  I'm instead arguing that such a thing isn't a white privilege, it's a harm against those discriminated.  When you isolate to zero sum games, like your lawyer example, one person losing must equal another person winning.  But the driver here is making people lose through racism, not making people win through existing.




What you're arguing about is the air space above the water, in the half-full glass. Seen from the viewpoint of those it has an effect upon, it's privilege.



> You realize that fails pretty quickly.  If I have four aces in a poker hand, am I privileged?  Perhaps if I position myself to perfectly receive a cross in front of the goal (soccer reference), am I privileged?  Maybe I work hard and go to school and get a degree, does that make me privileged?




Random chance or skill. Not applicable to the discussion at hand. Perhaps you never get to stand in front of the goal, because you aren't Brazilian? Perhaps you work hard and get a (law?) degree, then are denied a partnership because you aren't the right colour, don't have the right accent, or practice the wrong religion? Country clubs, anyone?



> I note that you seem to be not shot today.  Does that make you privileged over people that have been shot?




It might. It might not. What are the statistics?



> My answer to all of these rhetoricals (because I believe it to be in good faith to provide an answer to a rhetorical) is:  no.
> 
> My underlying and unwaivering point is that it is not a privilege to not be a victim.




And my point is that when you're in the gutter, everything else is up. It's easy to say that 'white privilege' doesn't exist, when you have it.


----------



## Ryujin

Ovinomancer said:


> Yup, I use baseline as the thing I want to measure against.  On this issue, the thing I want to measure against is my goal -- no more racism.  So I set that as my baseline, and measure against it.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but in social science you usually use the baseline to determine deviations from the norm, not as a means to effect change, yes?
> 
> Also, thanks for allowing the graceful walkback.




Your assumption, in this discussion, is that what Whites get involves no racism and is, therefore, the baseline. That is not the case. In the tolerances of manufacturing at +/- 0.05% a value of +0.05% is as far out as -0.05%.

*EDIT* To clarify you cannot measure racism. You can, however, measure it's effects in a system.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> In your case above, the white people that take the positions of blacks that are unfairly discriminated against are not privileged, the blacks instead are victims.  That you can squint and pretend that their is some kind of extra benefit to being white doesn't hold with the actuality is that it's not one side having more, it's one side getting less.



If one side gets less, it is because one side gets more. They aren't separated. If discrimination is there to make sure one side gets less, it is to make sure one side gets more. 



> I'm not arguing that racism doesn't exist, or that it doesn't manifest in ways that superficially appear to favor whites.  I'm instead arguing that such a thing isn't a white privilege, it's a harm against those discriminated.  When you isolate to zero sum games, like your lawyer example, one person losing must equal another person winning.  But the driver here is making people lose through racism, not making people win through existing.



Actually no. It is about making some people "win" through racism and sexism. To have "winners" you need "losers". Things that are pretty much determined at birth when it comes to race and gender.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Ryujin said:


> The statistics make no conclusions, so racism isn't an issue within them. The statistics _suggest_ areas to investigate and looking at raw numbers, without understanding context, is meaningless. Furthermore such investigation does nothing to harm people on the high end, but rather creates a situation in which the playing field may be levelled.



I fail to grasp your understanding of statistics that make no conclusion, but create situations in which playing fields may be leveled. 



> When there is inequity, in favour of a specific group, there is privilege.



I pointedly disagree that that is a viable definition of privilege.  It's easily shown false if you consider something like cancer.  If there is an inequity in the rates of cancer, there is not a privilege created for those that have less cancer.

Or height.  Or skin color.  Or any number of things which can be unequal.  My favorite may be intelligence -- is one privileged for having a high IQ?




> I haven't used the term 'victims'; you have.



So people are not victims of racism?  (Again, to answer my rhetorical, yes, of course they are.)  This is a pointless evasion.



> I also have not stated that statistics show causation. I have stated, explicitly, that they suggest areas for investigation, more than once. I have also mentioned the idea of comparing like samples, with many triangulating points, rather than wholesale analysis. You may have missed that.
> 
> You comment on "whether or not being white is a privilege." That isn't quite what this discussion is about. It's a subtle tweak to the running commentary that deflects from the actual discussion.



The discussion is currently on white privilege.  What, then, would you say it's about if not whites having privilege?

(That one's not rhetorical.)



> What you're arguing about is the air space above the water, in the half-full glass. Seen from the viewpoint of those it has an effect upon, it's privilege.



That's a ridiculous definition of privilege.  If the answer to being put upon is to think that it's all because the not-put upon have a special privilege, then you're fooling yourself about the actual causes and are not going to make progress.





> Random chance or skill. Not applicable to the discussion at hand. Perhaps you never get to stand in front of the goal, because you aren't Brazilian? Perhaps you work hard and get a (law?) degree, then are denied a partnership because you aren't the right colour, don't have the right accent, or practice the wrong religion? Country clubs, anyone?




Your statement was: "It's not relative immunity from a negative; it's a higher chance of a positive outcome. THAT is privilege."  How, then, do my examples of higher chances of positive outcomes not become privilege? (Again, answer is that they aren't privilege because that's a ridiculous definition of privilege.)



> It might. It might not. What are the statistics?



10 people were shot today.  The total population is 315 million.  You were not shot.  Discuss your privilege.  How did it occur?  What do you need to check to understand how your privilege affect others?




> And my point is that when you're in the gutter, everything else is up. It's easy to say that 'white privilege' doesn't exist, when you have it.



Ding!  Another point for 'it doesn't matter what you say, if you're deemed to have privilege, you can't argue against privilege theory because privilege theory says that you would do so and not know."  Please, credit me with the ability to be aware.  You have no idea the circumstances of my life, nor the way I live it day to day.  You have no ability to say that I'm not keenly aware of racism.  Privilege theory just gives you the false moral pretense to claim that my whiteness makes me blind.



Ryujin said:


> Your assumption, in this discussion, is that what Whites get involves no racism and is, therefore, the baseline. That is not the case. In the tolerances of manufacturing at +/- 0.05% a value of +0.05% is as far out as -0.05%.



I'm sorry, I wasn't aware we were talking about manufacturing.  I wasn't, were you?  If not, then why on Earth would a manufacturing acceptable measurement tolerance be relevant?  (Answer:  it's not.)



> *EDIT* To clarify you cannot measure racism. You can, however, measure it's effects in a system.



Really?  How would you measure the effects of racism in a system?


----------



## Ryujin

Ovinomancer said:


> I fail to grasp your understanding of statistics that make no conclusion, but create situations in which playing fields may be leveled.




Statistics are data. Data makes no conclusions, though conclusions can be drawn from them with study.



> I pointedly disagree that that is a viable definition of privilege.  It's easily shown false if you consider something like cancer.  If there is an inequity in the rates of cancer, there is not a privilege created for those that have less cancer.




I said inequity, as in unfair or unjust, not inequality, as in not equal. If you fail to grasp this simple concept, then I see no need to continue.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> If there is an inequity in the rates of cancer, there is not a privilege created for those that have less cancer.




Well, that depends - if you are simply defining "all those who get cancer" and "all those who don't", then of course not.

However, if you find that there's a demographic difference - like poor people have a higher cancer rate - while we might not talk about the privilege of not having cancer, we might well see not having cancer as one of the things that is among the privileges of the wealthy.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> The real question why you do not think that the number of Asian partners not reflecting the number of lawyers, isn't a sign of discrimination at the top. Do you reject the notion of glass ceiling for women? If not, why reject this "bamboo ceiling"?




There is no bamboo ceiling.  One profession where Asians fall within statistical variance that just happens to be low at the moment does not a bamboo ceiling make.  Especially when we know that they are over represented at the top of business in general.  Having more than their fair share of upper management and executive spots proves that there is no "bamboo ceiling".



Umbran said:


> Well, the word "privilege" has existed for a very, very long time.  That we have a word for it is not enough to prove that some form of privilege exists in the world?
> 
> After accepting that there are some people who are privileged, and some who are not, it comes down to quibbling over *who* is privileged, and who isn't.
> 
> Having higher salaries, not being nearly as subject to police scrutiny, and so on, is not enough to prove that white men generally sit in a place of privilege, to you?
> 
> Please, tell us what proof would be required - moving goalposts are not constructive, so we should establish what's called for beforehand..




Privilege exists, but generally not as applied to an entire race.  If Morrus gives you the ability to moderate this forum, that is a moderation privilege extended to you.  Your examples of white privilege are also flawed.  They don't even try to dig deeper into why those discrepancies exist.  No mention is made of the economic hardships that drive a larger percentage of the black and hispanic communities to crime, which in turn causes profiling, which results in white people being subjected to less police scrutiny.  There are reasons that things happen, and ignoring those reasons in favor of some sort of privilege is not doing anyone any favors.  The underlying causes need to be fixed.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> First this:
> And this
> 
> Are mutually incompatible: you can't profess to use accurate economic profiling if you are unable to distinguish between the various visible hallmarks of economic success.  The fact that people are overspending on their clothing (or other consumer goods) in order to conceal their actual wealth is a known occurrence in all forms of mercantile activity.
> 
> But to discount those hallmarks out of hand when the person before you is non-Caucasian is problematic for society in general at the very least, and will personally cost you sales as a salesman.  So it behooves the salesman that he at least learn the fundamentals of what those hallmarks are- the better he is at it, the better he'll do.




They aren't incompatible.  Unless they are expected to ask the person to remove his clothing and watch for inspection, they will not be able to tell a good knock-off from an original.  It's pretty easy to get good fakes these days.  That leave racial economic profiling as the primary means of determining who is a likely sale.



> (Emphasis mine)
> See mine.  Even when I do dress for car shopping, I get bypassed for the white guy in jeans & sneakers with depressing regularity.  They're NOT economically profiling, at least, not with any accuracy.  They're discounting persons of color despite having the trappings of wealth.




Right.  That's why I gave white vs. white as my example.  Remove the racial economic profiling and they fall back on secondary methods, such as dress.  If you and another black man walk into a dealership as the only two there and the other guy is wearing baggy jeans and a t-shirt, you'll be the one that they approach.

I'm not saying that it's right to act that way.  I'm saying there are reasons (not excuses) other than white privilege for the behaviors.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> Heh. Anecdotale evidence is not an argument. We've been over that.




A fact is not anecdotal evidence.  Not one person in the entire world is immune to racism.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> They aren't incompatible.  Unless they are expected to ask the person to remove his clothing and watch for inspection, they will not be able to tell a good knock-off from an original.  It's pretty easy to get good fakes these days.  That leave racial economic profiling as the primary means of determining who is a likely sale.




I stand by my assertion: if you can't visually distinguish between cheap and good, or whether the person can generally afford the expensive clothing they're wearing, odds are good you're not doing an accurate economic profile at all.

Because,

1) if you know what to look for, there are many tipoffs that something is fake or if someone is "dressing the part" without having the actual financial wherewithal to afford expensive things in general, and

2) as a car salesman, you're going to have the opportunity to check the person's actual credit worthiness, so judging based merely on appearance, or worse, race, means you are not going to make as many sales as you otherwise might.



> Right.  That's why I gave white vs. white as my example.  Remove the racial economic profiling and they fall back on secondary methods, such as dress.  If you and another black man walk into a dealership as the only two there and the other guy is wearing baggy jeans and a t-shirt, you'll be the one that they approach.
> 
> I'm not saying that it's right to act that way.  I'm saying there are reasons (not excuses) other than white privilege for the behaviors.




The discussion hasn't been about whether same race customers in differing attire get treated differently.  Nobody is disputing that.

Rather, it has been about whether well-dressed minorities get passed up by salesmen (as well as being treated less well on average in other ways) in preference for less well-dressed Caucasians.  Which they are.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> A fact is not anecdotal evidence.



But talking about your own personal experience is.  



> Not one person in the entire world is immune to racism.



And that is not what I said. 

To be clear, in the USA, there is racism and it is institutionalized. Caucasians are largely unaffected by the negative aspects of this institutionalized racism. Being unaffected by something negative is a privilege. Caucasians in the USA are privileged from birth simply because they were born in the right family. 

Most caucasians won't notice this privilege because for them its the norm and called everyday life. They do not even need to discriminate themselves to benefit from this privilege. You just need to be of the right race and ethnicity. When someone says "privilege doesn't exist, the police gave me a speeding ticket last night...", that person is essentially saying "let them eat cake".


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

goldomark said:


> To be clear, in the USA, there is racism and it is institutionalized. Caucasians are largely unaffected by this institutionalized racism.



That's incorrect. Caucasians are affected by institutionalized racism. They are positively affected by it. They gain an advantage from it.


----------



## Kramodlog

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That's incorrect. Caucasians are affected by institutionalized racism. They are positively affected by it. They gain an advantage from it.



Better? 

To be clear, in the USA, there is racism and it is institutionalized. Caucasians are largely unaffected by the negative aspects of this institutionalized racism.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

goldomark said:


> Better?
> 
> To be clear, in the USA, there is racism and it is institutionalized. Caucasians are largely unaffected by the negative aspects of this institutionalized racism.



Kind of. You forgot to mention how I'm  better person than you.


----------



## Kramodlog

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Kind of. You forgot to mention how I'm  better person than you.




Speciesism makes sure squirrels do not get that privilege.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 2) as a car salesman, you're going to have the opportunity to check the person's actual credit worthiness, so judging based merely on appearance, or worse, race, means you are not going to make as many sales as you otherwise might.




That takes time, though.  In the time it takes to run someone and find out if they have good or bad credit, multiple other potential sales have been taken by other salesmen.  They will try to maximize the odds of finding someone with good credit, and race is part of that assessment.



> The discussion hasn't been about whether same race customers in differing attire get treated differently.  Nobody is disputing that.




You made the assertion that white people don't have to worry about how they dress when car shopping.  I pointed out how that was incorrect and why.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> But talking about your own personal experience is.
> 
> And that is not what I said.
> 
> To be clear, in the USA, there is racism and it is institutionalized. Caucasians are largely unaffected by the negative aspects of this institutionalized racism. Being unaffected by something negative is a privilege. Caucasians in the USA are privileged from birth simply because they were born in the right family.
> 
> Most caucasians won't notice this privilege because for them its the norm and called everyday life. They do not even need to discriminate themselves to benefit from this privilege. You just need to be of the right race and ethnicity. When someone says "privilege doesn't exist, the police gave me a speeding ticket last night...", that person is essentially saying "let them eat cake".




So are we now going to start calling it black privilege because black americans are largely unaffected by ebola and starvation that goes on in Africa?  Calling something "white" privilege or "black" privilege just because a race is largely unaffected by something is counterproductive.  It incorrectly shifts the blame and/or focus onto race, rather than the true underlying causes of the disparity, such as economics and culture.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> So are we now going to start calling it black privilege because black americans are largely unaffected by ebola and starvation that goes on in Africa?  Calling something "white" privilege or "black" privilege just because a race is largely unaffected by something is counterproductive.  It incorrectly shifts the blame and/or focus onto race, rather than the true underlying causes of the disparity, such as economics and culture.




I never used the words "white privilege", you're critiquing your own words. 

That being said, talking about responsability is important. It needs to be said that caucasians in the US mainly institutionalized racism, largely perpetuate it and mostly benefit from it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> That takes time, though.  In the time it takes to run someone and find out if they have good or bad credit, multiple other potential sales have been taken by other salesmen.  They will try to maximize the odds of finding someone with good credit, and race is part of that assessment.



A computerized credit check takes a few minutes- and most of that time is spent in doing the data entry.  Not really enough time to lose "multiple" potential sales.

Simply put, it is a grave error to treat anyone walking into your business as "not a customer" unless you know for a fact that they are not.


> You made the assertion that white people don't have to worry about how they dress when car shopping.  I pointed out how that was incorrect and why.




No.  Again, nobody is denying that a well-dressed white person will get more attention than a poorly-dressed one.

I made the assertion that comparing treatment of whites vs whites is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.  And that the concern that minorities have is different in quality- even if they dress well, they will not be treated as well as Caucasians will.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> I never used the words "white privilege", you're critiquing your own words.
> 
> That being said, talking about responsability is important. It needs to be said that caucasians in the US mainly institutionalized racism, largely perpetuate it and mostly benefit from it.




This sort of thinking is why the disparity is so slow to go away.  By all means, let's continue to focus on race instead of the underlying causes for the disparity.  If we focused on the real reasons, we might actually get something accomplished, but then you wouldn't be able to complain anymore.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> That being said, talking about responsability is important. It needs to be said that caucasians in the US mainly institutionalized racism, largely perpetuate it and mostly benefit from it.




It looks like you are talking about a combination of accountability and responsibility.  It really helps to separate them.

We don't really need to consider accountability unless we are aiming to institute punitive measures against those who need to be held accountable.  The situation was begun by people long dead.  Nobody alive today is accountable for those actions.  We are each, at worst, accountable for only our own acts that perpetuate the system. 

Folks today, however, could be considered responsible for fixing the problems.  They are, *because of the problems*, in a better position to solve those problems.

Which is to say, the most constructive way forward is to forgive the past (not forget, just forgive today for what they cannot change).  Expect, however, that people should open their eyes, and work to make the world a better place going forward.  Hold them to a standard for the future, not the past.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> It looks like you are talking about a combination of accountability and responsibility.  It really helps to separate them.



Ok. There isn't any French equivalent to accountability, at least that I'm aware of. They both translate to _responsabilité_.



> We don't really need to consider accountability unless we are aiming to institute punitive measures against those who need to be held accountable.  The situation was begun by people long dead.  Nobody alive today is accountable for those actions.  We are each, at worst, accountable for only our own acts that perpetuate the system.
> 
> Folks today, however, could be considered responsible for fixing the problems.  They are, *because of the problems*, in a better position to solve those problems.
> 
> Which is to say, the most constructive way forward is to forgive the past (not forget, just forgive today for what they cannot change).  Expect, however, that people should open their eyes, and work to make the world a better place going forward.  Hold them to a standard for the future, not the past.



[/quote]Leaving momentarely the words responsability and accountability aside, I have an issue with saying "dead people did bad stuff and I have nothing to do with it". A lot of people say they are proud of their heritage and their nation's history. Cool, no problem there, but if someone claims the positive things of his/her heritage, shouldn't it come with the negative too? 

Also, why should a nation's current wealth be dissociated from the exploitation of the past on which part of the current wealth was built? For Québec and the USA, land stolen from Native Americans is the first thing that comes to mind. So does the wealth generated by slave labor.

I'm not sure how to deal with this. I'm not saying there necessarely should be punitive mesures or compensation in some form, I'm just saying the present isn't dissociated from the past.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> By all means, let's continue to focus on race instead of the underlying causes for the disparity.



I agree. Let us focus on racism, discrimination and the people it affects.


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> This sort of thinking is why the disparity is so slow to go away.  By all means, let's continue to focus on race instead of the underlying causes for the disparity.  If we focused on the real reasons, we might actually get something accomplished, but then you wouldn't be able to complain anymore.




But generally speaking, the underlying reason is the institutionalized racism (or other -ism). You keep talking about the economic factors, but the truth is that minorities generally suffer higher rates of poverty because institutionalized racism makes it harder for them to get better educations and thus better jobs.

The reason privilege is being talked about is to raise awareness. Too many people unaffected by racism, or sexism, or able-ism, etc. simply believe these problems are solved because they either don't affect them, or because there are occasional high-profile victories in progressing forward. But those suffering through such cannot solve things on their own; they need those with privilege to help - if not directly, then by at least being aware of their privilege, and not holding the lack of privilege against minorities, even if unintentional. 

Now, I'm sure there are some bad actors (in the people doing stuff sense, not entertainment sense) trying to use 'privilege' as a hammer, but that doesn't mean the idea is faulty, it just speaks to the character of those bad actors.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> Ok. There isn't any French equivalent to accountability, at least that I'm aware of. They both translate to _responsabilité_.




Noted.  One of those times when laying out the semantics actually aids understanding.



> Leaving momentarely the words responsability and accountability aside, I have an issue with saying "dead people did bad stuff and I have nothing to do with it". A lot of people say they are proud of their heritage and their nation's history. Cool, no problem there, but if someone claims the positive things of his/her heritage, shouldn't it come with the negative too?




Probably.  But, so long as it doesn't get in the way of fixing real-world problems now, I'm not going to sweat over it.



> Also, why should a nation's current wealth be dissociated from the exploitation of the past on which part of the current wealth was built? For Québec and the USA, land stolen from Native Americans is the first thing that comes to mind. So does the wealth generated by slave labor.
> 
> I'm not sure how to deal with this. I'm not saying there necessarely should be punitive mesures or compensation in some form, I'm just saying the present isn't dissociated from the past.




The present comes from the past, yes.  And those who do not study the past are doomed to repeat it.  But if your father kills someone, we don't toss you in jail for it.  Our basic idea of fairness says that you shouldn't pay the price for decisions you had no part in.  Our basic idea of fairness does (usually) include the idea that some inequities shouldn't stand, and if you are in a position to help with them, you ought to do so.

There's a practical element to this.  What's the point - vindication, or fixing current situations?


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> Probably.  But, so long as it doesn't get in the way of fixing real-world problems now, I'm not going to sweat over it.
> 
> The present comes from the past, yes.  And those who do not study the past are doomed to repeat it.  But if your father kills someone, we don't toss you in jail for it.  Our basic idea of fairness says that you shouldn't pay the price for decisions you had no part in.  Our basic idea of fairness does (usually) include the idea that some inequities shouldn't stand, and if you are in a position to help with them, you ought to do so.
> 
> There's a practical element to this.  What's the point - vindication, or fixing current situations?



Obviously, to crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women. I remember a conversation I had with an USian of Portuguese origines. Second generation I believe. In essence, what he was saying was that his ancestors didn't live in the USA when people could own slaves, so he shouldn't be taxed to pay reparation to descendants of slaves. It made me laugh, as I'm not for reparation, but it underlined a problem. That racism was from another time and had no bearing on him today. The current wealth and standard of living he enjoys was built in part on the work of slaves? Meh. Not his problem. I'm not sure this attitude toward the past can lead to a fix.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> Leaving momentarely the words responsability and accountability aside, I have an issue with saying "dead people did bad stuff and I have nothing to do with it". A lot of people say they are proud of their heritage and their nation's history. Cool, no problem there, but if someone claims the positive things of his/her heritage, shouldn't it come with the negative too?




No.  I'm not responsible or accountable for the good things of the past, either.  I can pick and choose what I'm proud of and what I'm not proud of when it comes to the past.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> It looks like you are talking about a combination of accountability and responsibility.  It really helps to separate them.
> 
> We don't really need to consider accountability unless we are aiming to institute punitive measures against those who need to be held accountable.  The situation was begun by people long dead.  Nobody alive today is accountable for those actions.  We are each, at worst, accountable for only our own acts that perpetuate the system.
> 
> Folks today, however, could be considered responsible for fixing the problems.  They are, *because of the problems*, in a better position to solve those problems.
> 
> Which is to say, the most constructive way forward is to forgive the past (not forget, just forgive today for what they cannot change).  Expect, however, that people should open their eyes, and work to make the world a better place going forward.  Hold them to a standard for the future, not the past.




I disagree.  I'm not accountable or responsible for fixing the problems of the past simply because of the position I am in.  Fixing the underlying issues of what people call white privilege is something I should want to do because I'm a decent human being, but it's a choice, not a responsibility.  We don't hold the billionaires responsible for fixing all the poor people simply because they have money.  

Creating them, yes.  Fixing them, no.


----------



## Maxperson

Cor Azer said:


> But generally speaking, the underlying reason is the institutionalized racism (or other -ism). You keep talking about the economic factors, but the truth is that minorities generally suffer higher rates of poverty because institutionalized racism makes it harder for them to get better educations and thus better jobs.




Nobody is forcing them to drop out of high school and join gangs.  They have a free education, but cultural influences cause schooling to be far lower on the ladder of importance than it should be.



> The reason privilege is being talked about is to raise awareness. Too many people unaffected by racism, or sexism, or able-ism, etc. simply believe these problems are solved because they either don't affect them, or because there are occasional high-profile victories in progressing forward. But those suffering through such cannot solve things on their own; they need those with privilege to help - if not directly, then by at least being aware of their privilege, and not holding the lack of privilege against minorities, even if unintentional.




It doesn't raise awareness, though.  It created defensiveness over issues that are not in need of fixing.  It's very name is an attack on white people.  There is also no large institution of racism to fix.  There are pockets of individual racism, but that's not the cause of most of the problems.  Negative cultural influences have a far greater effect.  Fix those negative cultural influences and most of the issues go away within a generation.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> You keep talking about the economic factors, but the truth is that minorities generally suffer higher rates of poverty because institutionalized racism makes it harder for them to get better educations and thus better jobs.




Here's a classic from colleges, universities, and even some high-schools: preferential admissions for legacy students.

Many institutions of high standards will relax those standards a bit when a prospective student is "a legacy"- for those unfamiliar with the term, that means they had an ancestor who graduated from the school.  The more prestigious the ancestor, the more being a legacy helps.

The thing is, though- sometimes for racist reasons, sometimes for purely economic ones, most likely a mix- legacy students are overwhelmingly the descendants of Caucasians.

In the 60's, my grandfather was a prof at both Tulane and Loyola, and my Dad was a student who served on the admissions board.  At that time, you had just started seeing a push to give minority students the benefit of "affirmative action."  As we all know, there was pushback on this.

But a point in your favor for being a minority (to improve diversity) who couldn't go to a particular school* is mathematically no different than a point in your favor because your grandfather went to that school 40 years ago.









* Tulane's medical school charter barred the admission of blacks and other minorities.  My Dad was the first admitted (due to perfect storm of events) and the first to graduate.


----------



## Sadras

Just questions from a curious bystander. How are your experiences in the northern parts of USA with regards to racism? Can one definitely see an improvement in the treatment of black people as opposed to the south? Do the east or west coast play a role at all?


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> No.  I'm not responsible or accountable for the good things of the past, either.



I guess you didn't understand what "responsability and accountability aside" ment. 



> I can pick and choose what I'm proud of and what I'm not proud of when it comes to the past.



I didn't say you can't. You can revise history, ignore facts and just make up stuff too if it makes you feel better.

Did you know that the Founding Fathers invited black people from Africa to come to the US? The Africans were so grateful to have this chance that they offered their services to white people for seven generation. It is something white USians should be proud of, giving these brave black people a chance at a better life!


----------



## Kramodlog

Sadras said:


> Just questions from a curious bystander. How are your experiences in the northern parts of USA with regards to racism? Can one definitely see an improvement in the treatment of black people as opposed to the south? Do the east or west coast play a role at all?



Map number five might provide some answers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/08/12-maps-that-explain-what-divides-america/


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> I guess you didn't understand what "responsability and accountability aside" ment.




And I guess you didn't understand that it's irrelevant.  No matter which word you choose, it doesn't apply to me.



> Did you know that the Founding Fathers invited black people from Africa to come to the US? The Africans were so grateful to have this chance that they offered their services to white people for seven generation. It is something white USians should be proud of, giving these brave black people a chance at a better life!




And I'm not in any way responsible for that.  I don't owe anyone whose ancestors were slaves anything.  Here's something a bit more recent than slavery for you.  The holocaust.  Germans killed 6 million of my people.  Guess what.  Not a single German who was not alive for that is in any way responsible.  My first girlfriend was German and I didn't care or think she somehow owed me something because of what her grandfather or great grandfather might have done.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> Nobody is forcing them to drop out of high school and join gangs.  They have a free education, but cultural influences cause schooling to be far lower on the ladder of importance than it should be.




You seem to ignore many other factors in this statement.  Many of the schools these kids go to are underfunded, making learning there difficult for the best of students, much less the mediocre ones.  Moreover, many of them are in questionable economic positions - they may have the choice of staying in school, or trying to do something so their family has food, clothing, and a roof over their heads.  

Maybe not "forced," but, "coerced," might be appropriate.

And remember, we are talking about *KIDS*.  Not adults with large amounts of insight built up over years.  The choices are being made by 12 to 15 year olds.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> No matter which word you choose, it doesn't apply to me.



Even gravity?



> And I'm not in any way responsible for that.



I'd say the word "cause" would be more appropriate to discribe your role when it comes to the revised history I made up. As in: what you wrote is at the origin of what I wrote.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> Even gravity?




You don't do yourself any favors acting that way.  



> I'd say the word "cause" would be more appropriate to discribe your role when it comes to the revised history I made up. As in: what you wrote is at the origin of what I wrote.




I didn't cause it, either.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> You don't do yourself any favors acting that way.



I didn't know I was supposed to be self-serving. 



> I didn't cause it, either.



Sure you did. You wrote something and what you said caused me to write something. At least it is one of the things that caused my writing.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> I'm not accountable or responsible for fixing the problems of the past simply because of the position I am in.




Not in a legal sense, no, you are not.   In a moral sense?



> Fixing the underlying issues of what people call white privilege is something I should want to do because I'm a decent human being, but it's a choice, not a responsibility.




Again, in a legal sense, no.  Either way, you do have a choice - but you'll be judged by it.



> We don't hold the billionaires responsible for fixing all the poor people simply because they have money.




Is that because everyone realizes we shouldn't do so, or because those billionaires dump lots of money into the political process to protect them?

In other nations (most of  Europe, for example), those who produce wealth are asked to do a lot more for the poor - typically by taxation, and by not having such a wild disparity in top and bottom pay scales in the first place.  And it works out okay for them.  

And, in history, well, tell Marie Antoinette that we don't hold the rich responsible - though admittedly that was more the rich being held accountable, rather than responsible.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> By all means, let's continue to focus on race instead of the underlying causes for the disparity.




With respect, real people do have real racial biases.  This is measurable.

It isn't the only reason, but it is a reason.  And we are unlikely to gain much ground if we ignore valid causes of the observed effects.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Ryujin said:


> Statistics are data.



Oh, dear me, no.  You've just committed the sin of reification.  Statistics are just a model, and are not the data.  The data have no mean, your model of the data has a mean.  That may seem trivial, but it's critical to understanding that you fool yourself if you ever believe that statistics have any real truth.  They don't, they're just a model of the real world that occasionally are useful.  Cue the old saw about all models are false, but some are useful.



> Data makes no conclusions, though conclusions can be drawn from them with study.



If you draw conclusions from statistics, you are lying to yourself.  You may be accidentally correct, but that's it.  Statistics has nothing to do with causation.  To draw correct conclusions you need to go look at causation, and you cannot do that with statistics.  Stats can be useful to point you in the direction of some possibly causations, or to see if your hypothesized causation holds water, but that's the extent of their use.  We, as in the Western world, seem to hold stats in much higher regard than they should be held -- just another imperfect tool in the box that shouldn't substitute for thinking.




Umbran said:


> It looks like you are talking about a combination of accountability and responsibility.  It really helps to separate them.
> 
> We don't really need to consider accountability unless we are aiming to institute punitive measures against those who need to be held accountable.  The situation was begun by people long dead.  Nobody alive today is accountable for those actions.  We are each, at worst, accountable for only our own acts that perpetuate the system.
> 
> Folks today, however, could be considered responsible for fixing the problems.  They are, *because of the problems*, in a better position to solve those problems.
> 
> Which is to say, the most constructive way forward is to forgive the past (not forget, just forgive today for what they cannot change).  Expect, however, that people should open their eyes, and work to make the world a better place going forward.  Hold them to a standard for the future, not the past.




While I know we disagree in many fundamental ways, I actually am largely in agreement with the words above (if not the path you used to reach them).


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> With respect, real people do have real racial biases.  This is measurable.



I agree that people have racial biases, but how is it measurable?  I mean, if it were really measurable, how do I go find out what my racial bias score is?


----------



## Kramodlog




----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Ovinomancer said:


> I agree that people have racial biases, but how is it measurable?  I mean, if it were really measurable, how do I go find out what my racial bias score is?




Here you go.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> I agree that people have racial biases, but how is it measurable?




Statistically - while this study is from 2003, it demonstrates one methodology that could be used:  Send out a bunch of resumes that are *identical*, except for the name at the top.  Give some "white" names, and others names more likely associated with various racial minorities.  See which ones get more callbacks.

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

You can do the same for traditionally male and female names:

"Moss-Racusin wanted to figure out if faculty at academic institutions, despite their training in conducting scientifically objective research, held implicit gender biases that were disadvantaging women who were pursuing STEM careers.

In their study, Moss-Racusin and her colleagues created a fictitious resume of an applicant for a lab manager position. Two versions of the resume were produced that varied in only one, very significant, detail: the name at the top. One applicant was named Jennifer and the other John. Moss-Racusin and her colleagues then asked STEM professors from across the country to assess the resume. Over one hundred biologists, chemists, and physicists at academic institutions agreed to do so. Each scientist was randomly assigned to review either Jennifer or John's resume.

The results were surprising—they show that the decision makers did not evaluate the resume purely on its merits. Despite having the exact same qualifications and experience as John, Jennifer was perceived as significantly less competent. As a result, Jenifer experienced a number of disadvantages that would have hindered her career advancement if she were a real applicant. Because they perceived the female candidate as less competent, the scientists in the study were less willing to mentor Jennifer or to hire her as a lab manager. They also recommended paying her a lower salary. Jennifer was offered, on average, $4,000 per year (13%) less than John."

http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer


----------



## Ovinomancer

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Here you go.
> 
> https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/




Issues with IATs:
1)  the don't measure anything directly -- it's all indirect measurement of other things that are then assumed to be meaningful measurements of the desired thing.  

1a) the measurement taken is the time difference between different associations, with the assumption that a longer time to associate indicates a negative attitude.  

1b) however, there's no objective measure here, instead the difference between positive and negative associations is instead based on a formula that takes the mean response time of the participant and then calculates ranges where a response can be scored as positive or negative.  Responses that don't meet the thresholds are discarded.  This means that the calculated positive/negative scorings are entirely subjective to each respondent -- each person's score will not be calculated base on thresholds that are determined after the fact by the respondent's response times.  

1c) What does that mean?  It means that you can only attempt to compare responses after you've made at least one full adjustment to the data via a model.  What you're comparing is not longer the collected data, but a model of the collected data.  The conversion introduces uncertainty, but this uncertainty is ignored in later computations and comparisons.  It is, in fact, hidden uncertainty in the model.  Meaning that any result you get, aside from being based on a model and not the data, will always be more certain than it should be.

2)  the relative accuracy between tests of the same subjects averages out to .5.  That's coin toss reliability.  Some tests reportedly do better, some worse, but every measurement is fully ignoring the hidden uncertainty in 1c above.

So, no, that doesn't really measure bias, it measures response time, which is then modeled in a way that assumes it reflects bias.  It has a spotty track record, and even it's overly generous reviews against statistical standards find that it's has a poor record of reliability.  Better than other things, but still poor.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> Statistically - while this study is from 2003, it demonstrates one methodology that could be used:  Send out a bunch of resumes that are *identical*, except for the name at the top.  Give some "white" names, and others names more likely associated with various racial minorities.  See which ones get more callbacks.
> 
> http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html
> 
> You can do the same for traditionally male and female names:
> 
> "Moss-Racusin wanted to figure out if faculty at academic institutions, despite their training in conducting scientifically objective research, held implicit gender biases that were disadvantaging women who were pursuing STEM careers.
> 
> In their study, Moss-Racusin and her colleagues created a fictitious resume of an applicant for a lab manager position. Two versions of the resume were produced that varied in only one, very significant, detail: the name at the top. One applicant was named Jennifer and the other John. Moss-Racusin and her colleagues then asked STEM professors from across the country to assess the resume. Over one hundred biologists, chemists, and physicists at academic institutions agreed to do so. Each scientist was randomly assigned to review either Jennifer or John's resume.
> 
> The results were surprising—they show that the decision makers did not evaluate the resume purely on its merits. Despite having the exact same qualifications and experience as John, Jennifer was perceived as significantly less competent. As a result, Jenifer experienced a number of disadvantages that would have hindered her career advancement if she were a real applicant. Because they perceived the female candidate as less competent, the scientists in the study were less willing to mentor Jennifer or to hire her as a lab manager. They also recommended paying her a lower salary. Jennifer was offered, on average, $4,000 per year (13%) less than John."
> 
> http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer




That very study was used in a different discussion (having trouble locating it, probably a fault in my mental filing system) that opined that the difference wasn't racially based, but based on cultural belief that people with non-standard names are less likely to be a cultural fit to the company and/or may not perform as well.  Arguably, perhaps spitting hairs, but there you go.

But to the point of measurement, I will concede that you can demonstrate an effect, but I still disagree that it was measured.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Ovinomancer said:


> Issues with IATs:
> Blah blah blah.




Look, you asked a question, and I gave you an answer. If all you were going to do was automatically reject the answers given to you, you should state that upfront so people don't waste their time thinking you are interested in actually discussing a topic.


----------



## Kramodlog

Talk about reframing racism.



> the difference wasn't racially based, but based on cultural belief (racial prejudice) that people with non-standard (white sounding) names are less likely to be a cultural fit (smell weird) to the company and/or may not perform as well (be lazy).


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> That very study was used in a different discussion (having trouble locating it, probably a fault in my mental filing system) that opined that the difference wasn't racially based, but based on cultural belief that people with non-standard names are less likely to be a cultural fit to the company and/or may not perform as well.  Arguably, perhaps spitting hairs, but there you go.




Arguably splitting hairs?  Dude, "a cultural belief that people with different names are less likely to fit in or perform," is *TEXTBOOK* racism.  If that's a real consideration, the root issue is not that the new person won't fit in, but that you've fostered an environment where fellow human beings are not considered as equals.

You want me to go back to the UN definition of racism?

"...any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

How does, "he/she is of another national or ethnic origin (as guessed by name, without even seeing them), and so we should exclude him or her" not fit in this definition?  

Note that the effect can be seen for women, as well as minorities.  Is, "Well, she's a woman, so she won't fit in or won't perform as well," somehow not sexism?  

If the latter is sexism, how is the former not also an -ism?


----------



## Ryujin

Ovinomancer said:


> Oh, dear me, no.  You've just committed the sin of reification.  Statistics are just a model, and are not the data.  The data have no mean, your model of the data has a mean.  That may seem trivial, but it's critical to understanding that you fool yourself if you ever believe that statistics have any real truth.  They don't, they're just a model of the real world that occasionally are useful.  Cue the old saw about all models are false, but some are useful.
> 
> 
> If you draw conclusions from statistics, you are lying to yourself.  You may be accidentally correct, but that's it.  Statistics has nothing to do with causation.  To draw correct conclusions you need to go look at causation, and you cannot do that with statistics.  Stats can be useful to point you in the direction of some possibly causations, or to see if your hypothesized causation holds water, but that's the extent of their use.  We, as in the Western world, seem to hold stats in much higher regard than they should be held -- just another imperfect tool in the box that shouldn't substitute for thinking.




Please reference post# 481 for response.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Look, you asked a question, and I gave you an answer. If all you were going to do was automatically reject the answers given to you, you should state that upfront so people don't waste their time thinking you are interested in actually discussing a topic.



No, you're right.  I asked a rhetorical question and failed to provide my answer for it.  This is a good example of why I try to do that.  My bad.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> Oh, dear me, no.  You've just committed the sin of reification.  Statistics are just a model, and are not the data.  The data have no mean, your model of the data has a mean.




Um, no.

The data has a mean.  The data is a sub-population for which you have (near) perfect knowledge of the things you've measured, and you can certainly get a mean from them.  I say near perfect, because there's always some measuring and sampling error.

The real world also has a mean.  You just don't know what it is, unless you measure the entire population in question.

Your model is the thing that gets you to think the data's mean and the real world's mean are related.




> If you draw conclusions from statistics, you are lying to yourself.  You may be accidentally correct, but that's it.  Statistics has nothing to do with causation.  To draw correct conclusions you need to go look at causation, and you cannot do that with statistics.




Again, I have to say no.  Statistics are like a microscope - they give you a way to see the state of a system.  There is no way to "look for causation" without a way to see the state of the system you are looking at!  Just like with a microscope, there's some distortion when you take image - the image is not the thing itself - but you can minimize and correct for much of that.

One should not look at statistics from only one experiment, and then claim for certain that they know the cause, just like you don't take one picture of a cell with a microscope, and say you've found the cause of a biological effect.  But then, a smart person who isn't a biologist or a sociologist does not themselves decide they know what is happening at all.  They should turn to experts who know what they are doing.

When we discuss here, and we bring up statistics, we are being demonstrative, displaying some support, and referring to people who are (hopefully) experts.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Ovinomancer said:


> No, you're right.  I asked a rhetorical question and failed to provide my answer for it.  This is a good example of why I try to do that.  My bad.



To be honest, what's become clear is that you don't seem to understand measurements when it comes to a variable that you can't directly observe. It's interesting. You have this very linear logic process. It's apparent when you speak about baselines and measurements. It's also ver apparent when you attempt to discuss the law.


----------



## Kramodlog

Given how this thread was about persecution and is now about race, this article about a USian black man demanding refugee status in Canada because he fears the police will kill him should be appropriate. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...anty-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada-1.3286707

Interestingly enough, Canada takes about 10 USian refugees a year.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> Many of the schools these kids go to are underfunded, making learning there difficult for the best of students, much less the mediocre ones.




In the mid-1970s, I had the misfortune of attending summer school in an economically depressed area.  The history book I was issued stopped with the ongoing US activities in the war..._in Korea._

Math might not change much over time, but other subjects are more volatile.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Math might not change much over time, but other subjects are more volatile.



Math may not change, but the level of math you may learn, and the quality of math instruction can certainly vary.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Sadras said:


> Does Afghanistan represent the Muslim world? Does Eqypt? Does Nigeria? Does Pakistan? Do all of them together. How democratic are the laws regarding Apostacy practiced in over 20 'Muslim' nations? These are rhetorical questions, I earnestly do not mind how you answer, but please do not paint me out as saying that the Muslim world is just Iran and Saudi.




Indonesia would be the best pick, since it has the world's largest Muslim population. 

But in the end, even they don't work, because Muslims are much too diverse a group to lump together in any way other than "people who follow Islam, to some degree or other." 



Maxperson said:


> You never answered Ovinomancer's question. What races are we going to deliberately under represent as partners in order over represent Asian partners? Racial make-up only = 100%, so in order to give Asians nearly double their racial make-up as partners, someone else has to be discriminated against. Who do you think it should be?



White ppl are over represented pretty much everywhere, we can take it. 

Also, most of the world's people are Asian. No other group even comes close. Just saying. Asians may have been a bad example. 


Also, ITT I learned that some white people will literally come up with anything in order to deny that their privilege exists. 

Meanwhile, the mountain of evidence supporting it's existence is crushing everyone else under it's enormous weight. 

I'm done with this whole thread. If you don't think that white people have privilege, you are intentionally being dishonest with yourself, and you need a damn education. Sadly, we haven't invented a way to make someone live another person's life in a fully immersive virtual environment yet, and i suspect that may literally be the only way some white people would ever let themselves acknowledge their position in the world, and how undeserved it is.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

doctorbadwolf said:


> I'm done with this whole thread.




Some friendly advice: while I understand your frustration, it is probably best if you edit your post's conclusion to just what I quoted- the rest comes off as a bit confrontational & personal.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> You never answered Ovinomancer's question.  What races are we going to deliberately under represent as partners in order over represent Asian partners?  Racial make-up only = 100%, so in order to give Asians nearly double their racial make-up as partners, someone else has to be discriminated against.  Who do you think it should be?



Assuming the root cause is not based on actual merit, correcting an imbalance isn't discrimination, it is ending an injustice.

IOW, if all partner candidates are roughly equivalent overall, but there is a gross disparity in the demographics of those chosen in favor of white male candidates, a subsequent correction of this imbalance isn't discrimination against white male candidates, it is ending the undeserved bias in their favor.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> You seem to ignore many other factors in this statement.  Many of the schools these kids go to are underfunded, making learning there difficult for the best of students, much less the mediocre ones.  Moreover, many of them are in questionable economic positions - they may have the choice of staying in school, or trying to do something so their family has food, clothing, and a roof over their heads.
> 
> Maybe not "forced," but, "coerced," might be appropriate.
> 
> And remember, we are talking about *KIDS*.  Not adults with large amounts of insight built up over years.  The choices are being made by 12 to 15 year olds.




People that poor qualify for welfare and other programs to pay for food and a roof over their head.  The parents also often don't insist that the kids go back to school and/or agree with the decision to drop out.  Schooling isn't as high of a priority as it should be.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> Is that because everyone realizes we shouldn't do so, or because those billionaires dump lots of money into the political process to protect them?
> 
> In other nations (most of  Europe, for example), those who produce wealth are asked to do a lot more for the poor - typically by taxation, and by not having such a wild disparity in top and bottom pay scales in the first place.  And it works out okay for them.




They also don't spend much on the military and then need the US to bail them out when a military presence is needed for whatever reason.  The systems used in Europe have advantages, but also disadvantages.  I'd rather live here than there.



> And, in history, well, tell Marie Antoinette that we don't hold the rich responsible - though admittedly that was more the rich being held accountable, rather than responsible.




That doesn't happen often and many people were killed or imprisoned in that revolution that didn't deserve to die or be imprisoned.  It wasn't just the rich that were held accountable, the rich created the situation that ignited.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> I didn't know I was supposed to be self-serving.
> 
> Sure you did. You wrote something and what you said caused me to write something. At least it is one of the things that caused my writing.




A cause doesn't involve choice in the part of any other person.  If I pick up a rock and throw it, I caused it to fly through the air.  If the rock then breaks a window, I caused the window to break.  However, if I pick up a rock and throw it five feet and you then decide to throw a rock through a window, I did not cause you to do so.  Nothing forced you to pick up that rock and throw it.  You had choice, so it's 100% on you.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> The real question why you do not think that the number of Asian partners not reflecting the number of lawyers, isn't a sign of discrimination at the top. Do you reject the notion of glass ceiling for women? If not, why reject this "bamboo ceiling"?






Umbran said:


> Well, the word "privilege" has existed for a very, very long time.  That we have a word for it is not enough to prove that some form of privilege exists in the world?
> 
> After accepting that there are some people who are privileged, and some who are not, it comes down to quibbling over *who* is privileged, and who isn't.
> 
> Having higher salaries, not being nearly as subject to police scrutiny, and so on, is not enough to prove that white men generally sit in a place of privilege, to you?
> 
> Please, tell us what proof would be required - moving goalposts are not constructive, so we should establish what's called for beforehand..






goldomark said:


> Wait. You say the rich have a relative immunity from the law and that is a privilege, but you deny that white people who enjoy a relative immunity from racial discrimination is a privilege?
> 
> That is a double standard.






Umbran said:


> Statistically - while this study is from 2003, it demonstrates one methodology that could be used:  Send out a bunch of resumes that are *identical*, except for the name at the top.  Give some "white" names, and others names more likely associated with various racial minorities.  See which ones get more callbacks.
> 
> http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html
> 
> You can do the same for traditionally male and female names:
> 
> "Moss-Racusin wanted to figure out if faculty at academic institutions, despite their training in conducting scientifically objective research, held implicit gender biases that were disadvantaging women who were pursuing STEM careers.
> 
> In their study, Moss-Racusin and her colleagues created a fictitious resume of an applicant for a lab manager position. Two versions of the resume were produced that varied in only one, very significant, detail: the name at the top. One applicant was named Jennifer and the other John. Moss-Racusin and her colleagues then asked STEM professors from across the country to assess the resume. Over one hundred biologists, chemists, and physicists at academic institutions agreed to do so. Each scientist was randomly assigned to review either Jennifer or John's resume.
> 
> The results were surprising—they show that the decision makers did not evaluate the resume purely on its merits. Despite having the exact same qualifications and experience as John, Jennifer was perceived as significantly less competent. As a result, Jenifer experienced a number of disadvantages that would have hindered her career advancement if she were a real applicant. Because they perceived the female candidate as less competent, the scientists in the study were less willing to mentor Jennifer or to hire her as a lab manager. They also recommended paying her a lower salary. Jennifer was offered, on average, $4,000 per year (13%) less than John."
> 
> http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer




That doesn't show racial bias.  It shows name bias.  I dislike names like Shaniqua and other similar names and would not call back resumes with names like that.  I also dislike Hawaiian sounding names which are often given to white people, or Russian names which belong overwhelmingly to white people.  Give me names like Robin, Rhonda, George, James and so on, but put on those resumes the race of the individual and you will find no racial bias at all.  

Judging by name =/= judging by race and using name bias to measure racial bias is going to produce fatally flawed results.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> Also, most of the world's people are Asian. No other group even comes close. Just saying. Asians may have been a bad example.




Not really.  The numbers of Asians in the world are irrelevant to a discussion about percentages in America.  Only the American Asian population is relevant to this discussion.



> Also, ITT I learned that some white people will literally come up with anything in order to deny that their privilege exists.




And apparently some will come up with nonsense that doesn't apply in order to show that it does exist.


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> People that poor qualify for welfare and other programs to pay for food and a roof over their head.  The parents also often don't insist that the kids go back to school and/or agree with the decision to drop out.  Schooling isn't as high of a priority as it should be.




You are sadly mistaken if you think those programs can adequately cover the needs of many that poor, and many of those programs disqualify those who try to work to increase their income, causing a catch-22 of mutually-exclusive ways to not be able to live above the poverty line.


----------



## billd91

Maxperson said:


> That doesn't show racial bias.  It shows name bias.  I dislike names like Shaniqua and other similar names and would not call back resumes with names like that.  I also dislike Hawaiian sounding names which are often given to white people, or Russian names which belong overwhelmingly to white people.  Give me names like Robin, Rhonda, George, James and so on, but put on those resumes the race of the individual and you will find no racial bias at all.
> 
> Judging by name =/= judging by race and using name bias to measure racial bias is going to produce fatally flawed results.




Wow. Just... wow.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> A cause doesn't involve choice in the part of any other person.  If I pick up a rock and throw it, I caused it to fly through the air.  If the rock then breaks a window, I caused the window to break.  However, if I pick up a rock and throw it five feet and you then decide to throw a rock through a window, I did not cause you to do so.  Nothing forced you to pick up that rock and throw it.  You had choice, so it's 100% on you.



Well, know that we reached the rock throwing part of the discussion, its time to pull the plug on this tangent.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> That doesn't show racial bias.  It shows name bias.  I dislike names like Shaniqua and other similar names and would not call back resumes with names like that.  I also dislike Hawaiian sounding names which are often given to white people, or Russian names which belong overwhelmingly to white people.  Give me names like Robin, Rhonda, George, James and so on, but put on those resumes the race of the individual and you will find no racial bias at all.
> 
> Judging by name =/= judging by race and using name bias to measure racial bias is going to produce fatally flawed results.




... You've just said you discriminate by ethnicity or how ethnic some names sounds when it comes to hiring people.

This is the UN definition of racism Umbran found: 







> "...any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."



Since what you're doing is excluding people from jobs base on ethnicity, I'd say that fits the UN's definition of racism. 

You'll probably say you do not care about what the UN says, so I ask, which definition of racism do you use?


----------



## Cor Azer

goldomark said:


> ... You've just said you discriminate by ethnicity or how ethnic some names sounds when it comes to hiring people.




Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he may be refering to the difference between 'standard' names like 'John' or 'Shaniqua', vs 'creative' names like 'Moxy Crimefighter' or 'Apple Blossom'.

That's not necessarily racist, although still a bit illogical to penalize a person because their parents tried to be different.

Edit: or I could read his post where he explicitly says what you say... Nevermind.


----------



## Maxperson

billd91 said:


> Wow. Just... wow.





If you have any evidence that inextricably tied name to race, provide it.  I'm really curious to know what race I am since I've met black, white, hispanic and asian people with my name.  Which race am I forced to be?  

Sorry, but they are not bound and I can dislike names without being racist.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> ... You've just said you discriminate by ethnicity or how ethnic some names sounds when it comes to hiring people.




That's a lie.  I never said that.  It's all in the name and names are not bound by ethnicity.  You can find find a Russian James and an American Demitri.


----------



## trappedslider

Maxperson said:


> Sorry, but they are not bound and I can dislike names without being racist.




It's amazing the number of names you dislike when you have to name your kid....


----------



## Maxperson

trappedslider said:


> It's amazing the number of names you dislike when you have to name your kid....




That statement applies to virtually everyone.  What's your point?


----------



## trappedslider

Maxperson said:


> That statement applies to virtually everyone.  What's your point?




I was agreeing with you about disliking names and not being racist, not everyone in this thread is out to troll debate you


----------



## Maxperson

trappedslider said:


> I was agreeing with you about disliking names and not being racist, not everyone in this thread is out to troll debate you




Oh, okay.  Tone doesn't travel well in text.  Sorry for taking that wrong.


----------



## billd91

Maxperson said:


> If you have any evidence that inextricably tied name to race, provide it.  I'm really curious to know what race I am since I've met black, white, hispanic and asian people with my name.  Which race am I forced to be?
> 
> Sorry, but they are not bound and I can dislike names without being racist.




There in nothing inextricably tying race to names, but you cannot deny the trends. Discriminating against names like Shaniqua will have you systematically discriminating against black women, for no appropriate reason. Favoring names like James, Robin, Rhonda, and George will have you systematically privileging white people, for no appropriate reason.


----------



## Maxperson

billd91 said:


> There in nothing inextricably tying race to names, but you cannot deny the trends. Discriminating against names like Shaniqua will have you systematically discriminating against black women, for no appropriate reason. Favoring names like James, Robin, Rhonda, and George will have you systematically privileging white people, for no appropriate reason.




That's impossible.  I can't be discriminating against someone or something I am not discriminating against.  In order for me to discriminate against black women, I must intend to do so.  I have absolutely no issue with any race, religion, gender, etc.  I would hire a qualified black woman just the same as a white woman, asian woman or venusian woman.  I would not hire someone whose name I really dislike whether she was white, black, asian, venusian or whatever.  The two are not tied together in any discriminatory sense.

Oh, and I've met a lot more black Rhonda's than white.


----------



## billd91

Maxperson said:


> That's impossible.  I can't be discriminating against someone or something I am not discriminating against.  In order for me to discriminate against black women, I must intend to do so.  I have absolutely no issue with any race, religion, gender, etc.  I would hire a qualified black woman just the same as a white woman, asian woman or venusian woman.  I would not hire someone whose name I really dislike whether she was white, black, asian, venusian or whatever.  The two are not tied together in any discriminatory sense.
> 
> Oh, and I've met a lot more black Rhonda's than white.




Ultimately, this is like saying "I only hire people who stand up to pee" and then denying that you favor hiring men. The factor you cite may sound independent (though just as illegitimate since, like name, has no bearing on expected job performance), it really isn't. Names may penetrate different cultures to a certain degree, but they also serve as cultural markers. Discriminating against names will discriminate against the cultures in which they trend, discriminating for names will discriminate for cultures in which they trend. This is a significant reason minority cultures (minority in the sense that they don't dominate the politics or economy) and languages are threatened with extinction.


----------



## Maxperson

billd91 said:


> Ultimately, this is like saying "I only hire people who stand up to pee" and then denying that you favor hiring men. The factor you cite may sound independent (though just as illegitimate since, like name, has no bearing on expected job performance), it really isn't. Names may penetrate different cultures to a certain degree, but they also serve as cultural markers. Discriminating against names will discriminate against the cultures in which they trend, discriminating for names will discriminate for cultures in which they trend. This is a significant reason minority cultures (minority in the sense that they don't dominate the politics or economy) and languages are threatened with extinction.





No it's not like that at all.   People fail to get jobs for lots of reasons.  Some bosses don't like ugly people.  Others dislike fat people.  Maybe you walked in wearing green that day and the person interviewing doesn't like green.  The reasons for not hiring you are the only reasons there are for not hiring you.  You don't get to invent other reasons like racism or discrimination and then apply them to me.  Especially when there are lots of names that I do like that are often black, but are not africanesque.


----------



## billd91

Maxperson said:


> No it's not like that at all.   People fail to get jobs for lots of reasons.  Some bosses don't like ugly people.  Others dislike fat people.  Maybe you walked in wearing green that day and the person interviewing doesn't like green.  The reasons for not hiring you are the only reasons there are for not hiring you.  You don't get to invent other reasons like racism or discrimination and then apply them to me.  Especially when there are lots of names that I do like that are often black, but are not africanesque.




I could say that if you walk like a duck and quack like a duck...

But instead, I'll go with this: 


			
				EEOC said:
			
		

> The laws enforced by EEOC prohibit an employer or other covered entity from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative effect on applicants or employees of a particular race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), or national origin, or on an individual with a disability or class of individuals with disabilities, if the polices or practices at issue are not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business.




You may think you wouldn't be discriminating on race, but the EEOC disagrees with you.


----------



## Maxperson

billd91 said:


> I could say that if you walk like a duck and quack like a duck...
> 
> But instead, I'll go with this:
> 
> You may think you wouldn't be discriminating on race, but the EEOC disagrees with you.




Yep. The government is overly racist with some of its policies.  Of course, since there are many names that are black that I do like, what I do doesn't qualify anyway.  It doesn't target a race.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

As the EEOC rule points out, it is pretty well settled law that "disperate impact" is a valid definition of impermissible discrimination.  It isn't inherently racist- IMHO, racism requires intent- but its effects are indistinguishable from racism, so it is illegal just about wherever it crops up- employment law, housing law, voting rights, etc.

Or, to put it a different way: I just spent 7 hours of my Wednesday in a CLE course on Employment Law.*  The theme as a whole was by preparing your business to go to litigation, you can avoid litigation.  That is, if you know the potential traps in EL, you're less likely to get sued.  

One point the lead lecturer made repeatedly in a variety of ways- most briefly was "The Smell Test"- was that a business needs to avoid not only actual impropriety, but also the appearance of impropriety.  And a pattern of non-interviewing/hiring that leaves minority job seekers disproportionately shut out of the process is a sure loser unless you can provide a valid business-related justification for that pattern that the court finds acceptable.  The employer bears the burden of proof.

Even in an Emplyment at will jurisdiction.









*Not my personal field of practice, but it needed the CLE hours to keep my license active, and I was out of time.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> I can't be discriminating against someone or something I am not discriminating against.  In order for me to discriminate against black women, I must intend to do so.




Incorrect.  Let us look at the definition from the UN I've shown a few times - emphasis is mine:

"the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin _*that has the purpose or effect*_ of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

Note that - has the purpose _or effect_.  You don't mean to specifically consciously intend it, but if the result has more negative impact on a specific racial, ethnic, or national group, then the thing you're doing is racist.

And, if the policy in question comes from a thought process of, "I hate the names they give black kids these days, so I won't hire people with those names," one does have to wonder if it is really just the names that are at issue.  Unconscious bias is a real thing.

Plus, generally speaking, not hiring a person because you don't like their name is pretty darned dumb.  Sorry.  Personal opinion, that.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> It's all in the name and names are not bound by ethnicity.



I didn't say bound, but you did link names to ethnicities. 

This is what you said.


> That doesn't show racial bias. It shows name bias. I dislike names like Shaniqua and other similar names and would not call back resumes with names like that. I also dislike Hawaiian sounding names which are often given to white people, or Russian names which belong overwhelmingly to white people. Give me names like Robin, Rhonda, George, James and so on, but put on those resumes the race of the individual and you will find no racial bias at all.



"Hawaiin sounding names", "Russian names", your words. If it is a Russian name, is it because some names are more common among people of Russian background. If you discriminate* based on Russian sounding names, odds are more Russians will be affected by this discrimination.


*To make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> Incorrect.  Let us look at the definition from the UN I've shown a few times - emphasis is mine:
> 
> "the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin _*that has the purpose or effect*_ of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."
> 
> Note that - has the purpose _or effect_.  You don't mean to specifically consciously intend it, but if the result has more negative impact on a specific racial, ethnic, or national group, then the thing you're doing is racist.
> 
> And, if the policy in question comes from a thought process of, *"I hate the names they give black kids these days, so I won't hire people with those names,"* one does have to wonder if it is really just the names that are at issue.  Unconscious bias is a real thing.
> 
> Plus, generally speaking, not hiring a person because you don't like their name is pretty darned dumb.  Sorry.  Personal opinion, that.




The bolded is not what I am doing, though.  Do I dislike many of the names given to black kids? Yes.  Do I like many of the names given to black kids?  Yes.  Do I dislike many of the names given to white kids? Yes.  Do I like many names given to white kids?  Yes.

The result is a wash.  I wouldn't call back a Tanisha or Shaniqua, but I also would not call back an Edward or a Benjamin.  I exclude by name and not race.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Hence the wording "and effect".

Let me out this as plainly as possible: not calling "Tanishas" and "Shaniquas" back is going to have a disparate impact on the hiring odds of black women vs all other candidates, and is a *slam-dunk case of discrimination under US law.*  Ditto the same bias against "Hawaiian" and "Russian" sounding names- that will be found to be impermissible discrimination against potential hires on the basis of ethnicity or national origin.

And the fact that you also discriminate against "Edwards" or "Benjamins" will probably not be a factor considered in your favor.  At the very least, it won't help you all that much.  It will be seen as a quirky factoid on top of your pattern of discrimination.

Seriously.  If you are currently or at some future point in a position to hire/fire in the USA, you might want to consult an employment law specialist.  The hundreds of dollars you spend may well save you thousands if not millions in legal fees and judgements.


----------



## Maxperson

But the effect would be that all races would be evenly represented in my organization.  Kinda hard to be discriminating when all races are evenly hired.  

There would also be no discernible pattern to what I do.  "He hired a black Rhonda and a black Labron, but no black Shaniqua or Jaivon your honor!  He must be discriminating against black people!"  That wouldn't fly.  There would be no slam dunk case.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Even if LiberalDarlingCorporateAngelCo proved that it _hired_ a statistically demographically representative cross-section of personnel, it would still lose any case in which their _interview process_ mirrored the one you stated.  A "Shaniquas Need Not Apply" policy is going to be ruled improper discrimination.  The judge's gavel would come down so fast on this case you'd hear 2 bangs; the one from the strike preceded by a sonic boom.

*Every step *of your hire/fire process has to be fair & non-discriminatory, and this isn't.  I can't put it plainer than that.

As Wednesday's lecturer put it, ask yourself these questions when considering an employment policy:

1) how would a Judge see it?
2) how would a prosecuting attorney see it?
3) how would a jury see it?

Hint: you don't want a negative response for any of those questions.

From Lawyers.com:


> Employers commit discrimination when they make a decision based on a protected category instead of individual merit. This applies throughout the entire employment relationship. Examples when employers can’t discriminate include:
> 
> Hiring
> Firing
> Recruiting
> Promoting
> Pay raises
> Training




Not interviewing based on names runs afoul of recruiting regulations.


----------



## Maxperson

Danny, I'm not going to be stating that Tanishas and Shaniquas need not apply.  Nor would there be anything out of the ordinary at the interviews.  There are hundreds of applicants for most jobs and no way for anyone to know which ones get called in or why.  All they could look at was the racial make-up of who I hire and that would be racially even and non-biased.


----------



## Kramodlog

What I get from this exchange is that discrimination is ok as long as you hide it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> Danny, I'm not going to be stating that Tanishas and Shaniquas need not apply.  Nor would there be anything out of the ordinary at the interviews.  There are hundreds of applicants for most jobs and no way for anyone to know which ones get called in or why.  All they could look at was the racial make-up of who I hire and that would be racially even and non-biased.



You still don't get it: it doesn't matter if you state the policy if a prima facie case for the pattern's existence can be made.  Because you're the employer, and all of the relevant records would be in your possession, once the allegation is made, the burden of proof will be on you.

The prosecutor's first step will be an investigation of all applicants for positions in your business.  Let's assume that you don't keep records of who you do and don't interview after positions have been filled.  You're not in the clear, though: if he believes the allegations are credible, the prosecutor's next step will be to place public notices in newspapers and on TV to see if anyone else will come forward.  There WILL be press coverage.

And when they look at the candidates called back for interviews, the pattern of no Shaniquas, Vladimirs, and Kamakawiwo'oles will damn you, even though it is not overtly stated.

Hell- forget the penalties if you're convicted- just the allegations hitting the news will damage your business long before any actual fines are levied.

Say LiberalDarlingCorporateAngelCo is operating in a city where Caucasians, Asians, Hispanics and blacks each comprise 25% of the population.  Even if 1/4 of their hires come from each group, they're going to get busted if their interview demographics are skewed in favor or against any of the ethnicities.


----------



## Cor Azer

goldomark said:


> What I get from this exchange is that discrimination is ok as long as you hide it.




I really hope I'm wrong, but it reads like an evolved version of 'Some of my best friends are...'


----------



## Kramodlog

Cor Azer said:


> I really hope I'm wrong, but it reads like an evolved version of 'Some of my best friends are...'




I've known Max for a while. He has many black friends!


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Even if LiberalDarlingCorporateAngelCo proved that it _hired_ a statistically demographically representative cross-section of personnel, it would still lose any case in which their _interview process_ mirrored the one you stated.  A "Shaniquas Need Not Apply" policy is going to be ruled improper discrimination.  The judge's gavel would come down so fast on this case you'd hear 2 bangs; the one from the strike preceded by a sonic boom.
> 
> *Every step *of your hire/fire process has to be fair & non-discriminatory, and this isn't.  I can't put it plainer than that.
> 
> As Wednesday's lecturer put it, ask yourself these questions when considering an employment policy:
> 
> 1) how would a Judge see it?
> 2) how would a prosecuting attorney see it?
> 3) how would a jury see it?
> 
> Hint: you don't want a negative response for any of those questions.
> 
> From Lawyers.com:
> 
> 
> Not interviewing based on names runs afoul of recruiting regulations.




First, no prosecutor worth a grain of salt is going to go after a business that hires all races equally and calls back all races equally.  It's impossible to tell why Rhonda was called back instead of Shaniqua and prosecutors like to actually win cases.  Second, no one named Shaniqua is going to make an allegation that a business didn't call her back over her name.  She's going to make the allegation that it was her color.  When an investigator sees that a business calls back all races equally and has all races represented equally, it's going to end there.  Third, the press won't run the story and interviewing equally.  Lastly, read the link below.  There are many reasons why when interviewing races equally, some people of a given race won't be called back.  The burden is on employee to prove that it was somehow the name, which is going to be nearly impossible to do.  

*http://www.americanbar.org/content/...law/meetings/2011/ac2011/033.authcheckdam.pdf*

*The complainant in a Title VII trial must carry the initial burden under the
statute of establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination.* This may
be done by showing (i) that he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he
applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking
applicants; (iii) that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected; and (iv)
that, after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer
continued to seek applicants from persons of complainant's qualifications.

Step 1 is by no means guaranteed, especially if I have other members of that minority that are qualified and hired.

The burden then must shift to the employer to articulate some legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for the employee's rejection. 

*If the defendant carries [its] burden of production, the presumption raised
by the prima facie case is rebutted, and the factual inquiry proceeds to a
new level of specificity*. Placing this burden of production on the defendant
thus serves simultaneously to meet the plaintiff's prima facie case by
presenting a legitimate reason for the action and to frame the factual issue
with sufficient clarity so that the plaintiff will have a full and fair
opportunity to demonstrate pretext. 

Step two is easy for the employer since there are many legitimate reasons why Shaniqua could be rejected.

In setting up this model, the Court articulated several methods of showing
pretext, including:

1. Instances in which persons outside the protected class were
treated better for offenses of comparable seriousness;
2. The manner in which the employee was treated by the
employer while employed;
3. The employer’s reaction to “legitimate civil rights activities”;
and
4. Statistics concerning the employer’s employment policy and
practice with respect to minority employment insofar as it
may suggest a general pattern of discrimination.

Numbers 2 and 3 flat out don't apply to what we're discussing.  Number 1 is not going to fly since nobody outside the protected class are treated any better or worse.  Number 4 isn't going to fly since the business hires and interviews the protected class equally with everyone else.

There aren't going to enough numbers of names I don't like from a given race not getting interviews vs. names I do like to establish a definitive pattern.  Especially when there will be many other aspects of many of those applications that warrant refusal.  Most of them probably aren't going to be both qualified and without errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar.  

Ultimately, proof of pretext is “not limited to presenting evidence of a certain
type.” The evidentiary theories available to a plaintiff in an attempt to establish that an
employer’s stated reasons for taking adverse action are pretextual “may take a variety of
forms.” Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 187 (1989). *The burden of
proof, however, will always lie with the plaintiff.* See Texas Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v.
Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253 (citing Board of Trustees of Keene State College v. Sweeney,
439 U.S. 24, 25, n. 2 (1978)). *So, while an employer has the slight burden of articulating
some legitimate reason for an adverse employment action, the plaintiff bears the
ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the reason is a mere pretext for
discrimination. Id. This is a burden that remains with the plaintiff throughout. *

The burden is on the plaintiff, not the employer.

Without a smoking gun, it's going to be nearly impossible to prove that the lack of callbacks was directed at a particular race via names.


----------



## Cor Azer

goldomark said:


> I've known Max for a while. He has many black friends!




Yeah, I may have been more accusatory there than I intended, and I apologize for that.

I wasn't trying to imply anything about Maxperson, just that the argument was similar to the type I indicated, in that just because someone has or something done has some good qualities, it does not mean that they/it can't also have some bad qualities.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> First, no prosecutor worth a grain of salt is going to go after a business that hires all races equally and calls back all races equally.




You're simply factually wrong on this.  As noted, you can be scrutinized over your recruitment practices, even if you ultimately hire equally.



> In November 2010, a Chicago janitorial services provider agreed to pay $3 million to approximately 550 rejected Black job applicants under a four-year consent decree, settling the EEOC's allegations of race and national origin discrimination *in recruitment* and hiring. *The EEOC had alleged that the provider had recruited through media directed at Eastern European immigrants and Hispanics *and hired people from those groups over African Americans, and that the provider's use of subjective decisionmaking had a disparate impact on African Americans. As part of the decree, the provider also agreed to extensive changes in its employment policies, to engage in "active recruitment" of African American employees, to hire previously rejected Black applicants, to implement training on discrimination and retaliation, and to hire an outside monitor to review compliance with the decree. EEOC v. Scrub Inc., No. 09 C 4228 (N.D. Ill. consent decree entered Nov. 9, 2010).




(Emphasis mine.)

Yes, Scrub, Inc.- by not hiring equally- violated more than one aspect of EEOC statutes...but most cases involve multiple kinds of violations.



> It's impossible to tell why Rhonda was called back instead of Shaniqua and prosecutors like to actually win cases.




It is not at all impossible to prove.  I just showed you how they would- after the initial allegation and lack of proof in your records, they'd take out legal notices of a pending lawsuit, looking for people to come forward and join.



> Second, no one named Shaniqua is going to make an allegation that a business didn't call her back over her name.  She's going to make the allegation that it was her color.




You clearly don't know many Shaniquas.  If she AND Tanisha AND her buddy Vlad AND Kamakawiwo'ole get turned down without a callback, her first instinct is that you didn't call back because of her race.  

And because all she sent in was her resume, she's going to think you did it because of her name.

Trust me: this is going to be the first assumption based on what she will tell the investigators & prosecutors.



> When an investigator sees that a business calls back all races equally and has all races represented equally, it's going to end there.




In reality, if you are winnowing the applicant pool based on names you don't like, _you aren't calling back all races equally._



> Third, the press won't run the story and interviewing equally.




Have you never seen "Community Action Reporters" at work?  If it doesn't pass the sniff test, they WILL ambush you in your parking lot with a mic & camera.



> Lastly, read the link below.  There are many reasons why when interviewing races equally, some people of a given race won't be called back.  The burden is on employee to prove that it was somehow the name, which is going to be nearly impossible to do.




While there are many reasons why an applicant may not be called back, the pattern you keep describing will result in disparate impact, and proving that is not impossible at all.

_Especially_ with all kinds of social science studies out there documenting that kind of disparate impact.



> *http://www.americanbar.org/content/...law/meetings/2011/ac2011/033.authcheckdam.pdf*
> 
> *The complainant in a Title VII trial must carry the initial burden under the
> statute of establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination.* This may
> be done by showing (i) that he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he
> applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking
> applicants; (iii) that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected; and (iv)
> that, after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer
> continued to seek applicants from persons of complainant's qualifications.




And as noted right after that, once the prima fact case has been made, 



> The burden then must shift to the employer to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee's rejection.




And of course, the employer then gets a chance to prove they are not being discriminatory.



> Step 1 is by no means guaranteed, especially if I have other members of that minority that are qualified and hired.




Simple English: if the investigation is about discrimination in your recruitment policies, _it doesn't matter what your actual hiring practices are._

If you have four jobs that you fill with a white guy, a black woman, a gay Hispanic and a cross-gender Asian, that may look like a commitment to diversity...

Unless, for example, it is revealed that you interviewed 1000 white guys, 3 blacks, 2 Asians, and only that Hispanic.



> Step two is easy for the employer since there are many legitimate reasons why Shaniqua could be rejected.




OMG, if you think it would be "easy" to explain why no Shaniquas, et alia get callbacks, your understanding of how courts look at "reasonable person" type standards is deeply flawed, again, especially in the context of repeated studies showing the prevalence of name-based discrimination.

And yes, those studies WILL get trotted out.  Possibly all of them.



> In setting up this model, the Court articulated several methods of showing
> pretext, including:
> 
> 1. Instances in which persons outside the protected class were
> treated better for offenses of comparable seriousness;



And 


> 4. Statistics concerning the employer’s employment policy and
> practice with respect to minority employment insofar as it
> may suggest a general pattern of discrimination.




BOOM!  Your company has just taken a broadside shot below the waterline- people with "mainstream" names received a benefit that others did not, namely, an interview.

IOW, this analysis:



> Number 1 is not going to fly since nobody outside the protected class are treated any better or worse.  Number 4 isn't going to fly since the business hires and interviews the protected class equally with everyone else.



...is flawed.

Here are some guidelines from Iowa:


> Adverse Impact
> Another type of discrimination occurs when neutral conduct has an adverse impact on groups protected by law. An example would be when employers do not necessarily intend to exclude people of a particular race, sex, religion, color, age, national origin or disability, but they engage in practices that have the effect of doing so. Title VII and the IHRA prohibit employment procedures that have an adverse impact against members of a protected group. For example, requiring applicants to be at least 5’9" tall has an adverse effect against women, Asian Americans, and Hispanics who are generally shorter than white males. This means that a disproportionately higher percentage of applicants from these groups will be rejected from employment simply because they are too short. An employer engaged in this type of selection procedure is practicing discriminatory hiring practices, even if done unknowingly.
> 
> Such an employer is in violation of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and IHRC laws unless the height requirement is a bona fide occupational qualification (which is discussed in the next section). *The important lesson to learn from this example is that any selection procedure used by an employer must be carefully monitored for any adverse impact on applicants of a particular race, sex, religion, color, age, national origin or disability.*
> 
> (Edit)
> 
> *Having hiring standards that are not job-related will make your interview invalid. *
> 
> (Edit)
> 
> For example, an employer may violate Title VII by rejecting job applicants because of their appearance or manner of speech if the applicant’s appearance and manner of speech is representative of a particular racial or ethnic group. *The safest ground for an employer is to simply base all employment decisions upon the applicant’s qualifications and not on his or her appearance.*



(All edits and emphasis mine.)

If the only "appearance" you can see is the name, you're on thin ice using that name as a basis for employment process decisions.

Here's more guidance from a HR-centric Employment Law resource site:


> Legal issues in hiring
> At every stage of the hiring process, employers must be careful not to illegally discriminate against applicants for the position. Since discrimination is prohibited on the basis of race, gender, national origin, age, religion, and disability – and by now most job applicants know that – any indication of bias in the hiring process might lead to serious legal repercussions.
> 
> http://blr-hrtopics.elasticbeanstalk.com/hiring-workers-employment-law-basics/#






> There aren't going to enough numbers of names I don't like from a given race not getting interviews vs. names I do like to establish a definitive pattern.  Especially when there will be many other aspects of many of those applications that warrant refusal.  Most of them probably aren't going to be both qualified and without errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar.




EEOC investigators have a lot of skill in detecting sketchy employment practices.  And the thing is, you don't have to be blatant- all it takes to lose one of these cases is detection of something that looks a bit off. 

I'll fall back to the advice of the practicing Employment Law attorney I was getting a lecture from on Wednesday.  Even in an employment at will jurisdiction, you want your processes to be immaculate.  

If you cynically assume and then assert in court the defense that the applications with names you are biased against will contain simple spelling/punctuation/grammar errors, and this is sufficient to DQ the applicants, you can damn well bank on a request for all application process documents in your possession- including, but not limited to forms, resumes, etc. going back YEARS- for the prosecution to examine whether the same pattern exists in those who were granted interviews.

How much do you want to bet that they're going to be able to find enough documents with errors that were not rejected to bore the jury to tears with a litany of names?

And if you don't have said documents to support that position...well, the bald, unsupported assertion of the existence of such errors in those documents will probably just damn you as a blatant racist in the eyes of the trier of fact.

(All of this also assumes that your business insurance company wants to support your defense .  Up if they just want to settle, you're a fool to continue fighting.)

Finally, regarding your pattern, I also wouldn't be surprised if the trier of fact found you liable if there were only one name on your list- a literal "No Shaniquas" _only_ policy- if indeed the majority of Shaniquas denied were all of one ethnicity.


> The burden is on the plaintiff, not the employer.
> 
> Without a smoking gun, it's going to be nearly impossible to prove that the lack of callbacks was directed at a particular race via names.




The initial burden is, yes, and it shifts back an forth through the trial.

But again, the studies about discrimination based on names WILL get before the trier of fact (judge or jury, depending).

While many cases the EEOC prosecutes have fact patterns that are truly egregious, they are not afraid to go after someone when only subtle patterns are immediately evident, or the harm alleged was actionable but de minimis.

I mean, the scary, high-profile cases hit awards in the millions, but I've seen awards as small as $7500.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yes, Scrub, Inc.- by not hiring equally- violated more than one aspect of EEOC statutes...but most cases involve multiple kinds of violations.




Ahh, but part of what I am arguing is that I would be hiring equally, so that doesn't apply.



> It is not at all impossible to prove.  I just showed you how they would- after the initial allegation and lack of proof in your records, they'd take out legal notices of a pending lawsuit, looking for people to come forward and join.




So what.  They had have some people complaining and that's it.  What I would have is evidence showing very valid reasons for not calling those black people.  In addition I would have evidence of not calling white people and hispanic people for valid reasons.  Then to top it off, I'd be able to show evidence that I called black, white and hispanic people in for interviews and hired equal numbers of each.  That beats the hell out of a few people with nothing but complaints.



> You clearly don't know many Shaniquas.  If she AND Tanisha AND her buddy Vlad AND Kamakawiwo'ole get turned down without a callback, her first instinct is that you didn't call back because of her race.
> 
> And because all she sent in was her resume, she's going to think you did it because of her name.
> 
> Trust me: this is going to be the first assumption based on what she will tell the investigators & prosecutors.




Okay.  I'll concede that one.  It still won't ultimately matter, though.



> In reality, if you are winnowing the applicant pool based on names you don't like, _you aren't calling back all races equally._



The first part is true.  The second part of that is false.  If I don't call 50 people of each race back based on name, and I do call a different 50 people of each race back based on name, all races were called back equally.  Individuals were not called back equally, but races were.



> Have you never seen "Community Action Reporters" at work?  If it doesn't pass the sniff test, they WILL ambush you in your parking lot with a mic & camera.




I don't put much stock in what amounts to a tabloid.



> If you have four jobs that you fill with a white guy, a black woman, a gay Hispanic and a cross-gender Asian, that may look like a commitment to diversity...
> 
> Unless, for example, it is revealed that you interviewed 1000 white guys, 3 blacks, 2 Asians, and only that Hispanic.




Wow.  I discriminated the hell out of the white guys.  1000 interviewed and only 1 hired.  Oof!  Of course, in my arguments the races were called back and hired equally, so it wouldn't be like that.



> OMG, if you think it would be "easy" to explain why no Shaniquas, et alia get callbacks, your understanding of how courts look at "reasonable person" type standards is deeply flawed, again, especially in the context of repeated studies showing the prevalence of name-based discrimination.




Lots of them would be disqualified from being called simply on spelling and grammar.  If they can't get the one page resume right after having had weeks to months to work on it, they won't be able to get the job right.  For the rest, all I'd have to do is show that there were other roughly equally qualified individuals that I did call back.  That the great thing about qualifications.  There's a lot of subjectivity to them.  If I prefer one college over another, that's enough to warrant a callback for one applicant and not the other.  Since I would be interviewing and hiring races equally, I wouldn't even have to show that the qualified applicants I did call back were of the same race.


> Here are some guidelines from Iowa:
> 
> (All edits and emphasis mine.)
> 
> If the only "appearance" you can see is the name, you're on thin ice using that name as a basis for employment process decisions.




That's all fine and good, but I would be able to show valid reasons for each denial.  I can also see qualifications, set up of the resume, grammar, spelling, and so on.  There is lots to judge with a resume that doesn't include names.  I would never call in and interview someone of any race who made spelling and/or grammatical errors in the resume.



> If you cynically assume and then assert in court the defense that the applications with names you are biased against will contain simple spelling/punctuation/grammar errors, and this is sufficient to DQ the applicants, you can damn well bank on a request for all application process documents in your possession- including, but not limited to forms, resumes, etc. going back YEARS- for the prosecution to examine whether the same pattern exists in those who were granted interviews.
> 
> How much do you want to bet that they're going to be able to find enough documents with errors that were not rejected to bore the jury to tears with a litany of names?




Sure, but how much do you want to bet that I would be able to show about 100x as many applications from applicants of all races, that were rejected for those sorts of errors.  Nobody is perfect, so I would undoubtedly miss some mistakes and call those people in, but the number I miss would be dwarfed by those I didn't, so it would be clear how I do things.



> (All of this also assumes that your business insurance company wants to support your defense .  Up if they just want to settle, you're a fool to continue fighting.)




That's an entirely different issue.  If the insurance company wanted to settle, it could settle.  I'd never admit guilt, though, would insist on records being sealed, and have a clause in there preventing the plaintiff from talking about things.

Finally, regarding your pattern, I also wouldn't be surprised if the trier of fact found you liable if there were only one name on your list- a literal "No Shaniquas" _only_ policy- if indeed the majority of Shaniquas denied were all of one ethnicity.



> I mean, the scary, high-profile cases hit awards in the millions, but I've seen awards as small as $7500.




Me, too.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> Ahh, but part of what I am arguing is that I would be hiring equally, so that doesn't apply.



You clearly didn't understand: I cited a case in which the company found guilty was investigated and found guilty of 2 different things, and got hammered.  I was acknowledging the fact of the dual investigation.

But the thing is, the hiring and recruitment investigations are discrete. One does not affect the other.  You don't need both- being guilty of either is sufficient to merit conviction.

IOW, the fact that you are hiring equally _does not in any way absolve you of your duty to recruit equally, nor mitigate penalties for verdicts of illegal recruitment practices._



> So what.  They had have some people complaining and that's it.  What I would have is evidence showing very valid reasons for not calling those black people.  In addition I would have evidence of not calling white people and hispanic people for valid reasons.  Then to top it off, I'd be able to show evidence that I called black, white and hispanic people in for interviews and hired equal numbers of each.  That beats the hell out of a few people with nothing but complaints.




The counter evidence of ethnic names being used as a primary winnowing device is not so easily dismissed, and is still impermissible.  Even if you do prove you called back equal numbers, you're still using a sorting method unrelated to job qualifications that has a disperate impact on protected classes.



> The first part is true.  The second part of that is false.  If I don't call 50 people of each race back based on name, and I do call a different 50 people of each race back based on name, all races were called back equally.  Individuals were not called back equally, but races were.




That might mitigate the size of the penalty, but it won't eliminate it.



> Wow.  I discriminated the hell out of the white guys.  1000 interviewed and only 1 hired.  Oof!  Of course, in my arguments the races were called back and hired equally, so it wouldn't be like that.



It was just an example to illustrate that equal or even seemingly progressive hiring practices will not immunize you against liability for discriminatory interviewing prices.  'Cause it doesn't.



> Lots of them would be disqualified from being called simply on spelling and grammar.  If they can't get the one page resume right after having had weeks to months to work on it, they won't be able to get the job right.  For the rest, all I'd have to do is show that there were other roughly equally qualified individuals that I did call back.  That the great thing about qualifications.  There's a lot of subjectivity to them.  If I prefer one college over another, that's enough to warrant a callback for one applicant and not the other.  Since I would be interviewing and hiring races equally, I wouldn't even have to show that the qualified applicants I did call back were of the same race.



Again with the grammar as a primary winnowing tool?  Besides it being a rather trivial primary (as opposed to post-interview) winnowing standard, it also isn't necessarily a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).  

(It may also open you up for scrutiny under the ADA for being discriminatory against dyslexic applicants.)

The investigators will be looking through the demanded documents looking for resumes and documents of applicants who got callbacks or jobs that have typos & other errors that you claim to have used as a winnowing tool as opposed to the allegation of name-based ethnic discrimination.

What are the statistical odds that you were actually 100% perfect in culling all applications & other intake forms with typos, etc. that were submitted to you over a period of years?



> That's all fine and good, but I would be able to show valid reasons for each denial.  I can also see qualifications, set up of the resume, grammar, spelling, and so on.  There is lots to judge with a resume that doesn't include names.  I would never call in and interview someone of any race who made spelling and/or grammatical errors in the resume.



Formatting, grammar...that's a weaksauce defense to allegations of employment discrimination.  

And "I would never..." Is awfully hard to back up.  It is very hard to be perfect.



> Sure, but how much do you want to bet that I would be able to show about 100x as many applications from applicants of all races, that were rejected for those sorts of errors.  Nobody is perfect, so I would undoubtedly miss some mistakes and call those people in, but the number I miss would be dwarfed by those I didn't, so it would be clear how I do things.




But the damage will have been done: your criterion of grammatical errors will be shown to be imperfectly applied, with any actual hires showing that it was ungrounded in BFOQs.  

What does that leave?  The names.



> That's an entirely different issue.  If the insurance company wanted to settle, it could settle.  I'd never admit guilt, though, would insist on records being sealed, and have a clause in there preventing the plaintiff from talking about things.




It IS a separate issue, but you're missing my point here.

If your InsCo decides it wants to settle, that means you're going into ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution), which IS one of my fields.

While it is true that purely financial settlements could very likely be structured the way you describe, not all settlements are.  

Sometimes- _many_ times, in fact- the party claiming the harm in employment cases feel that they haven't just been harmed financially, but have been personally *victimized.*  And one of the typical top-priority demands in such cases is a public admission of & apology for the wrongdoing, often partnered with concrete steps to prevent future occurrences of the harm they suffered.  If this happens, that means they're going to negotiate hard to get that concession from you.

Now you're in a dilemma: settle and admit the problem and don't do it anymore, or proceed with the litigation.

But, if as I was stating, your InsCo wants to settle, the decision against settling and to proceed with litigation against their advice typically means that they will then consider you in violation of your liability policy.

That means:

1) they won't be representing you in the case, so you'll need a new lawyer.
2) the insurance policy will not be applied to any judgements levied against you
3) you may be exposed to PERSONAL liability. IOW, if you can't satisfy the judgement out of corporate assets, they may be able to seek satisfaction of the judgement by taking your personal property- bank accounts, cars, houses, jewelry, etc.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> Ahh, but part of what I am arguing is that I would be hiring equally, so that doesn't apply.




But that's pretty hypothetical.  How can you *prove* you "would be" hiring equally?

Do you already have a specific list of names, and can prove that they are equally distributed across all races and nationalities or something?

Mind you, even that doesn't actually save you, because frequency of name distribution will still hit you.  If you dislike "Shanequa" and "Gilbert", and there's more Shanequas in the world than Gilberts, the effect still lands more heavily on the African American community.

But, all legality aside, I maintain that failing to investigate a qualified candidate based on their name is dumb, from a "get the best resources for your business" standpoint.  Their name is not an indication of their skill, ability, or how well they would perform, and so should not be part of a hiring decision.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The counter evidence of ethnic names being used as a primary winnowing device is not so easily dismissed, and is still impermissible.  Even if you do prove you called back equal numbers, you're still using a sorting method unrelated to job qualifications that has a disperate impact on protected classes.




It has to get past the the very, very reasonable and valid other reasons for not calling those people back.



> Again with the grammar as a primary winnowing tool?  Besides it being a rather trivial primary (as opposed to post-interview) winnowing standard, it also isn't necessarily a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).
> 
> (It may also open you up for scrutiny under the ADA for being discriminatory against dyslexic applicants.)




So companies have to call back every single applicant for interviews because they might have some sort of disability which prevented something on the application?  They're no longer allowed to insist on a college education, because an applicant might have had Down's Syndrome and been unable to go farther than high school.  Clearly that's not that case.  I don't have to assume that someone who has a screwed up application might have Dylexia.  If someone with Dyslexia doesn't have someone without it helping the on the resume, that demonstrates poor judgement, something else generally not wanted in a company.



> The investigators will be looking through the demanded documents looking for resumes and documents of applicants who got callbacks or jobs that have typos & other errors that you claim to have used as a winnowing tool as opposed to the allegation of name-based ethnic discrimination.
> 
> What are the statistical odds that you were actually 100% perfect in culling all applications & other intake forms with typos, etc. that were submitted to you over a period of years?




I don't need to be 100% perfect.  If I can show overwhelming evidence that I do in fact use those tools, all that those relatively very few resumes show is that I'm not perfect.  Sure the investigator will be able to show a small number of mistakes on my part, but I will be able to show so many more that were not called back for those reasons that my intent will by crystal clear.



> But the damage will have been done: your criterion of grammatical errors will be shown to be imperfectly applied, with any actual hires showing that it was ungrounded in BFOQs.
> 
> What does that leave?  The names.




No.  Imperfection does not invalidate my methods.  It just shows that I'm human, something every person on the jury can understand.  I doubt there's a single person who alive who has never had some method for doing something and who also also never made some mistakes in execution.  



> If your InsCo decides it wants to settle, that means you're going into ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution), which IS one of my fields.
> 
> While it is true that purely financial settlements could very likely be structured the way you describe, not all settlements are.
> 
> Sometimes- _many_ times, in fact- the party claiming the harm in employment cases feel that they haven't just been harmed financially, but have been personally *victimized.*  And one of the typical top-priority demands in such cases is a public admission of & apology for the wrongdoing, often partnered with concrete steps to prevent future occurrences of the harm they suffered.  If this happens, that means they're going to negotiate hard to get that concession from you.




I don't admit wrongdoing for things I don't do wrong.



> But, if as I was stating, your InsCo wants to settle, the decision against settling and to proceed with litigation against their advice typically means that they will then consider you in violation of your liability policy.
> 
> That means:
> 
> 1) they won't be representing you in the case, so you'll need a new lawyer.
> 2) the insurance policy will not be applied to any judgements levied against you
> 3) you may be exposed to PERSONAL liability. IOW, if you can't satisfy the judgement out of corporate assets, they may be able to seek satisfaction of the judgement by taking your personal property- bank accounts, cars, houses, jewelry, etc.




I really doubt that refusing to admit wrongdoing to something I didn't do wrong would allow the insurance company to abandon me.  Forcing someone to admit wrongdoing when they did nothing wrong is inherently unfair and sounds very much like bad faith on the part of the insurance company since it is obligated to defend me completely and an attempt to force me to admit to something I didn't do isn't defending me.  Besides, I'm not refusing to settle.  I'm refusing to admit wrongdoing which is different.  I'm still open to settling.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I'll break this out separately:



> I really doubt that refusing to admit wrongdoing to something I didn't do wrong would allow the insurance company to abandon me. Forcing someone to admit wrongdoing when they did nothing wrong is inherently unfair and sounds very much like bad faith on the part of the insurance company since it is obligated to defend me completely and an attempt to force me to admit to something I didn't do isn't defending me. Besides, I'm not refusing to settle. I'm refusing to admit wrongdoing which is different. I'm still open to settling.




That isn't what I'm saying.  I know it sounds like semantics, but they're not dropping you because you are refusing to admit wrongdoing.  They are dropping you because you are refusing to accept the settlement negotiated for by the counsel they provided by contract.  IOW, they have done their job.  The fact that the REASON for your rejection of the settlement is your desire to not admit wrongdoing (whether you are correct or not) is immaterial as long as they have represented you to the best of their ability.

And it's 100% legal.  In fact, it's a pretty standard clause in liability insurance contracts.

So, if the main major demand of the other party in a settlement negotiation is that you publicly admit and apologize, you will have a devil of a time getting a settlement agreement offer that doesn't include that.

If it is the case that all the offers include such a condition, and the InsCo agrees and wants to settle, as their client you then have a decision to make- approve the settlement with the term you dislike or return to the court action.  If you reject the settlement, they no longer have to represent you in this case.

Even if you actually did nothing wrong.  Seen it more than once.


----------



## Kramodlog

Cor Azer said:


> Yeah, I may have been more accusatory there than I intended, and I apologize for that.
> 
> I wasn't trying to imply anything about Maxperson, just that the argument was similar to the type I indicated, in that just because someone has or something done has some good qualities, it does not mean that they/it can't also have some bad qualities.




You must have misunderstood me. I was agreeing with you when you said it was similar to the type of argument you were indicating. He actually said it a few times. Like I said, I've known him for a while on the WotC forums. Your instincts are right.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> It has to get past the the very, very reasonable and valid other reasons for not calling those people back.




You haven't provided one yet.





> So companies have to call back every single applicant for interviews because they might have some sort of disability which prevented something on the application?  They're no longer allowed to insist on a college education, because an applicant might have had Down's Syndrome and been unable to go farther than high school.  Clearly that's not that case.  I don't have to assume that someone who has a screwed up application might have Dylexia.  If someone with Dyslexia doesn't have someone without it helping the on the resume, that demonstrates poor judgement, something else generally not wanted in a company.



No.

But using grammar/spelling errors as a primary winnowing tool for jobs that don't require excellence in those areas- IOW, not journalism, editing, PR, etc. type jobs- DOES expose you to ADR claims by dyslexics because it isn't a BFOQ.

And your assumption that it displays a lack of judgement is flawed- there are many reasons why someone may not have help besides "lack of judgement".  They may not have known they were dyslexic, for one.  (I have 2 dyslexic cousins- the younger of whom wasn't diagnosed until he was in his late 20s.)



> I don't need to be 100% perfect.  If I can show overwhelming evidence that I do in fact use those tools, all that those relatively very few resumes show is that I'm not perfect.  Sure the investigator will be able to show a small number of mistakes on my part, but I will be able to show so many more that were not called back for those reasons that my intent will by crystal clear.




That the rejected applications all have ethnic names and the accepted ones don't, despite having similar errors, will damn you.



> No.  Imperfection does not invalidate my methods.  It just shows that I'm human, something every person on the jury can understand.  I doubt there's a single person who alive who has never had some method for doing something and who also also never made some mistakes in execution.



Which is it: "I would never call in and interview someone of any race who made spelling and/or grammatical errors in the resume." or the above statement? 

Both can't be true.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You haven't provided one yet.




Yes I have.  Not calling someone back because they show sloppy work habits is a very good reason.  



> No.
> 
> But using grammar/spelling errors as a primary winnowing tool for jobs that don't require excellence in those areas- IOW, not journalism, editing, PR, etc. type jobs- DOES expose you to ADR claims by dyslexics because it isn't a BFOQ.




Sorry, but sloppy work is sloppy work and that applies to every job.  If they can't even get a one page document that they have tons of time to work on right, how can I trust them to get the job right?  I can't.  Before they ever get to an interview they have clearly demonstrated that they can't be trusted to do the work correctly.



> That the rejected applications all have ethnic names and the accepted ones don't, despite having similar errors, will damn you.




That's just false.  I've said repeatedly that there are lots of non-ethnic names I dislike as well.



> Which is it: "I would never call in and interview someone of any race who made spelling and/or grammatical errors in the resume." or the above statement?
> 
> Both can't be true.




Sure they can.  I would never call in and interview anyone of any race who made those errors.  That's a conscious decision and requires active interpretation.  Making a mistake and not seeing one of those errors means that when I looked at that document, it was error free as far as I knew, so as far as I knew, when I called that person in I was calling in someone who made no mistakes.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That isn't what I'm saying.  I know it sounds like semantics, but they're not dropping you because you are refusing to admit wrongdoing.  They are dropping you because you are refusing to accept the settlement negotiated for by the counsel they provided by contract.  IOW, they have done their job.  The fact that the REASON for your rejection of the settlement is your desire to not admit wrongdoing (whether you are correct or not) is immaterial as long as they have represented you to the best of their ability.
> 
> And it's 100% legal.  In fact, it's a pretty standard clause in liability insurance contracts.




They are obligated to take care of me, not negotiate something that would require me to admit guilt over something I didn't do or drop me.  That's clearly not representing me to the best of their ability, since they can do better.  It's still bad faith. 



> So, if the main major demand of the other party in a settlement negotiation is that you publicly admit and apologize, you will have a devil of a time getting a settlement agreement offer that doesn't include that.




It's not my fault if the other side refuses to settle.  A proper defense doesn't require me to admit guilt for something I didn't do.



> If it is the case that all the offers include such a condition, and the InsCo agrees and wants to settle, as their client you then have a decision to make- approve the settlement with the term you dislike or return to the court action.  If you reject the settlement, they no longer have to represent you in this case.
> 
> Even if you actually did nothing wrong.  Seen it more than once.




I'm pretty sure I could find an attorney willing to take my case and sue the insurance company for bad faith.  Especially since in California, bad faith cases are attorneys' fees cases. It's not at all reasonable to require the insured to admit guilt for something he didn't do via the threat to withdraw if he doesn't.  That's coercive behavior and insurance companies engaging in coercive and abusive behavior to settle a claim is grounds for a bad faith claim.  Insurance companies are deathly afraid of bad faith.  Just saying those words to them prods them into action like there's no tomorrow.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> Yes I have.  Not calling someone back because they show sloppy work habits is a very good reason.



Again, the presence of typos and grammatical errors in job application documents is not going to be considered a BFOQ for most jobs. Copy editors, journalists?  Yes.  Truck driver, accountant, HR manager?  Not so much.

From a set of HR guidelines:


> In determining whether a discriminatory policy constitutes a BFOQ, you must first look at the particular job and what it requires. You must then look at the discriminatory policy and determine if it's necessary to performing the job. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration has a rule that airline pilots may not serve as captains after reaching age 60. That rule is obviously based on the probability that a pilot's skills have deteriorated with age and that the safety of the crew and passengers depends most heavily on the captain. The rule pertains only to the position of captain and doesn't prevent pilots 60 years of age or older from serving as flight engineers because age isn't a BFOQ for that position.
> 
> In claiming the BFOQ defense, the employer has the burden of proving the discriminatory policy is a valid BFOQ. You must demonstrate "plainly and unmistakably" that your discriminatory employment practice meets the terms and spirit of the Title VII exception. In other words, you must demonstrate that a discriminatory practice is reasonably related to an essential operation of your business. There is no requirement that formal studies be conducted to ascertain the need for a BFOQ. Such a qualification can be demonstrated through expert witnesses, empirical data, or just plain common sense.



As for this:


> Sorry, but sloppy work is sloppy work and that applies to every job.  If they can't even get a one page document that they have tons of time to work on right, how can I trust them to get the job right?  I can't.  Before they ever get to an interview they have clearly demonstrated that they can't be trusted to do the work correctly.



See above.

One of my dyslexic cousins is a truck driver.  He has trouble filling out forms, and the positions he is applying for generally do not require actual resumes, just references.  

He does have to do paperwork, but in general, all he is doing is checking off squares in tick-boxes on forms, then dating & signing his name.

Perfect grammar & mistake free writing are not BFOQs for jobs in his field.  If you insisted they were in a discrimination case regarding a job like his, you'd lose.



> That's just false.  I've said repeatedly that there are lots of non-ethnic names I dislike as well.



If you were in a region where there were a lot of people named Shaniqua, and only 60% were black, you'd lose a discrimination suit if you were found to be tossing all Shaniquas from the applicant pool, regardless of whomever else you are interviewing or not. This is because your "no Shaniquas" policy has a disperate impact on black people.




> Sure they can.  I would never call in and interview anyone of any race who made those errors.  That's a conscious decision and requires active interpretation.  Making a mistake and not seeing one of those errors means that when I looked at that document, it was error free as far as I knew, so as far as I knew, when I called that person in I was calling in someone who made no mistakes.




No, this absolutist statement: 


> I would never call in and interview someone of any race who made spelling and/or grammatical errors in the resume.



And this depiction of human fallibility:


> No. Imperfection does not invalidate my methods. It just shows that I'm human, something every person on the jury can understand. I doubt there's a single person who alive who has never had some method for doing something and who also also never made some mistakes in execution.




...cannot both be true.

If you claim to be human and fallible, the first statement cannot be true.  If you try to assert otherwise, you are using the word "never" in an utterly imprecise manner.  It's the same kind of grammatical error- linguistic imprecision- as when many people use "literally" thusly:

[video=youtube;E8S3M2Ynhlw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8S3M2Ynhlw&sns=em[/video]

An additional observation: your repeated assertion that _all_ applicant documents by Shaniquas et alia will have flaws of some kind that will provide you safe harbor in a lawsuit is a very dangerous assumption.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you claim to be human and fallible, the first statement cannot be true.




He can claim it - if he admits he would not hire himself.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> They are obligated to take care of me, not negotiate something that would require me to admit guilt over something I didn't do or drop me.  That's clearly not representing me to the best of their ability, since they can do better.  It's still bad faith.




An attorney's job isn't to get you your ideal desired result.  It is to represent you to the best of his abilities.  If you get your ideal desired result, great!  But not getting it is not a sign of bad faith.

And because there is a- presumably- equally motivated and skilled attorney on the other side of the negotiation, odds are high that you will not get everything you want.

If the other side in a discrimination suit gets negotiated down from a monetary settlement to a public apology, etc., you will have a hard time convincing anyone that your attorney acted in bad faith.

Here's the thing: attorneys get to drop clients for all kinds of reasons.  In most cases, though, dropping a client in the middle of a case that is actually being argued before a judge requires the judge's approval.

But in a liability coverage policy in which your InsCo is providing you with legal representation, part of the agreement defines when they can drop you without such approval.  As it is part of that contract you signed, you will be expected to have read it and agreed to it.

And one such condition is when you decide to proceed to court when the provided attorney has successfully negotiated a settlement.



> It's not my fault if the other side refuses to settle.  A proper defense doesn't require me to admit guilt for something I didn't do.



The only person you can control is yourself.  And not all settlement negotiations end in signed agreements.  Agreement requires mutual assent.  Where it is absent, assigning "fault" is a difficult task at best.

If the opposed party's strongest demand is a public apology (as described before), you might not be able to find a mutually agreeable settlement.  In that case, you have an impasse.

But reaching an impasse is not the result of the efforts of the attorneys representing the parties, it is the result of the decisions of the parties themselves.

In addition, that isn't the definition of "a proper defense."  Ideally, no you wouldn't, but we don't live in an ideal world.

A classic example is the nolo contendere plea in criminal cases.  Pleading nolo contendere means that you are not pleading guilty, but are admitting that the pattern of facts presented is sufficient to support a conviction.  If you go nolo, it is functionally very similar to a guilty plea, and counts as a conviction, but cannot usually be used against you in civil courts.

Which is why you might plead nolo, even if you did nothing wrong.



> I'm pretty sure I could find an attorney willing to take my case and sue the insurance company for bad faith.  Especially since in California, bad faith cases are attorneys' fees cases. It's not at all reasonable to require the insured to admit guilt for something he didn't do via the threat to withdraw if he doesn't.  That's coercive behavior and insurance companies engaging in coercive and abusive behavior to settle a claim is grounds for a bad faith claim.  Insurance companies are deathly afraid of bad faith.  Just saying those words to them prods them into action like there's no tomorrow.



See above- it is highly unlikely that such a case would proceed, since the conditions to the contract _you signed _allows them to do exactly what you're objecting to.

In addition, be careful what you wish for.  If you sue an attorney for malpractice, he is permitted by law to use information normally covered by attorney-client privilege to defend himself, if he needs to.  If the malpractice claim you are making is that he bargained in bad faith, he will do _exactly_ that! because that is the only possible way he will be able to prove he did his job properly.

A bit of free advice: if you ever find yourself as a business owner or part of a HR department, you might want to invest a few hundred in taking one or more of the live online business or employment law courses offered by the National Business Institute.  I specify "live" because those include Q&A sessions, and you could raise these same issues with an experienced specialist in this field.

http://www.nbi-sems.com

You might not get the answers you want, but you will get the ones you need.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> He can claim it - if he admits he would not hire himself.




Not just would not hire- _would not even interview._


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again, the presence of typos and grammatical errors in job application documents is not going to be considered a BFOQ for most jobs. Copy editors, journalists?  Yes.  Truck driver, accountant, HR manager?  Not so much.




Name one job for which sloppy work is a pre-requisite.  If a truck driver turns in a sloppy resume, he's going to be a sloppy truck driver worker.  If an accountant or HR manager turns in a sloppy resume, the same goes.  You can't trust someone who can't get a resume right to get work right.  When you have people who get the resume right, you call them, assuming they are qualified.  Managers don't have time to interview everyone, so they have to eliminate lots and lots of resumes.



> From a set of HR guidelines:




It would be essential to have a bunch of workers who did not have sloppy/lazy work habits.



> An additional observation: your repeated assertion that _all_ applicant documents by Shaniquas et alia will have flaws of some kind that will provide you safe harbor in a lawsuit is a very dangerous assumption.




I didn't make that assertion.   I said many would have errors.  For the rest, if I'm hiring all races equally, and interviewing all races equally, I don't have to call back every single qualified applicant.  There just isn't time in a day to bring them all in for interviews.  So long as I'm not calling back less qualified people over her, there's no discrimination in calling back as many as I need to and no more than that.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> He can claim it - if he admits he would not hire himself.




I take far less care with my spelling and grammar when I post than with my resume and work


----------



## Maxperson

Just as an FYI.  Notice something I've been talking about that is on those lists?

http://www.business2community.com/human-resources/top-10-reasons-resume-wont-get-job-01046981

http://www.businessinsider.com/4-reasons-resumes-are-rejected-2014-9

http://content.wisestep.com/top-reasons-why-your-resume-was-rejected/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2014/08/13/six-good-reasons-to-reject-a-resume/


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> Name one job for which sloppy work is a pre-requisite.




There isn't.  However, since there is no connection between excellent grammatical skills and most jobs, it won't be considered a BFOQ for most jobs.  Acting as if it you think it is will just be a lawsuit waits to happen.



> If a truck driver turns in a sloppy resume, he's going to be a sloppy truck driver worker.




That is an unfounded assertion.  My cousin has been driving trucks for more than a decade- his record is spotless.



> If an accountant or HR manager turns in a sloppy resume, the same goes.  You can't trust someone who can't get a resume right to get work right.  When you have people who get the resume right, you call them, assuming they are qualified.  Managers don't have time to interview everyone, so they have to eliminate lots and lots of resumes.



You might find something like this helpful:
http://www.dhr.idaho.gov/PDF documents/Flowchart/Conducting a Lawful Employment Interview.pdf#page3

Or check with the EEOC itself.

When you systematically start using criteria unrelated to the open job position as a primary winnowing tool, you're simply asking for trouble.



> It would be essential to have a bunch of workers who did not have sloppy/lazy work habits.




Conflating grammatical errors with sloppiness or laziness is itself lazy thinking.  As I pointed out, dyslexia is a condition protected under the ADA.





> I didn't make that assertion.   I said many would have errors.  For the rest, if I'm hiring all races equally, and interviewing all races equally, I don't have to call back every single qualified applicant.




Yeah, you pretty much have.


Maxperson said:


> It has to get past the the very, very reasonable and valid other reasons for not calling those people back.






Maxperson said:


> What I would have is evidence showing very valid reasons for not calling those black people.
> 
> (Edit)
> 
> Lots of them would be disqualified from being called simply on spelling and grammar.  If they can't get the one page resume right after having had weeks to months to work on it, they won't be able to get the job right.
> 
> (Edit)
> 
> That's all fine and good, but I would be able to show valid reasons for each denial.  I can also see qualifications, set up of the resume, grammar, spelling, and so on.  There is lots to judge with a resume that doesn't include names.  I would never call in and interview someone of any race who made spelling and/or grammatical errors in the resume.




No, you don't have to call back every qualified applicant.  However, your professed bias against certain names begs the question of whether your interviewing practices are, in fact, non-discriminatory.



> There just isn't time in a day to bring them all in for interviews.



True.

However, even with those sites you subsequently posted, my position remains unchanged: using typos as a primary- read that as "pre-interview"- disqualifier for _all_ jobs is playing with fire.

There are all kinds of long-standing business practices out there that would not withstand a legal challenge- unenforceable contract clauses, clauses that don't mean what their drafters think they do, etc.

They've survived because their validity hasn't been challenged.  Legal "scarecrows", if you will.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There isn't.  However, since there is no connection between excellent grammatical skills and most jobs, it won't be considered a BFOQ for most jobs.  Acting as if it you think it is will just be a lawsuit waits to happen.




At this point you seem to be willfully misinterpreting what I'm saying.......repeatedly.  I've never once said that grammar is a required skill for any job.  I've said over and over again that being sloppy on a resume, is a very strong indicator of being sloppy on the job.  That's it.  



> That is an unfounded assertion.  My cousin has been driving trucks for more than a decade- his record is spotless.




It is absolutely not unfounded.  Just because exceptions exist, does not mean that in general it is not a true assertion.  Hiring managers don't have the time to waste with people who are likely to be bad for the business.  Losing a few exceptions is worth not losing vast amounts of valuable time.  They can't interview that many people, so strong indicators of sloppy work habits will be key to eliminating resumes.



> True.
> 
> However, even with those sites you subsequently posted, my position remains unchanged: using typos as a primary- read that as "pre-interview"- disqualifier for _all_ jobs is playing with fire.
> 
> There are all kinds of long-standing business practices out there that would not withstand a legal challenge- unenforceable contract clauses, clauses that don't mean what their drafters think they do, etc.
> 
> They've survived because their validity hasn't been challenged.  Legal "scarecrows", if you will.




I very much doubt that not calling someone back because they are extremely likely to have sloppy work habits is one of them.  Given the sheer volume of people that are eliminated for it, I doubt that it has been challenged yet.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> At this point you seem to be willfully misinterpreting what I'm saying.......repeatedly.  I've never once said that grammar is a required skill for any job.  I've said over and over again that being sloppy on a resume, is a very strong indicator of being sloppy on the job.  That's it.




Near as I can tell, the ONLY exemplars you have given of sloppiness on resumes have been related to grammar, sooooo, no, I'm not willfully misinterpreting your posts.



> It is absolutely not unfounded.  Just because exceptions exist, does not mean that in general it is not a true assertion.  Hiring managers don't have the time to waste with people who are likely to be bad for the business.  Losing a few exceptions is worth not losing vast amounts of valuable time.  They can't interview that many people, so strong indicators of sloppy work habits will be key to eliminating resumes.




It most certainly is unfounded.  Show me a study showing causation or correlation between grammatical accuracy and job performance.

I've gone looking for them.  They don't exist.  There are lots of articles by HR managers and business owners who write articles assuming there is.  They DO raise some good points- with some noting making exceptions for dyslexics or ESL applicants- every last article takes the correlation for granted.  At least part of this can be forgiven in that nearly every one of those articles I have found deals with white-collar jobs only, where effective communication skills and a dependence on paperwork are more important.

For guys like my truck driving cousin?  Not so much.



> I very much doubt that not calling someone back because they are extremely likely to have sloppy work habits is one of them.  Given the sheer volume of people that are eliminated for it, I doubt that it has been challenged yet.




See above.

Also, I think you meant "hasn't" in that last sentence, right?

Assuming this is the case, I'm going to go on record to say that I'd be surprised if it were challenged as the _sole_ reason as opposed to part of a pile of evidence, probably in one of the 400+ EEOC/ADR cases brought annually involving dyslexics, such as this one:

https://www.understood.org/en/commu...-discrimination-case-shows-the-system-at-work

Which means that changes would occur on a company by company basis, as opposed to high-profile, statewide or national scales.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> I take far less care with my spelling and grammar when I post than with my resume and work




You are, however, "...human, something every person on the jury can understand. "

The person who is submitting the resume is human.  But, apparently, while you expect leniency on that basis for yourself, you are not willing to give it to others.  This is a case where the Golden Rule should apply - do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.  If you expect to be given a pass for an error, you should be willing to give a pass as well.


----------



## Eltab

goldomark said:


> What I get from this exchange is that discrimination is ok as long as you hide it.



What _I'm_ getting is that "discrimination" and "racism" are code words in the law which if somebody uses them, the accusation alone = irrefutable proof of guilt.

I'm also getting that several participants are beyond reasoning with; they want to _win_ and beat the disagree-ers over the head with an "I'M RIGHT" club.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Near as I can tell, the ONLY exemplars you have given of sloppiness on resumes have been related to grammar, sooooo, no, I'm not willfully misinterpreting your posts.




It's grammar and spelling, and yes you are.  Sloppiness is sloppiness is sloppiness.  It doesn't matter what form it takes, it is representative of the person submitting the resume and it is very likely that the sloppiness will carry over into the workplace.  Equating what I am saying to a direct qualification for a specific job is willful misrepresentation at this point.  I've explained it to you too many times for it to be anything else.



> It most certainly is unfounded.  Show me a study showing causation or correlation between grammatical accuracy and job performance.




Well, if a study hasn't been done, it must not be true.  Sorry, but first, just because a study hasn't been done does not mean that it is unfounded.  Second, studies are manipulated all the time.  You can find conflicting studies on just about everything studies have been done about.  It's like experts at a trial.  You can find one to say just about anything you want said.



> I've gone looking for them.  They don't exist.  There are lots of articles by HR managers and business owners who write articles assuming there is.  They DO raise some good points- with some noting making exceptions for dyslexics or ESL applicants- every last article takes the correlation for granted.  At least part of this can be forgiven in that nearly every one of those articles I have found deals with white-collar jobs only, where effective communication skills and a dependence on paperwork are more important.




One of my early jobs in management was with Pic N' Save.  I was directed to stick resumes with errors like that in a separate pile and not to call them back.  This was for stockers and cashiers.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> You are, however, "...human, something every person on the jury can understand. "
> 
> The person who is submitting the resume is human.  But, apparently, while you expect leniency on that basis for yourself, you are not willing to give it to others.  This is a case where the Golden Rule should apply - do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.  If you expect to be given a pass for an error, you should be willing to give a pass as well.




It's a matter of what is reasonable and what is not.  The likelihood that someone who is sloppy on a resume will also be sloppy in the work place is high.  The number of applicants for any given job is astronomical.  You can't call back all qualified applicants for interviews, so you need reasonable ways to cut the numbers down, and sloppiness is a key one.  Making an occasional mistake is also reasonable, but the number of legitimate mistakes on resumes is far lower than just being sloppy, so the risk of wasting days on end with applicants who aren't going to be hired is huge if you don't cut them out of the running.

The difference between what I said about about being human and the errors on applications is that I could show what I did to be a mistake, and therefore understandable.  Nobody delivering a resume will have that chance, because time is just to valuable to waste giving it to them.  It's not always fair, but it's life.  You can't do everything you'd like to in business.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> It's grammar and spelling, and yes you are.  Sloppiness is sloppiness is sloppiness.



No, I'm not misrepresenting or twisting your words.  Sorry.

And not all sloppiness is equal in the eyes of the law.  There is a reason why an airline can have a mandatory age cutoff of pilots at 60- degradation of skills- and may have a more lenient standard for flight engineers (many of whom are former pilots).



> It doesn't matter what form it takes, it is representative of the person submitting the resume and it is very likely that the sloppiness will carry over into the workplace.  Equating what I am saying to a direct qualification for a specific job is willful misrepresentation at this point.  I've explained it to you too many times for it to be anything else.




Near as I can tell, you're just _assuming_ a sloppy resume can only come from a poor worker.  You have presented not a shred of proof, just a bald assertion of your belief.

And in reaction, I am telling you a simplified statement of the current law: _using criteria unrelated to the actual duties of the vacant job position as a pre-interview sorting tool is a risky business practice.
_

The is also the law of unintended consequences to consider: over time, if all resumes submitted to you must be grammatically perfect, regardless of position applied for, all you're doing is making a job for resume writers.  The very trait you're seeeking to use as a measuring stick gets concealed as more and more people get help writing resumes (I do it for relatives all the time, FWIW).  The poor grammarian/speller's true nature is concealed behind a polished facade.



> Well, if a study hasn't been done, it must not be true.



No, not at all.  There could be correlation or causation.  _It might even be 100% true._

Unfounded merely means the assertion made has no evidentiary support.  Without evidentiary support, it is merely an opinion.

That makes it of low potential value at trial, and possibly not even admissible.



> Sorry, but first, just because a study hasn't been done does not mean that it is unfounded.




In a court proceeding, it can mean exactly that.  Especially if you're claiming high correlation or causation.  It depends on whether the experiential or scientific test for admissibility is applied.

If you're a STEM expert, you will be expected to supply some kind of hard data.  Published & peer reviewed, even.  It may even be controversial.  But if you don't have anything like that  it will be excluded.

And even an experiential expert must have _actual_ experience to make his assertion admissible.  If the assertion is that flawed grammar & spelling is an accurate predictor of other poor work habits, if he or his employers _haven't actually hired_ personnel who had flawed grammar & spelling who also had demonstrably poor work habits, his testimony won't be admissible.




> Second, studies are manipulated all the time.  You can find conflicting studies on just about everything studies have been done about.  It's like experts at a trial.  You can find one to say just about anything you want said.



True.

Still, experts at trial and the studies they rely upon (if any) have to be approved to get admitted into evidence under the _Daubert_ and other cases shaping rules of evidence.

(And no, they don't always get it right- I know of at least one trial in which a forensic expert who had investigated hundreds of cases was excluded because the wrong standard of admissibility- experiential vs scientific- was applied.)



> One of my early jobs in management was with Pic N' Save.  I was directed to stick resumes with errors like that in a separate pile and not to call them back.  This was for stockers and cashiers.




Just because you did it, doesn't make it right or legal.

Granted, a cashier needs to be able to count- less so these days than when machines didn't do most of the math for you- but what is the correlation between the ability to do basic math and the quality of your linguistic skills?

(I looked- there ARE studies that show links between math and language skills, but those I found *all* deal with higher-level symbolic stuff, not the adding, subtracting, dividing and multiplying of cash register work.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> It's a matter of what is reasonable and what is not.  The likelihood that someone who is sloppy on a resume will also be sloppy in the work place is high.




What proof do you have of this?

You've asserted this many times and in many ways, but so far, all we have is your say-so, plus links to articles by people who act in accord with this theory, but likewise do not offer support for their belief the correlation exists.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> The likelihood that someone who is sloppy on a resume will also be sloppy in the work place is high.




I asked before, and I will again - upon what do you base this assertion?  If you cannot give a well-supported answer beyond, "I believe this to be true," then maybe you should not be throwing stones at others over sloppiness, because that isn't nice, tight, neat, well-funded reasoning.  So far, it is a personal opinion.



> The number of applicants for any given job is astronomical.




No, they really aren't anything like the numbers seen in astronomy.  But that's okay.  I forgive your sloppy language use.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

A couple links regarding this thread's original topic.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...d_on_public_school_students_in_louisiana.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris...se-y_b_8338116.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, I'm not misrepresenting or twisting your words.  Sorry.
> 
> And not all sloppiness is equal in the eyes of the law.  There is a reason why an airline can have a mandatory age cutoff of pilots at 60- degradation of skills- and may have a more lenient standard for flight engineers (many of whom are former pilots).




Degradation of skills =/= sloppiness.  You have a False Equivalence going on there.



> Near as I can tell, you're just _assuming_ a sloppy resume can only come from a poor worker.  You have presented not a shred of proof, just a bald assertion of your belief.




Probably because I never said or implied that they could only come from a poor worker.  That has been your Strawman of my words.  It's not the that they are only from poor workers.  It's that it's a very, very strong indicator that the person is a poor worker.  I'm not going to spend 30 hours a day interviewing people with sloppy resumes when I can spend 4 interviewing people who care enough to give me one that isn't sloppy, whether they did it on their own, used a spell checker, or got someone to help them.  Dyslexia isn't an excuse for a sloppy resume.  If you have a weakness in an area, you do something to overcome it.



> And in reaction, I am telling you a simplified statement of the current law: _using criteria unrelated to the actual duties of the vacant job position as a pre-interview sorting tool is a risky business practice.
> _




Once again, quality work is related to the job duties of almost every job position.  Sloppy work is bad for almost every job position.



> The is also the law of unintended consequences to consider: over time, if all resumes submitted to you must be grammatically perfect, regardless of position applied for, all you're doing is making a job for resume writers.  The very trait you're seeeking to use as a measuring stick gets concealed as more and more people get help writing resumes (I do it for relatives all the time, FWIW).  The poor grammarian/speller's true nature is concealed behind a polished facade.




At least that shows good problem solving skills and the ability to recognize your own weaknesses, along with a desire to overcome them.



> No, not at all.  There could be correlation or causation.  _It might even be 100% true._
> 
> Unfounded merely means the assertion made has no evidentiary support.  Without evidentiary support, it is merely an opinion.
> 
> That makes it of low potential value at trial, and possibly not even admissible.




There are a lot more experts that would speak to it being true than not.



> In a court proceeding, it can mean exactly that.  Especially if you're claiming high correlation or causation.  It depends on whether the experiential or scientific test for admissibility is applied.
> 
> If you're a STEM expert, you will be expected to supply some kind of hard data.  Published & peer reviewed, even.  It may even be controversial.  But if you don't have anything like that  it will be excluded.
> 
> And even an experiential expert must have _actual_ experience to make his assertion admissible.  If the assertion is that flawed grammar & spelling is an accurate predictor of other poor work habits, if he or his employers _haven't actually hired_ personnel who had flawed grammar & spelling who also had demonstrably poor work habits, his testimony won't be admissible.




Corporations and other business keep all kinds of records and internal studies.  If push came to shove, I'm certain I could find an expert with facts and figures to back himself up.



> Still, experts at trial and the studies they rely upon (if any) have to be approved to get admitted into evidence under the _Daubert_ and other cases shaping rules of evidence.
> 
> (And no, they don't always get it right- I know of at least one trial in which a forensic expert who had investigated hundreds of cases was excluded because the wrong standard of admissibility- experiential vs scientific- was applied.)




Oh, sure.  Not all experts are equal and some aren't really qualified, but if you're careful and research the ones you plan on using, you're usually safe.



> Granted, a cashier needs to be able to count- less so these days than when machines didn't do most of the math for you- but what is the correlation between the ability to do basic math and the quality of your linguistic skills?




Who cares.  That's not what I'm measuring.  I'm measuring something different that is very, very relevant to the job of a cashier.  A sloppy cashier is more likely to make monetary errors and cost the company money.  A sloppy cashier is more likely to miss scanning items and cost the company money.  A sloppy cashier is more likely to double scan an item, costing the customer money and hassle, which in turn can cause that customer to stop shopping at the store........costing the company money.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> I asked before, and I will again - upon what do you base this assertion?  If you cannot give a well-supported answer beyond, "I believe this to be true," then maybe you should not be throwing stones at others over sloppiness, because that isn't nice, tight, neat, well-funded reasoning.  So far, it is a personal opinion.




Personal experience and the experience of many others who are in leadership positions and have also had that experience.  



> No, they really aren't anything like the numbers seen in astronomy.  But that's okay.  I forgive your sloppy language use.




It wasn't sloppy, it was exaggerated intentionally.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> Probably because I never said or implied that they could only come from a poor worker.  That has been your Strawman of my words.  It's not the that they are only from poor workers.  It's that it's a very, very strong indicator that the person is a poor worker. * I'm not going to spend 30 hours a day interviewing people* with sloppy resumes when I can spend 4 interviewing people who care enough to give me one that isn't sloppy, whether they did it on their own, used a spell checker, or got someone to help them.



That made me laugh.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> Degradation of skills =/= sloppiness.  You have a False Equivalence going on there.



I could break down why I chose that example, but fair enough.  Moving on.




> Probably because I never said or implied that they could only come from a poor worker.  That has been your Strawman of my words.  It's not the that they are only from poor workers.  It's that it's a very, very strong indicator that the person is a poor worker.




By using grammar & spelling flaws as an absolute bar to getting an interview, you've made a pretty strong implication, IMHO.

And again, what proof do you have to support the assertion the correlation exists beyond your repeated assertion?



> I'm not going to spend 30 hours a day interviewing people with sloppy resumes when I can spend 4 interviewing people who care enough to give me one that isn't sloppy, whether they did it on their own, used a spell checker, or got someone to help them.  Dyslexia isn't an excuse for a sloppy resume.  If you have a weakness in an area, you do something to overcome it.



Dyslexia is a bit of a poser.  It often goes undiagnosed.  And because of that, it is covered under the ADA.

Under the ADA, those who ARE diagnosed are legally required to receive reasonable accommodations.  They are given extra time to complete bar exams, for instance.

(Personally, I don't trust spell checkers.  They can't distinguish between some of the most common errors: their/there/they're are equivalent to them for instance; they can't tell that you meant to type "bad" instead of "bat".)



> Once again, quality work is related to the job duties of almost every job position.  Sloppy work is bad for almost every job position.



I don't disagree that sloppy work is bad for any position.  Once again, though, I reject your unsupported assertion that the correlation between grammatical & spelling errors and being a poor workman is a strong one.



> There are a lot more experts that would speak to it being true than not.



Do tell?  Can you cite some?  One?



> Corporations and other business keep all kinds of records and internal studies.  If push came to shove, I'm certain I could find an expert with facts and figures to back himself up.




You'd pretty much have to.


----------



## Kramodlog

Eltab said:


> What _I'm_ getting is that "discrimination" and "racism" are code words in the law which if somebody uses them, the accusation alone = irrefutable proof of guilt.



Then you do not get it. The proof is ethnicities who are underrepresented because someone doesn't like ethnic names. 



> I'm also getting that several participants are beyond reasoning with; they want to _win_ and beat the disagree-ers over the head with an "I'M RIGHT" club.



Don't be so harsh with Ovi and Max.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> Personal experience and the experience of many others who are in leadership positions and have also had that experience.




In other words, your only support is anecdotal.  Not only that, but you rely on anecdotes of unnamed, unspecified, unverifiable, "many others," as if that is appropriate when a point is contested.  This does not give additional strength to your argument, as it is merely another way of saying, "Trust me, I know."  It leaves your assertion as personal belief.

Which is fine.  You are allowed to have personal beliefs.  But you should admit them to be such, rather than assert them as truths.  Those outside your head do not have any reason to trust your personal assessment.  Those *inside* your head should question your personal assessments on a regular basis, as the human mind is subject to a horde of cognitive biases that frequently prevent it from accurately modelling behaviors of large groups that you don't personally know.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Dyslexia is a bit of a poser.  It often goes undiagnosed.  And because of that, it is covered under the ADA.
> 
> Under the ADA, those who ARE diagnosed are legally required to receive reasonable accommodations.  They are given extra time to complete bar exams, for instance.
> 
> (Personally, I don't trust spell checkers.  They can't distinguish between some of the most common errors: their/there/they're are equivalent to them for instance; they can't tell that you meant to type "bad" instead of "bat".)




Diagnosed or not, someone with it will know that they have a problem with spelling and can seek help with something as important as a resume.  They also have many times more time than the entire bar exam to get a one page resume right, so that particular issue is a non-starter here.  They can literally spend months working on the resume if they want to.



> I don't disagree that sloppy work is bad for any position.  Once again, though, I reject your unsupported assertion that the correlation between grammatical & spelling errors and being a poor workman is a strong one.
> 
> Do tell?  Can you cite some?  One?




Why do you think the overwhelming majority of experts in the field of hiring engage in this practice?  HR managers and hiring executives are experts in the field hiring employees and the reasons for hiring, firing, and eliminating resumes.  Citing some or one is easier than eating pie.  150 such experts were talked to in there.  40% said one mistake would kill the resume.  36% more said it would take two.  

http://ledgerlink.monster.com/benef...n-employment-prospects-executive-survey-shows


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> Then you do not get it. The proof is ethnicities who are underrepresented because someone doesn't like ethnic names.




Nobody has said there here.  I'm sure that's true of someone out in the real world, though.


----------



## Kramodlog

Reminds me of a piece of dialogue from Jim Jarmusch's Dead Man. 

-Who are you travelin' with?

-Uhm... Nobody.


----------



## Ryujin

Umbran said:


> In other words, your only support is anecdotal.  Not only that, but you rely on anecdotes of unnamed, unspecified, unverifiable, "many others," as if that is appropriate when a point is contested.  This does not give additional strength to your argument, as it is merely another way of saying, "Trust me, I know."  It leaves your assertion as personal belief.
> 
> Which is fine.  You are allowed to have personal beliefs.  But you should admit them to be such, rather than assert them as truths.  Those outside your head do not have any reason to trust your personal assessment.  Those *inside* your head should question your personal assessments on a regular basis, as the human mind is subject to a horde of cognitive biases that frequently prevent it from accurately modelling behaviors of large groups that you don't personally know.




"Anecdotally" years back, when I vetted resumes, I actually preferred somewhat sloppy ones to perfect ones. At least I could presume that the less than perfect ones were prepared by the person I might be interviewing. I got pretty good at spotting professionally prepared resumes, by style and keywords. Those tell me nothing about the applicant. Names were meaningless. Verifiable experience was important, when such was important for the job. My two best hires, who ended up as my assistants at different points, would have been passed over out of hand by some here because of imperfect use of the English language. I find that when someone speaks 4 or 5 languages, which was very useful to me (French was a necessity for my assistants), subtle specific usages creep into the use of English. For example without already knowing, I'd have pegged goldomark as a primary French speaker anyway because of the subtle inflections in language and very specific spelling mistakes, common to French speakers.


----------



## Kramodlog

Sacre bleu!


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> Sacre bleu!




It's more things like, "I ave"


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> Diagnosed or not, someone with it will know that they have a problem with spelling and can seek help with something as important as a resume.  They also have many times more time than the entire bar exam to get a one page resume right, so that particular issue is a non-starter here.  They can literally spend months working on the resume if they want to.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think the overwhelming majority of experts in the field of hiring engage in this practice?  HR managers and hiring executives are experts in the field hiring employees and the reasons for hiring, firing, and eliminating resumes.  Citing some or one is easier than eating pie.  150 such experts were talked to in there.  40% said one mistake would kill the resume.  36% more said it would take two.
> 
> http://ledgerlink.monster.com/benef...n-employment-prospects-executive-survey-shows




Mayhaps there's a deeper analysis done somewhere, but that link only shows that executives often dismiss resumes due to 1-2 typos. It doesn't say anything about their reasoning for such.

The group that sponsored the survey says they 'assume' a link, but show nothing substantiating it.

Regardless, I'd also be concerned about the seeming similarities between what you're implying you'd do (with regards to recruiting or not names you don't like) with the idea of parallel construction in evidence gathering. Now, I'm not an expert in parellel construction, but through cultural osmosis I know a lot of people frown on it (not sure about the legal opinions on it), and I would imagine people would frown on you doing something that otherwise would be illegal by some backhanded manner.

A direct question for you though: if someone submitted a resume with one of your undisclosed disliked names, and you couldn't find anything reasonably wrong with it (fully qualified for the job, no grammatical or structural errors on resume, etc), what do you do?

Slightly more hypothetical (and, to be honest, sounding even to me like a situation from a legal procedural), what do you do if a Shaniqua thinks you discriminated against her due to her name/race/gender (leaving aside if you did or not), and then instead of filing suit immediately, does some investigation - including sending in the exact same resume with a different name which does result in a callback for an interview?


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> It's more things like, "I ave"




Ave Caesar, morituri te salutant?


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> Ave Caesar, morituri te salutant?




I prefer, "To those about to rock...." 

People tend to write the way that they speak so if you're at all familiar with a regional accent in a English, you can frequently determine someone's native language.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> I prefer, "To those about to rock...."
> 
> People tend to write the way that they speak so if you're at all familiar with a regional accent in a English, you can frequently determine someone's native language.




I'd be curious to see if people have an easier time identifying my French roots from reading my English or listening to my English.


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> I'd be curious to see if people have an easier time identifying my French roots from reading my English or listening to my English.




That's one of the interesting things, in my experience. Back in my private sector days I had a couple of branch managers who had no discernible Quebecois accent, despite having been born in Quebec City and Chicoutimi, respectively. Many years in the business world around the west island area of Montreal, I suspect. Funny thing is that they both wrote business communications as if they were speaking with an accent. Written statements like, "I ave four item of that model available" were quite common. (As service manager my secondary, unlisted responsibility was to rewrite business communications for the manager, sales manager (who was a near illiterate it seemed), and occasionally the CFO when he came in from head office.)


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> That's one of the interesting things, in my experience. Back in my private sector days I had a couple of branch managers who had no discernible Quebecois accent, despite having been born in Quebec City and Chicoutimi, respectively. Many years in the business world around the west island area of Montreal, I suspect. Funny thing is that they both wrote business communications as if they were speaking with an accent. Written statements like, "I ave four item of that model available" were quite common. (As service manager my secondary, unlisted responsibility was to rewrite business communications for the manager, sales manager (who was a near illiterate it seemed), and occasionally the CFO when he came in from head office.)




My theory is that we're really good with our tongue. Not so much with our hands.


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> My theory is that we're really good with our tongue. Not so much with our hands.




Not going there


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ryujin said:


> That's one of the interesting things, in my experience. Back in my private sector days I had a couple of branch managers who had no discernible Quebecois accent, despite having been born in Quebec City and Chicoutimi, respectively. Many years in the business world around the west island area of Montreal, I suspect. Funny thing is that they both wrote business communications as if they were speaking with an accent. Written statements like, "I ave four item of that model available" were quite common. (As service manager my secondary, unlisted responsibility was to rewrite business communications for the manager, sales manager (who was a near illiterate it seemed), and occasionally the CFO when he came in from head office.)




One of the most challenging things I did working on my MBA was doing a high-level team presentation as the only native speaker of English.  My teammates were of Japanese, Taiwanese, Spanish and Nigerian origin.  Part of the project was, of course, assembling a written report to accompany the live presentation.  And everyone had to contribute to the written report.

I realized that, while my teammates all spoke English very well, their written communications were a little harder to deal with- among other things, a classic example of how much communication is non-verbal and contextual.  And the report- @1/3 of the course grade- had to be in English.

I immediately volunteered to do the final edit & assembly of the written report.  Many long hours were spent unifying voice, verb tense, clarifying idioms and- on occasion- divining what my colleagues actually meant when their command of the English language flagged a bit.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> Not going there




Someone thinks highly of himself. As if I'd lower my standards for you.


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> One of the most challenging things I did working on my MBA was doing a high-level team presentation as the only native speaker of English.  My teammates were of Japanese, Taiwanese, Spanish and Nigerian origin.  Part of the project was, of course, assembling a written report to accompany the live presentation.  And everyone had to contribute to the written report.
> 
> I realized that, while my teammates all spoke English very well, their written communications were a little harder to deal with- among other things, a classic example of how much communication is non-verbal and contextual.  And the report- @1/3 of the course grade- had to be in English.
> 
> I immediately volunteered to do the final edit & assembly of the written report.  Many long hours were spent unifying voice, verb tense, clarifying idioms and- on occasion- divining what my colleagues actually meant when their command of the English language flagged a bit.




I had a similar experience, though not quite the same, when I first started working in the computer industry back in 1987. (WOW! Was it that long ago?) I was hired by an importer/manufacturer which was owned by a couple from Hong Kong, initially as an assembly tech but later as in house QC. It was a fairly small company with roughly 30 employees. My manager was from Hong Kong and a native Cantonese speaker. Except for the shipper/receiver (born in Saint Lucia; English/French patois speaker) and the sales manager (born in Italy, but primarily an English speaker), the employees were from Hong Kong, Thailand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and mainland China. My manager rather quickly tasked me with doing translations of all of the product manuals (Edited to remove his rather un-PC expression for this). It was a difficult job in that some of the manuals were almost certainly made by non English speakers, using a translation dictionary. Some weren't too bad, but remember that this was still fairly early in the home PC market. In more than a few cases I had to throw the manual out completely as indecipherable, bench test the product, and create the manual myself.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> Arguably splitting hairs?  Dude, "a cultural belief that people with different names are less likely to fit in or perform," is *TEXTBOOK* racism.  If that's a real consideration, the root issue is not that the new person won't fit in, but that you've fostered an environment where fellow human beings are not considered as equals.



No, it's not.  The idea is that different names are often associated with the poorer class.  Given that the poor often have little of permanence in their lives, they are more likely to choose names that are unique or different from the norm.  Not just Shaniqua, but Tiffani (with an I!) and the like.  The paper noted that discrimination based on different sounding names was more because of the implied likelihood that they were of lower social classes and therefore wouldn't have the necessary cultural (as in business culture) mindset to succeed.

I never said it wasn't skeezy, I was just offering an interesting tidbit I had seen.  Take it however you want, I'm not defending it.




Umbran said:


> Um, no.
> 
> The data has a mean.  The data is a sub-population for which you have (near) perfect knowledge of the things you've measured, and you can certainly get a mean from them.  I say near perfect, because there's always some measuring and sampling error.
> 
> The real world also has a mean.  You just don't know what it is, unless you measure the entire population in question.
> 
> Your model is the thing that gets you to think the data's mean and the real world's mean are related.



When you go looking in you bin for data, none of them are labelled 'mean'.  Mean is something we do to data, it's not an intrinsic part of the data.  Add one more piece of data, and your mean shifts.  None of the real data does even if you add more.  The mean is a simplistic model used to aggregate the data into something digestible.  It has no meaning by itself, unlike the data.






> Again, I have to say no.  Statistics are like a microscope - they give you a way to see the state of a system.  There is no way to "look for causation" without a way to see the state of the system you are looking at!  Just like with a microscope, there's some distortion when you take image - the image is not the thing itself - but you can minimize and correct for much of that.



You are lying to yourself, then, if you think that the statistical model you've created is the same thing as seeing the state of the system the model represents.  Now, you may have a good model, and it may do the job you want it to do, and be close enough to reality to be useful, but that's it -- it's just useful.  It is not, in any way, an actual representation of the data.

This is the sin of reification commonly accomplished by statistics -- you fool yourself into thinking that the model is the thing, and the statistical representation of the model is reality.  They aren't, although occasionally the model is useful.





Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> To be honest, what's become clear is that you don't seem to understand measurements when it comes to a variable that you can't directly observe. It's interesting. You have this very linear logic process. It's apparent when you speak about baselines and measurements. It's also ver apparent when you attempt to discuss the law.



Telling me I don't understand something and dismissing me isn't actually showing I don't understand it.  I've spent a few years involved in measurements of indirect and subjective things with actual consequences on the line (lawsuits for unfair representation and the like).  I've spent many the hour in consultation with PhDs on measurement theory.  I have a strong background in stats, and use frequentist analysis as part of my daily job these days.  I'm pretty comfortable in knowing what I'm talking about.

Unfortunately, that also means that I have an exceedingly dim view of how stats and measurements are used in social sciences and medicine.  The issues of reification of rampant there, for instance, the highly publicized papers that attempt to medicalize political positions on the basis of wee p values, low r stats, tortured data, post hoc data selections, and, in general, confusing instruments with actual measurements.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Ovinomancer said:


> Telling me I don't understand something and dismissing me isn't actually showing I don't understand it.



I could show you that you don't understand it, but with your history of being dismissive, I'd be wasting my time and effort. 



> I've spent a few years involved in measurements of indirect and subjective things with actual consequences on the line (lawsuits for unfair representation and the like).



Awesome, I also deal with things that have actual consequences, like actually harming people, not some silly "unfair representation" stuff. And when I say "harming people," I mean the kind of stuff that can result in actual physical harm, not hurt feelings and the loss of a few dollars.



> I've spent many the hour in consultation with PhDs on measurement theory.



Sorry, but you're not going to impress me with PhDs. I deal with PhDs on a daily basis, and they don't impress me, either. This is especially true when you don't even identify what these "PhDs" have their PhDs in. I mean, it could be a PhD in English Lit, and you're helping them measure the area in their bathroom. That's not very impressive, is it? 



> I have a strong background in stats, and use frequentist analysis as part of my daily job these days.  I'm pretty comfortable in knowing what I'm talking about.



I'm sure you're comfortable in assuming you know what you're talking about.



> Unfortunately, that also means that I have an exceedingly dim view of how stats and measurements are used in social sciences and medicine.  The issues of reification of rampant there, for instance, the highly publicized papers that attempt to medicalize political positions on the basis of wee p values, low r stats, tortured data, post hoc data selections, and, in general, confusing instruments with actual measurements.



No, what it shows is that you lack understanding of how it's used in the social sciences. Your interpretation of a baseline makes it quite obvious that you not only not understand measurement in the social sciences, you also don't understand what you are actually trying to measure. 

Listen, you're more than welcome to throw out all the big stats and math terms you want to show off how much you know of the vocabulary. You still failed to understand what a baseline is. Honestly, that's the kind of stuff you learn in an intro to research methods class as an undergraduate student. If your credentials were as impressive as you advertise, you should have known this. Hell, you should have learned this in any stats class. A high school stats class would have shown you this.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I could show you that you don't understand it, but with your history of being dismissive, I'd be wasting my time and effort.



Snrk.  Oh, wait, you are being iro



> Awesome, I also deal with things that have actual consequences, like actually harming people, not some silly "unfair representation" stuff. And when I say "harming people," I mean the kind of stuff that can result in actual physical harm, not hurt feelings and the loss of a few dollars.



Cool.  So you agree that it's important to understand measurements in those cases.  Glad we're on the same page.



> Sorry, but you're not going to impress me with PhDs. I deal with PhDs on a daily basis, and they don't impress me, either. This is especially true when you don't even identify what these "PhDs" have their PhDs in. I mean, it could be a PhD in English Lit, and you're helping them measure the area in their bathroom. That's not very impressive, is it?



Nationally respected subject matter experts on the theory and use of measurements.  If you'd prefer to assume that I meant English PhDs, be my guest.



> I'm sure you're comfortable in assuming you know what you're talking about.
> 
> No, what it shows is that you lack understanding of how it's used in the social sciences. Your interpretation of a baseline makes it quite obvious that you not only not understand measurement in the social sciences, you also don't understand what you are actually trying to measure.



Sadly, I'm very aware of what it means in the social sciences.  For instance, in an attempt to measure bias, you provided a nice link, with many papers behind it, that I read, that show that for all you want to measure bias, all that is measured is a time delay in response to stimulus that has, on average, a reliability on retest of a coin flip.  If you think that getting a 50/50 accuracy in your central measurement (which still isn't actually a measurement of bias, it's an assumed proxy for it) is somehow useful measurement, please stick to what you do and don't build bridges.



> Listen, you're more than welcome to throw out all the big stats and math terms you want to show off how much you know of the vocabulary. You still failed to understand what a baseline is. Honestly, that's the kind of stuff you learn in an intro to research methods class as an undergraduate student. If your credentials were as impressive as you advertise, you should have known this. Hell, you should have learned this in any stats class. A high school stats class would have shown you this.



No, I understand what a baseline is, what happened was a difference in use by professions.  My baseline is the goal I'm aiming for, yours is a current state.  Both are valid uses of the term, considering it means the base for measurement or construction.  Stats generally doesn't use the term, because stats doesn't measure things.  People who use stats _might _use it, but that's conditional to who's doing the using.  I don't use the term 'baseline' for any of the statistical analyses I run.  Perhaps it's you that's in need of a high school stats refresher course?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Ovinomancer said:


> Snrk.  Oh, wait, you are being iro



If that's what you want to believe.




> Nationally respected subject matter experts on the theory and use of measurements.  If you'd prefer to assume that I meant English PhDs, be my guest.



Sure, "nationally respected subject matter experts..." I'm just curious why you an identify the subject matter they are supposedly experts in? It shouldn't be so diffiult to say you work with someone with a PhD in physics, biology, etc. I mean, it shouldn't be difficult unless you're just making stuff up, and you don't want to be caught lying about it. 




> Sadly, I'm very aware of what it means in the social sciences.  For instance, in an attempt to measure bias, you provided a nice link, with many papers behind it, that I read, that show that for all you want to measure bias, all that is measured is a time delay in response to stimulus that has, on average, a reliability on retest of a coin flip.  If you think that getting a 50/50 accuracy in your central measurement (which still isn't actually a measurement of bias, it's an assumed proxy for it) is somehow useful measurement, please stick to what you do and don't build bridges.



Again, you're just demonstrating that you don't understand what is being measured, and you're just being dismissive about it. 



> No, I understand what a baseline is, what happened was a difference in use by professions.  My baseline is the goal I'm aiming for, yours is a current state.  Both are valid uses of the term, considering it means the base for measurement or construction.  Stats generally doesn't use the term, because stats doesn't measure things.  People who use stats _might _use it, but that's conditional to who's doing the using.  I don't use the term 'baseline' for any of the statistical analyses I run.  Perhaps it's you that's in need of a high school stats refresher course?



Of course you understand what a baseline is now. I explained it to you. And you using or not using the term baseline is no excuse for you not previously knowing what it is.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> If that's what you want to believe.



Oh, I'm sorry, then.  I thought you were being intentionally ironic in being dismissive while calling me dismissive.  I expect to much -- it's a personal failing.




> Sure, "nationally respected subject matter experts..." I'm just curious why you an identify the subject matter they are supposedly experts in? It shouldn't be so diffiult to say you work with someone with a PhD in physics, biology, etc. I mean, it shouldn't be difficult unless you're just making stuff up, and you don't want to be caught lying about it.



Really?  You've claimed to be a social scientist, and I haven't questioned that at all -- haven't asked for your name, who you work for, where you got your degree, nothing.  Because I generally don't expect people that are posting anonymously to give details about their lives or their associates lives on the internet.  I've told you what field the guy works in, and that exactly as comfortable as I am in exposing him to anything coming from this thread.  You, nor this argument, are remotely important enough to me to breach an expectation of privacy for a third party.  If you think you're owed, then I'm (not) sorry to disappoint you.




> Again, you're just demonstrating that you don't understand what is being measured, and you're just being dismissive about it.



Great.  What's being measured, then?  Should be a nice, short, easy to answer question, no?  Shut me up.



> Of course you understand what a baseline is now. I explained it to you. And you using or not using the term baseline is no excuse for you not previously knowing what it is.



Sure, if that helps you get by, go with that -- I'm just a dumb guy on the internet who you have to educate.  Now, can you answer the above question and get on with my continued education, or is explaining baselines the extent of your capacity.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Ovinomancer said:


> Oh, I'm sorry, then.  I thought you were being intentionally ironic in being dismissive while calling me dismissive.  I expect to much -- it's a personal failing.



Hopefully I've taught you yet another useful thing.





> Really?



Yes.


> You've claimed to be a social scientist, and I haven't questioned that at all -- haven't asked for your name, who you work for, where you got your degree, nothing.  Because I generally don't expect people that are posting anonymously to give details about their lives or their associates lives on the internet.  I've told you what field the guy works in, and that exactly as comfortable as I am in exposing him to anything coming from this thread.  You, nor this argument, are remotely important enough to me to breach an expectation of privacy for a third party.  If you think you're owed, then I'm (not) sorry to disappoint you.



Actually, you're wrong. I've never claimed to be a social scientist. You suggested that I was, and I said that you're making assumptions. 





> Great.  What's being measured, then?  Should be a nice, short, easy to answer question, no?  Shut me up.
> 
> 
> Sure, if that helps you get by, go with that -- I'm just a dumb guy on the internet who you have to educate.  Now, can you answer the above question and get on with my continued education, or is explaining baselines the extent of your capacity.



No, no, no. I do not _have to_ educate you. I choose to do so out of the kindness of my own heart. I've provided you with useful information, free of charge. You should be grateful.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> You are lying to yourself, then, if you think that the statistical model you've created is the same thing as seeing the state of the system the model represents.




Interestingly, I said quite the opposite.  So, I think you're lying to yourself if you think you're actually arguing against my position.



> I've spent a few years involved in measurements of indirect and subjective things with actual consequences on the line (lawsuits for unfair representation and the like).  I've spent many the hour in consultation with PhDs on measurement theory.  I have a strong background in stats, and use frequentist analysis as part of my daily job these days.  I'm pretty comfortable in knowing what I'm talking about.




Appeal to authority does not strengthen your position.  Your using such an appeal makes others less comfortable that you know what you're talking about.

I'm a physicist.  You won't impress me by claiming hours of consultation with people with PhDs when discussing math, statistics, data analysis, and modelling.  I've spent years in such consultation, not hours.

*Your* comfort in knowing what you're talking about isn't the issue.  Making other people comfortable that you know what you are talking about isn't even the issue - that's still more appeal to authority.  You might, instead, work on demonstrating correctness, rather than building up personal credentials.


----------



## Maxperson

Cor Azer said:


> Mayhaps there's a deeper analysis done somewhere, but that link only shows that executives often dismiss resumes due to 1-2 typos. It doesn't say anything about their reasoning for such.
> 
> The group that sponsored the survey says they 'assume' a link, but show nothing substantiating it.




Businessmen are in the business of making money.  If their "assumption" was wrong, someone would have noticed it and published articles and such saying, "Hey guys, the way to make money really is to hire people with sloppy resumes".  Then it would have caught on that not hiring people with sloppy resumes doesn't actually make you more money.  That hasn't happened and there is a very good reason for it.  They aren't wrong.  While there are exceptions to the rule, they are not common enough to make it worth the risk.



> A direct question for you though: if someone submitted a resume with one of your undisclosed disliked names, and you couldn't find anything reasonably wrong with it (fully qualified for the job, no grammatical or structural errors on resume, etc), what do you do?




Honest answer.  I'd call that person in for an interview and if they were the best person for the job, he or she would get it.  I wouldn't like the name, but I'm not going to hurt a business over a personal issue.  That said, if there were three equally qualified candidates who I interviewed and impressed me equally in person, and one had a name I didn't like, that one would be out.  



> Slightly more hypothetical (and, to be honest, sounding even to me like a situation from a legal procedural), what do you do if a Shaniqua thinks you discriminated against her due to her name/race/gender (leaving aside if you did or not), and then instead of filing suit immediately, does some investigation - including sending in the exact same resume with a different name which does result in a callback for an interview?




Nothing, because I wouldn't know.  She didn't file suit and all you've given me is a callback by me for the second resume.

Did she come in for the interview the second time?  I need more to go on.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Businessmen are in the business of making money. If their "assumption" was wrong, someone would have noticed it and published articles and such saying, "Hey guys, the way to make money really is to hire people with sloppy resumes". Then it would have caught on that not hiring people with sloppy resumes doesn't actually make you more money. That hasn't happened and there is a very good reason for it. They aren't wrong. While there are exceptions to the rule, they are not common enough to make it worth the risk.




Besides being human and fallible, businessmen are also fairly egocentric, as a group, and may often assume they know things as facts when in fact they are things everyone takes for granted without scrutiny.  Some even go so far as to think they know better than the data they get from even the best studies.

Examples:

1) Before the advent of the personal computer, several CEOs of computer building companies were openly skeptical that anyone would want a computer for personal use.

2) Coke thought they could replace the original formula with New Coke

3) Ford thought they'd only pay out a few thousand dollars per wrongful death claims resulting from collisions involving Pintos.

4) companies keep trying rotating shift scheduling despite it being a known productivity killer AND a major factor in decreasing workplace safety, as well as being correlate with dozens of ailments- including heart disease and diabetes- _as shown by decades of workplace studies._


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Besides being human and fallible, businessmen are also fairly egocentric, as a group, and may often assume they know things as facts when in fact they are things everyone takes for granted without scrutiny.  Some even go so far as to think they know better than the data they get from even the best studies.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> 1) Before the advent of the personal computer, several CEOs of computer building companies were openly skeptical that anyone would want a computer for personal use.
> 
> 2) Coke thought they could replace the original formula with New Coke
> 
> 3) Ford thought they'd only pay out a few thousand dollars per wrongful death claims resulting from collisions involving Pintos.
> 
> 4) companies keep trying rotating shift scheduling despite it being a known productivity killer AND a major factor in decreasing workplace safety, as well as being correlate with dozens of ailments- including heart disease and diabetes- _as shown by decades of workplace studies._




For those examples to be accurate ones, the following would also have to be true.

1) No CEO ever sold personal computers, because that would be a change to how things are done.

2) We still have only New Coke, because no one admitted to it being a mistake and changed it back.

3) Virtually every company had to have made Pintos and done the same thing.

4) Virtually every company has to use rotating shift scheduling.

None of the above is true.  Innovators figure out new ways to do things and cause change.  Someone would have figured out long ago that sloppy work habits with a resume don't usually mean sloppy work habits in general if it wasn't true.  It then would have caught on with a great many businesses.  Not all for sure, but with a large number.  We would have a situation like the rotating shift.  Many would do it and many would not.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> Interestingly, I said quite the opposite.  So, I think you're lying to yourself if you think you're actually arguing against my position.



Okay, I must have misread you.  I'm glad we're in agreement that statistics will lie to you.





> Appeal to authority does not strengthen your position.  Your using such an appeal makes others less comfortable that you know what you're talking about.



It's not an appeal to authority.  It would be that if I referenced the authority and used that as my argument.  "A PhD says that you're wrong!" Instead, I referenced my experiences when they were questioned as to how I came to my conclusions.  I was speaking to my experience, not substituting an authority for my argument.  



> I'm a physicist.  You won't impress me by claiming hours of consultation with people with PhDs when discussing math, statistics, data analysis, and modelling.  I've spent years in such consultation, not hours.
> 
> *Your* comfort in knowing what you're talking about isn't the issue.  Making other people comfortable that you know what you are talking about isn't even the issue - that's still more appeal to authority.  You might, instead, work on demonstrating correctness, rather than building up personal credentials.



You know, it's kinda funny that I'm being jumped on for a (false) appeal to authority when that response was directly to an ad hom about me being unqualified to make the argument I did make.  You didn't blink about the ad hom, but here you are lecturing that I can't cite my relevant work and education history in response to an ad hom about my lack of such.  I spent many paragraphs over many posts explaining my position, and one talking about my educational and work background.  You've decided to ignore all of the work I have done in favor of the easy way out that crying 'fallacy!' gives to ignore everything else and chastise me on breaching a rhetorical rule of which you have an imperfect grasp.  Argumentum ad fallacy seems to be a favorite of yours.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Hopefully I've taught you yet another useful thing.



Thanks, I'm learning quite a lot from you, here.





> Yes.
> Actually, you're wrong. I've never claimed to be a social scientist. You suggested that I was, and I said that you're making assumptions.




Ah, again, thank you for the education.  I shall henceforth assume that you are no one, with no relevant information on any issue, until you directly inform me otherwise.  



> No, no, no. I do not _have to_ educate you. I choose to do so out of the kindness of my own heart. I've provided you with useful information, free of charge. You should be grateful.



So, then, no answer to the question?  Excellent, we can drop this line of argument and move on.  Thank you, again, for the education, and for ceding the argument to me despite my previously undereducated status.  Very kind (as you note).


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> Businessmen are in the business of making money.  If their "assumption" was wrong, someone would have noticed it and published articles and such saying, "Hey guys, the way to make money really is to hire people with sloppy resumes".  Then it would have caught on that not hiring people with sloppy resumes doesn't actually make you more money.  That hasn't happened and there is a very good reason for it.  They aren't wrong.  While there are exceptions to the rule, they are not common enough to make it worth the risk.




Nobody is saying sloppy resumes lead to productivity. What we're saying is: 
1. that a few typos on a resume doesn't automatically mean sloppy, and
2. there's no evidence that a sloppy resume means sloppy work habits.

Yes, it is usually true that people who are careful and detailed-oriented on their resumes are careful and detail-oriented in their work habits (although hardly universally true). Even allowing if it was universally true though, you can't assume the inverse (People who are not careful and detail-oriented on their resumes are not careful and detail-oriented in their work habits) is true; it would have to be proved separately. 



Maxperson said:


> Honest answer.  I'd call that person in for an interview and if they were the best person for the job, he or she would get it.  I wouldn't like the name, but I'm not going to hurt a business over a personal issue.  That said, if there were three equally qualified candidates who I interviewed and impressed me equally in person, and one had a name I didn't like, that one would be out.




Sounds more reasonable.

With that reasoning though, I don't understand why you'd put similar personal reasons over business interests earlier in the process?

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your position, but it's come off as though you'd put extra scrutiny to winnow out resumes with your disliked names.

You seem to be an 'ends-justify-the-means' person, which risks getting burned because the law around employment practices is decidedly not from that point-of-view. The 'means', so to speak, is very important, not just the 'ends'.



Maxperson said:


> Nothing, because I wouldn't know.  She didn't file suit and all you've given me is a callback by me for the second resume.
> 
> Did she come in for the interview the second time?  I need more to go on.




Ah yes, I guess I did leave the resulting scenario for inference accidentally.

My intention was to note that even if she didn't come in for the callback, she and her lawyer would now have evidence showing undue discriminatory behaviour on your part (so long as they were able to show that demographically, the disliked name occurred more frequently in one or more racial group than others), which would make a case against you much stronger.

I guess my question is: why risk such a case over a person's name?


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> Okay, I must have misread you.  I'm glad we're in agreement that statistics will lie to you.




Not quite.  Statistics cannot lie.  Statistics are the results of mathematical manipulation, are not sentient, and cannot make statements, much less knowingly false ones.

Humans, however, can misinterpret statistics, and draw inaccurate conclusions from them, and do so fairly often.



> It's not an appeal to authority.  It would be that if I referenced the authority and used that as my argument.  "A PhD says that you're wrong!" Instead, I referenced my experiences when they were questioned as to how I came to my conclusions.  I was speaking to my experience, not substituting an authority for my argument.




Except your experience is not relevant.  He questioned your understanding of measurement, and rather than answer with mathematics about measurement, you responded with assertions of expertise - which is appeal to authority.



> You know, it's kinda funny that I'm being jumped on for a (false) appeal to authority when that response was directly to an ad hom about me being unqualified to make the argument I did make.




Nothing funny about it.  This is informal debate.  There's no expectation that I dissect the logical flaws of *all* arguments made in the thread.  I am allowed to pick and choose.  



> You didn't blink about the ad hom, but here you are lecturing that I can't cite my relevant work and education history in response to an ad hom about my lack of such.




I didn't say you can't cite it.  You're *allowed* - there's no cop coming to give you a ticket, or anything.  I just said it doesn't support your position to do so.   

Quite frankly, you probably shouldn't have engaged with the ad hominem at all, other than perhaps noting its invalidity.  



> You've decided to ignore all of the work I have done




Because it is at best anecdotal, and at worst irrelevant.  



> in favor of the easy way out that crying 'fallacy!' gives to ignore everything else




What "everything else"?  You made some assertions, worded as absolute truth.  They were questioned - and at that point the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion.  The only proof you have given is anecdotal and claims of expertise.  You claim to know about data and statistics, so you already know that anecdote and expertise are not strong support, and that we should ignore them.

If, back when you were challenged, you'd said, "Well, that's what I think, anyway," or otherwise related that it was a personal opinion, this probably would have blown over - someone may have voiced an opposing opinion, but it would have been opinion vs opinion, and that usually isn't that interesting a discussion, and would probably die down quickly.


----------



## billd91

Maxperson said:


> For those examples to be accurate ones, the following would also have to be true.
> 
> 1) No CEO ever sold personal computers, because that would be a change to how things are done.
> 
> 2) We still have only New Coke, because no one admitted to it being a mistake and changed it back.
> 
> 3) Virtually every company had to have made Pintos and done the same thing.
> 
> 4) Virtually every company has to use rotating shift scheduling.
> 
> None of the above is true.  Innovators figure out new ways to do things and cause change.  Someone would have figured out long ago that sloppy work habits with a resume don't usually mean sloppy work habits in general if it wasn't true.  It then would have caught on with a great many businesses.  Not all for sure, but with a large number.  We would have a situation like the rotating shift.  Many would do it and many would not.




No, your additions would not have to be true at all. That would require the addition of potentially self-destructive stubbornness - for 30 years now in the case of Coca-Cola. You're trying to require Dannyalcatraz's examples to be stronger than they need to be to make his point.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> Not quite.  Statistics cannot lie.  Statistics are the results of mathematical manipulation, are not sentient, and cannot make statements, much less knowingly false ones.
> 
> Humans, however, can misinterpret statistics, and draw inaccurate conclusions from them, and do so fairly often.
> 
> 
> 
> Except your experience is not relevant.  He questioned your understanding of measurement, and rather than answer with mathematics about measurement, you responded with assertions of expertise - which is appeal to authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing funny about it.  This is informal debate.  There's no expectation that I dissect the logical flaws of *all* arguments made in the thread.  I am allowed to pick and choose.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you can't cite it.  You're *allowed* - there's no cop coming to give you a ticket, or anything.  I just said it doesn't support your position to do so.
> 
> Quite frankly, you probably shouldn't have engaged with the ad hominem at all, other than perhaps noting its invalidity.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is at best anecdotal, and at worst irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> What "everything else"?  You made some assertions, worded as absolute truth.  They were questioned - and at that point the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion.  The only proof you have given is anecdotal and claims of expertise.  You claim to know about data and statistics, so you already know that anecdote and expertise are not strong support, and that we should ignore them.
> 
> If, back when you were challenged, you'd said, "Well, that's what I think, anyway," or otherwise related that it was a personal opinion, this probably would have blown over - someone may have voiced an opposing opinion, but it would have been opinion vs opinion, and that usually isn't that interesting a discussion, and would probably die down quickly.




Yet you've agreed with my underlying premise that statistics often are used improperly and often lead to assuming truth when none is present -- you've only quibbled on the construction (statistics lie, vs people using statistics lie to themselves).  Obviously, I've constructed a valid enough argument that you agree with it.

And, again, for the appeal, citing my relevant work and educational history is directly applicable to the charge that I don't understand measurement.  You're insisting that the only proper response to that is a treatise on measurement, showing that I do, in fact, meet some nebulous requirement that I understand measurement.  In any rational conversation, ie, one where argumentum ad fallacy is not present, the listing of my relevant knowledge and it's sources is directly relevant and not an appeal to authority.  Else, any claim to knowledge with a pedigree to show worth is an appeal to authority, and that renders the fallacy useless as it's always violated by any mention of sources.  Had I merely said that I have a degree in stats, which would imply association with subject matter experts at the PhD level, you would not have leveled the charge (or would have looked silly doing so).  Instead, since I do not have such a degree, but a degree that required multiple courses in calculus based statistical analysis, have work history at the national level dealing with the measurement of both physical and subjective things, and have consulted directly with top SMEs on measurement theory, you choose to say that the last is nothing but an appeal to authority and ignore the remaining qualifications that I have.  I didn't say I was right because I had consulted with SMEs, I listed it as further proof that I have a long grounding in the subject matter.  That, again, is not an appeal to authority, because I never appealed to the authority as proof that my claims were correct -- I listed the authority as part of my extensive background in the subject matter to refute a direct accusation that I have no such grounding.


----------



## Kramodlog

Boy, we sure are far from the original subject of privilege.


----------



## Cor Azer

goldomark said:


> Boy, we sure are far from the original subject of privilege.




Them darned players jumped off the DM's railroad agin!


----------



## Kramodlog

Cor Azer said:


> Them darned players jumped off the DM's railroad agin!




DMs with disciplined players are the real privilege class!


----------



## Eltab

goldomark said:


> Boy, we sure are far from the original subject of privilege.



... possibly because the discussion above demonstrates that a major component of 'privilege' is the mindset of the beholder.

Why expend even more time arguing about something when the existing participants won't listen?
(But mostly-lurking on this thread has been an interesting experience.)


----------



## Ryujin

Eltab said:


> ... possibly because the discussion above demonstrates that a major component of 'privilege' is the mindset of the beholder.
> 
> Why expend even more time arguing about something when the existing participants won't listen?
> (But mostly-lurking on this thread has been an interesting experience.)




That's why I dropped out early


----------



## Kramodlog

Eltab said:


> ... possibly because the discussion above demonstrates that a major component of 'privilege' is the mindset of the beholder.




Or possibly not. Like many social phenomenons it can be quantified. The problem is often the same with conversations about social inequality, some people will just talk about anything but the phenomenon itself. This way the status quo isn't challenged and privileges are safe. It is the same with other subjects like global warming. Talk about the sun, conspiracies by scientists, previous ice ages, etc, but never talk about global warming and current repercussions. And don't talk about what needs to be done to alter global warming. Too dangerous.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Ovinomancer said:


> Thanks, I'm learning quite a lot from you, here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, again, thank you for the education.  I shall henceforth assume that you are no one, with no relevant information on any issue, until you directly inform me otherwise.
> 
> 
> So, then, no answer to the question?  Excellent, we can drop this line of argument and move on.  Thank you, again, for the education, and for ceding the argument to me despite my previously undereducated status.  Very kind (as you note).




I had some witty responses about how you made erroneous assumptions based on analysis of the incorrect variables, which ended up with you reaching incorrect conclusions, but Umbran schooled you already, so I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I had some witty responses about how you made erroneous assumptions based on analysis of the incorrect variables, which ended up with you reaching incorrect conclusions, but Umbran schooled you already, so I'll just leave it at that.




Sure.  I believe you.


----------



## Maxperson

Cor Azer said:


> Nobody is saying sloppy resumes lead to productivity. What we're saying is:
> 1. that a few typos on a resume doesn't automatically mean sloppy, and
> 2. there's no evidence that a sloppy resume means sloppy work habits.




Nobody is saying that number 1 is true.  I've said more than once that there are exceptions to the general rule.  Number 2 is just plain wrong.  There's tons of evidence.  It just hasn't been put into a study doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.  That tens of thousands of businesses worldwide all have observed that effect and as a result toss sloppy resumes is itself evidence. 




> Sounds more reasonable.
> 
> With that reasoning though, I don't understand why you'd put similar personal reasons over business interests earlier in the process?




I don't.  Mistakes on resumes are a general indicator of sloppiness.  I'm not putting personal reasons over the business interests at all.  I am in fact doing the opposite.



> Maybe I'm misinterpreting your position, but it's come off as though you'd put extra scrutiny to winnow out resumes with your disliked names.




No.  I scrutinized all of the resumes that I've looked over, regardless of name.  Sloppiness is not name based 



> Ah yes, I guess I did leave the resulting scenario for inference accidentally.
> 
> My intention was to note that even if she didn't come in for the callback, she and her lawyer would now have evidence showing undue discriminatory behaviour on your part (so long as they were able to show that demographically, the disliked name occurred more frequently in one or more racial group than others), which would make a case against you much stronger.




Her evidence would be very weak.  She has no way to know if I had much stronger resumes the first time around, but not the second time around.  She has no way to know if I had fewer positions available than qualified resumes.  There are more reasons than just name for what she experienced to be true.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> Boy, we sure are far from the original subject of privilege.




It's a privilege that you are allowed to read the thread as it meanders.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Ovinomancer said:


> Sure.  I believe you.




..


----------



## Maxperson

billd91 said:


> No, your additions would not have to be true at all. That would require the addition of potentially self-destructive stubbornness - for 30 years now in the case of Coca-Cola. You're trying to require Dannyalcatraz's examples to be stronger than they need to be to make his point.




He gave examples that were highly limited in both scope and time.  Single companies for most of them, and just a few for one of them, over a span of months to a few years.  That's what he's comparing to something that spans the entire globe, deals with tens of thousands of companies, and has been the case for decades.  And no, Coke didn't try to sell New Coke for 30 years without going back to the old formula.  It lasted a very short time before Coke Classic came back.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Let's just look at my last one, then:

Rotating shift work has been used throughout the world basically since the Industrial Age.

It has been proven to be detrimental to productivity AND long-term worker's health by hundreds of studies done over the past 50 years.  At this point, the questions researchers are asking aren't whether or not it is harmful, but in what way and to what degree.  Findings show costs that not only are to the detriment of the companies- loss of productivity, increased error rates, higher frequency of dangerous workplace errors, etc.- which lead to higher product prices, but also _externalized_ costs to society as a whole that get reflected in higher health care and liability insurance costs for everyone.

As a whole, it is pretty settled science which some CEOs willfully, egotistically (and perhaps cynically) choose to ignore.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Let's just look at my last one, then:
> 
> Rotating shift work has been used throughout the world basically since the Industrial Age.
> 
> It has been proven to be detrimental to productivity AND long-term worker's health by hundreds of studies done over the past 50 years.  At this point, the questions researchers are asking aren't whether or not it is harmful, but in what way and to what degree.  Findings show costs that not only are to the detriment of the companies- loss of productivity, increased error rates, higher frequency of dangerous workplace errors, etc.- which lead to higher product prices, but also _externalized_ costs to society as a whole that get reflected in higher health care and liability insurance costs for everyone.
> 
> As a whole, it is pretty settled science which some CEOs willfully, egotistically (and perhaps cynically) choose to ignore.




Yes, that one is a broader than the others, but still doesn't come close to the scope of the number of companies that avoid interviewing people over resume errors.  You're still trying to compare what some CEOs do to what the vast majority of executives and managers do.  It still doesn't come close to being a good match.

Despite being around for decades and being far more pervasive than rotating shifts, not one study has been done that shows the business people to be wrong.  I'm also not aware of even one innovator that has come forth to say that as a general rule, sloppiness on the resume equating to sloppiness at work is wrong.  Things that are wrong get all kinds of champions in this overly PC society.  People are looking for reasons to be upset and offended these days, so if these managers and executives were truly wrong, you'd think at least one person or group would have come forth to rail against it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> Yes, that one is a broader than the others, but still doesn't come close to the scope of the number of companies that avoid interviewing people over resume errors.




All analogies are flawed.

But my example is as close as it needs to be: it is a real-world example of CEOs ignoring settled, scientifically researched info because they think they know better, to the detriment of their companies bottom line, their workers well being, and society as a whole.

Not only that, it is a bigger deal- we're talking about dollars and lives lost, not job interviews- so of course it will have been studied.  The typo/grammar issue is- as yet- a subtler issue.


> Despite being around for decades and being far more pervasive than rotating shifts, not one study has been done that shows the business people to be wrong.




Nor has any proven them correct.  As things stand, it is just a bald assertion/widely held belief that it is so.

Just because a problem hasn't been formally studied, it does not follow that the issue hasn't been raised in court cases or settlements.  If the cases are sealed- as you said you would have demanded- we have no real way of knowing how the courts, arbitrators and mediators have treated such claims if they have been raised.

...but we covered all that pages ago.

As for people willing to rail against the practice we've been discussing...well:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...to-get-hired/good-applicants-with-bad-grammar

More peripherally:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-...-bug-people-robert-cormack?forceNoSplash=true

And in fields where precision really matters:
http://science-professor.blogspot.com/2011/05/possibly-well-written.html?m=1

What happens when the BUSINESS screws up?
http://www.askamanager.org/2010/09/should-you-point-out-typo-when-applying.html

A writer's perspective on grammar policing:
http://www.makealivingwriting.com/4-reasons-grammar-police-make-terrible-writers/

When policing becomes a problem:
http://www.askamanager.org/2014/07/my-coworker-keeps-emailing-higher-ups-about-typos.html


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> All analogies are flawed.
> 
> But my example is as close as it needs to be: it is a real-world example of CEOs ignoring settled, scientifically researched info because they think they know better, to the detriment of their companies bottom line, their workers well being, and society as a whole.




I disagree that it's as close as it needs to be.  Saying that because some CEOs ignore research to the detriment of their companies is almost the same the vast majority of management of the world ignoring sloppy resumes not to the detriment of their companies, is like saying that some people breaking a law is like the vast majority of everyone else not breaking that law.  

It's apples and oranges.  There is absolutely nothing to show that what managers do with resumes is detrimental to the company.  Given how long it has been happening and how many have done it, it's almost unthinkable that if it was truly detrimental, someone wouldn't have figured it out and said something.



> Not only that, it is a bigger deal- we're talking about dollars and lives lost, not job interviews- so of course it will have been studied.  The typo/grammar issue is- as yet- a subtler issue.




It's a far better known issue, though.  Someone would have figured out if it was bad and said something about it by now if it was.



> Nor has any proven them correct.  As things stand, it is just a bald assertion/widely held belief that it is so.[/quote[
> 
> Widely held beliefs are almost always based in fact.  They don't get to be that widely held if they are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for people willing to rail against the practice we've been discussing...well:
> http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...to-get-hired/good-applicants-with-bad-grammar
> 
> More peripherally:
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-...-bug-people-robert-cormack?forceNoSplash=true
> 
> And in fields where precision really matters:
> http://science-professor.blogspot.com/2011/05/possibly-well-written.html?m=1
> 
> What happens when the BUSINESS screws up?
> http://www.askamanager.org/2010/09/should-you-point-out-typo-when-applying.html
> 
> A writer's perspective on grammar policing:
> http://www.makealivingwriting.com/4-reasons-grammar-police-make-terrible-writers/
> 
> When policing becomes a problem:
> http://www.askamanager.org/2014/07/my-coworker-keeps-emailing-higher-ups-about-typos.html
Click to expand...



They and you are still engaging in fallacious arguing.  Trying to equate job requirements with what reviewers are doing is a False Equivalence.   Nobody is saying that good grammar and spelling is a requirement for all jobs.  What reviewers are looking at is job performance in general, not how specifically grammar and spelling will be used on that job.  Until people get that, they are doomed to be arguing nonsense in an attempt to change the minds of others on the topic.  Nonsense won't accomplish that.


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> Nobody is saying that number 1 is true.  I've said more than once that there are exceptions to the general rule.  Number 2 is just plain wrong.  There's tons of evidence.  It just hasn't been put into a study doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.  That tens of thousands of businesses worldwide all have observed that effect and as a result toss sloppy resumes is itself evidence.




Well, you've certainly implied you think #1 is true, because you keep referring only to 'sloppy resumes', and point to a source noting many executives reject resumes with 1-2 typos as your supporting evidence that others do it too. Perhaps not your intention, but it does make it seem like you associate 1-2 typos with 'sloppy'.

At the risk of seeing too many trees for the forest, when I think of a sloppy resume, I'm picturing one with sections missing, little-to-no supporting/clarifying details (job duties, education topics, etc.), irrelevant text, and even (as I have seen) bits of text that are obviously from a fill-in-the-blanks resume writer with the blanks and instructions left in. I can definitely see something like that going in the circular file, because it's just a headache trying to even figure out if the needed qualifications are present.

As for there being "tons of evidence" for number 2 being wrong, I'd submit there isn't. There's tons of evidence business reject sloppy resumes, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's because they think the worker would have sloppy work habits; it could just as easily be that they were rejected because the business couldn't find any references to all the job qualifications (as you say, there is a limited time they can spend on each resume; they don't have time to interpret "creative" ones).

There's also the (growing?) fact that especially in larger organizations, a dedicated HR unit handles initial resume winnowing, and they may not have the technical understanding of a job position to make safe assumptions, so they can only work off a checklist, and a sloppy resume is less likely to have the proper keywords in the right places (anecdotally, a co-worker of mine got screened out of a competition because he didn't explicitly say that he worked on WindowsXP every day - despite the fact that he was a software developer with our organization for the previous three years and all we used was WindowsXP). This sort of scenario makes no inference on the quality of the applicant or their work habits.

In fact, given the disturbingly litigious world that is employment (ie, the same one where many places won't even give more of a reference than "Yes, Person worked here from Date to Date"), the far more likely reason they pitch sloppy resumes is the one that doesn't risk casting aspersions on the applicant (ie, it's far safer to say "We couldn't find the stuff we wanted on your resume" than "You'd be a pretty sloppy employee").



Maxperson said:


> I don't.  Mistakes on resumes are a general indicator of sloppiness.  I'm not putting personal reasons over the business interests at all.  I am in fact doing the opposite.




OK, but earlier...



Maxperson said:


> That doesn't show racial bias.  It shows name bias.  *I dislike names like Shaniqua and other similar names and would not call back resumes with names like that. * I also dislike Hawaiian sounding names which are often given to white people, or Russian names which belong overwhelmingly to white people.  Give me names like Robin, Rhonda, George, James and so on, but put on those resumes the race of the individual and you will find no racial bias at all.




Emphasis mine.

That decidedly sounds like personal reasons being put over business reasons.

Mayhaps the greater world is more imaginative than me, but I cannot think of a single, non-silly reason a person's name would ever be a relevant business consideration (silly reasons including, but not exclusive too, Dewey and Cheatum finding the partner with the perfect lastname for their law practice).



Maxperson said:


> No.  I scrutinized all of the resumes that I've looked over, regardless of name.  Sloppiness is not name based




I'll have to take your word for that. 

My conclusion came about because we first started talking about names, and how you wouldn't call certain ones back (without mentioning whether they were qualified or not), and when told about potential legal action against you, you defended yourself by bringing up the idea of sloppy resumes and how you'd probably find enough mistakes on them to justify winnowing them out.

It just seems odd to even consider a person's name at all. If there are problems with a resume, that's enough justification right there. If there aren't problems, how does a name cause a problem?



Maxperson said:


> Her evidence would be very weak.  She has no way to know if I had much stronger resumes the first time around, but not the second time around.  She has no way to know if I had fewer positions available than qualified resumes.  There are more reasons than just name for what she experienced to be true.




I would submit that she would have enough evidence for a prima facie case, which would mean it'd be enough to go to trial, at which point, it'd be on you to prove you had stronger resumes before, or fewer positions, or what have you.

Note, I am not a lawyer. I haven't even stayed in a Holiday Inn Express. This is, in fact, the first time I've ever typed 'prima facie', and I'm quite certain I'm making some gross misconceptions about the American legal system. But I like reading [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION]'s posts about law


----------



## Cor Azer

I think some BBcode quoting got messed up in this post of yours Maxperson, so if you in fact did not type the following, I apologize.

That caveat out of the way...



Maxperson said:


> Widely held beliefs are almost always based in fact. They don't get to be that widely held if they are wrong.




Flat Earth.

Homosexuals are pedophiles.

Faked Moon landing.

Obama isn't American.

Frankly, there are a lot of widely held beliefs that have no factual basis at all.

Edit: Yes, I'm exaggerating how widely held some of those are, but the point remains... 'cause, well, religious myths.


----------



## Maxperson

Cor Azer said:


> Flat Earth.




Not nearly as wide spread as people think.



> Homosexuals are pedophiles.




Not even remotely close to being wide spread.



> Faked Moon landing.




You're losing ground rapidly.  



> Obama isn't American




Also not not something like the resume situation.



> Frankly, there are a lot of widely held beliefs that have no factual basis at all.




And yet you failed to show even 1 that wasn't a minority belief.  The vast majority of managers engage in the resume practice.



> Edit: Yes, I'm exaggerating how widely held some of those are, but the point remains... 'cause, well, religious myths.




Myths about the Greek, Roman, Egyptian and so on gods were also not as wide spread.  The major religions that are wide spread can't be shown to be myths.  You believe them or not, but that's about it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Hmm...I could have sworn the goalposts were around here somewhere, but apparently, they've moved!


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> Not even remotely close to being wide spread.




Well, last year, the President of the Family Research Council maintained there was a connection between being gay and being a pedophile.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/29/tony-perkins-value-voters-summit_n_5900448.html

The FRC is a "charity" with revenues of around $13 million, and 2000 people attended the Value Voters summit this year.

Hard data is a bit hard to come by - a survey in 1999 suggested that 19% of heterosexual men believed that "most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children".  This is far reduced from the 1970s, but even if it had dropped by half since then, that's still pretty widespread.  We might say that the number of heterosexual men who think gay men are pedophiles is roughly comparable to the number of gay men.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/poq_2002_pre.pdf


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> Not nearly as wide spread as people think.
> 
> 
> 
> Not even remotely close to being wide spread.
> 
> 
> 
> You're losing ground rapidly.
> 
> 
> 
> Also not not something like the resume situation.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you failed to show even 1 that wasn't a minority belief.  The vast majority of managers engage in the resume practice.




Seriously? I was obviously exaggerating to make a point. 

Edit: Since you seem to have skipped over my epic post, I'll tl;dr for you:

It's granted that many businesses trash sloppy resumes. There's no evidence it's because they think the employee will have sloppy work habits. It's far more likely they have no will to bother deciphering it all.

All my above post said it better  





Maxperson said:


> Myths about the Greek, Roman, Egyptian and so on gods were also not as wide spread.  The major religions that are wide spread can't be shown to be myths.  You believe them or not, but that's about it.




Sorry, I was trying to couch that in terms less likely to be inflammatory (kind of tying thing back to the original topic in this thread). I wasn't referring to classical history there; I was talking about the beliefs in current widespread religions - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.

They are all rife with beliefs with no basis in fact. Even the ones that are comforting and unthreatening. And they are very widespread. Even the wrong ones. 

It kind of goes hand-in-hand with the definition of 'belief'. If you have facts, it's not a belief. It's knowledge.


----------



## Sadras

Maxperson said:


> Widely held beliefs are almost always based in fact. They don't get to be that widely held if they are wrong.




9-11 anyone, should we even go there? 

This is more of a rhetorical question, I'm just a spectator in all of this.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Hmm...I could have sworn the goalposts were around here somewhere, but apparently, they've moved!




Nope!  They're right where I left them.  They're just hard to see with all of the fallacies being leveled against them.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> Well, last year, the President of the Family Research Council maintained there was a connection between being gay and being a pedophile.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/29/tony-perkins-value-voters-summit_n_5900448.html
> 
> The FRC is a "charity" with revenues of around $13 million, and 2000 people attended the Value Voters summit this year.
> 
> Hard data is a bit hard to come by - a survey in 1999 suggested that 19% of heterosexual men believed that "most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children".  This is far reduced from the 1970s, but even if it had dropped by half since then, that's still pretty widespread.  We might say that the number of heterosexual men who think gay men are pedophiles is roughly comparable to the number of gay men.
> 
> http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/poq_2002_pre.pdf




Those are still very small percentages when compared to the 97% of managers/executives engaged in the resume practice.


----------



## Maxperson

Cor Azer said:


> Seriously? I was obviously exaggerating to make a point.
> 
> Edit: Since you seem to have skipped over my epic post, I'll tl;dr for you:
> 
> It's granted that many businesses trash sloppy resumes. There's no evidence it's because they think the employee will have sloppy work habits. It's far more likely they have no will to bother deciphering it all.
> 
> All my above post said it better




It was right there in the article I quoted, along with most other similar articles.

*“Employers view the resume as a reflection of the applicant,”* said Max Messmer, chairman of Accountemps and author of Job Hunting For Dummies®, 2nd Edition (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.).* “If you make errors on your application materials, the assumption is you’ll make mistakes on the job.”*



> Sorry, I was trying to couch that in terms less likely to be inflammatory (kind of tying thing back to the original topic in this thread). I wasn't referring to classical history there; I was talking about the beliefs in current widespread religions - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.




Oh, I understood.  There's just no proof that they are a myth  



> It kind of goes hand-in-hand with the definition of 'belief'. If you have facts, it's not a belief. It's knowledge.




That's not true at all.  Look at most scientific theories.  They are based on observable facts, many people *believe* them, yet they are often wrong and/or unproven.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> Those are still very small percentages when compared to the 97% of managers/executives engaged in the resume practice.




Small percentages, yes.  But is it a small number of people?

So, there's about 150 million men in the US.  About 66% of them are adults - 99 million of them.  We're not going to worry about what kids think here.

Let us say 5% of those are not heterosexual.  That leaves about 94 million heterosexual men.  If 10% of them hold the pedophile idea, that's about 9 million people.

The idea is held by about half as many women as men - so, add a few million more, call it 13 million as a back-of-envelope estimate.

Now, how many people are engaged in reviewing of resumes?

A quick web search turns up on Forbes.com that in 2012, there were some 3.6 million job openings, 80% of which are never advertised.  That leaves us 720,000 jobs going through the archtypal "submit resume for review" path.  The 80% may have a lot of internal submissions, and submissions through recruiters, but those have resumes pre-reviewed, and can fall out of our estimation.  But, even if we leave all 3.6 million openings in there, we need 3.6 managers/executives reviewing resumes for each job for the numbers to be comparable.  Having significantly more people than that having eyes on each resume sounds less plausible - it isn't like we expect serious review of resumes by seven people.  So, it would seem to me that the number of folks rejecting resumes for grammar is roughly equal to or less than the number of folks who think gays are pedophiles.  

That last sentence has probably never been uttered before, and it should probably never be said again 

In any case, that's an idea of how "widespread" each is in the population.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> Nope!  They're right where I left them.  They're just hard to see with all of the fallacies being leveled against them.




Dude, you have them on a flatbed semi.  We went from:


> Businessmen are in the business of making money. If their "assumption" was wrong, someone would have noticed it and published articles and such saying, "Hey guys, the way to make money really is to hire people with sloppy resumes". Then it would have caught on that not hiring people with sloppy resumes doesn't actually make you more money. That hasn't happened and there is a very good reason for it. They aren't wrong. While there are exceptions to the rule, they are not common enough to make it worth the risk.




(The "if they were wrong, someone would have said something at some point" standard.)

To:


Maxperson said:


> Those are still very small percentages when compared to the 97% of managers/executives engaged in the resume practice.




(The "those examples are not good enough because they don't cover enough ground" standard.)

Which brings us to the conclusion:


billd91 said:


> You're trying to require Dannyalcatraz's examples to be stronger than they need to be to make his point.




To put the rotating shift work example in a similar context as Umbran did with another one, depending on the study, between 25-33% of US & Canadian companies use rotating shift work scheduling.  That covers @90M workers on a daily basis.

Even assuming 100 applicants per job opening, we don't get to the same absolute number of people affected by typo winnowing as we do with rotating shift work.


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> It was right there in the article I quoted, along with most other similar articles.
> 
> *“Employers view the resume as a reflection of the applicant,”* said Max Messmer, chairman of Accountemps and author of Job Hunting For Dummies®, 2nd Edition (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.).* “If you make errors on your application materials, the assumption is you’ll make mistakes on the job.”*




Mayhaps you've read the actual survey/report Accountemps used that inspired that article, but my reading of it showed two things:

1. The survey asked the executives “How many typos in a resume does it take for you to decide not to consider a job candidate for a position with your company?” There's no mention as to the 'why' there.
2. Accountemps are the ones suggesting a (possible) "why", without presenting any evidence that it comes from said executives.

That sloppy resumes are discarded without much consideration, I have no doubt.

That _some_ people _assume_ sloppy resumes mean sloppy habits, I also have no doubt.

But

I've not seen _evidence_ that links sloppy resumes to sloppy work habits (and really, given that "all these sloppy resumes are being skipped over", where exactly are these sloppy employees having their work habits evaluated?)

I've also not seen evidence that the trashing of said sloppy resumes is due to the assumption of sloppy work habits. There are other plausible (and less potentially libellous or slanderous) reasons for doing so.

Maybe such evidence does exist. I'm not going to go searching for it, nor am I expecting you to. But you haven't shown it here.



Maxperson said:


> Oh, I understood.  There's just no proof that they are a myth




I'm going to assume you're being a little tongue in cheek here.

Sure, there's no proof they're myths. I'm no expert (or even an amateur) in the subject, but my understanding is that there's some archeological evidence that some sort charismatic person was present in the area around Jerusalem a couple millenia ago, and may have sparked a couple of major religions.

Given that a lot of what is written about him is scientifically impossible though...



Maxperson said:


> That's not true at all.  Look at most scientific theories.  They are based on observable facts, many people *believe* them, yet they are often wrong and/or unproven.




Uh... that's not how science works. 

People don't *believe* in science. A lot of anti-science folk sure like to project such an idea, trying to liken the idea of science into a religion.

Science works by *convincing* people of the idea that some theory or another is our best (or at least a useful) current model for understanding a particular phenomenon. This convincing is done by showing observations, linking evidence, and producing repeatable predictions based on said theory's model. Eventually, certain predictions don't continue to match observations, and new models are designed.


----------



## Cor Azer

Just to jump back a little here...



Maxperson said:


> Cor Azer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are pedophiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even remotely close to being wide spread.
Click to expand...



While not directly versus homosexuals, but rather transgender people, you may or may not have heard about Houston voters tossing out the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, with the repeal campaign almost exclusively speaking about "men in dresses lurking to sexually assault our daughters in the bathroom".

It's unfortunate... no... it's horrifically tragic that such beliefs are far more widespread than you think.

Kind of gets back to the whole "privilege" thing. If it doesn't affect you, you don't realize how widespread something is.

Edit: I also wanted to pull this forward again, since [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] didn't answer it and we kind of swept past it...



Maxperson said:


> I don't.  Mistakes on resumes are a general indicator of sloppiness.  I'm not putting personal reasons over the business interests at all.  I am in fact doing the opposite.




OK, but earlier...



Maxperson said:


> That doesn't show racial bias.  It shows name bias.  *I dislike names like Shaniqua and other similar names and would not call back resumes with names like that. * I also dislike Hawaiian sounding names which are often given to white people, or Russian names which belong overwhelmingly to white people.  Give me names like Robin, Rhonda, George, James and so on, but put on those resumes the race of the individual and you will find no racial bias at all.




Emphasis mine.

How is that not putting personal reasons before business reasons?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Cor Azer said:


> Just to jump back a little here...
> 
> 
> 
> While not directly versus homosexuals, but rather transgender people, you may or may not have heard about Houston voters tossing out the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, with the repeal campaign almost exclusively speaking about "men in dresses lurking to sexually assault our daughters in the bathroom".
> 
> It's unfortunate... no... it's horrifically tragic that such beliefs are far more widespread than you think.
> 
> Kind of gets back to the whole "privilege" thing. If it doesn't affect you, you don't realize how widespread something is.
> 
> Edit: I also wanted to pull this forward again, since [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] didn't answer it and we kind of swept past it...
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but earlier...
> 
> 
> 
> Emphasis mine.
> 
> How is that not putting personal reasons before business reasons?




Except, you know, the law _would _allow a predator to wear a dress and lurk in women's bathrooms.  Unlikely, but also not unreasonable fear of true transvestites.  That you disagree that it would be a problem worth not passing the law seems to be akin to your disagreement with how resumes are treated -- there's no evidence seemingly for either direction, so neither case is proved or disproved.  You can't just insist that things must remain murky in one instance and then demand that they're obviously your way in another.  No evidence is no evidence, right?


----------



## billd91

Ovinomancer said:


> Except, you know, the law _would _allow a predator to wear a dress and lurk in women's bathrooms.




No, it wouldn't. There's nothing in the law that turns predatory behavior into legal behavior. If some guy wearing women's clothing is actually engaging in predatory behavior rather than just using the toilets and washing up, the laws affecting that behavior haven't changed. This argument is basically fear mongering.


----------



## Maxperson

Cor Azer said:


> Mayhaps you've read the actual survey/report Accountemps used that inspired that article, but my reading of it showed two things:
> 
> 1. The survey asked the executives “How many typos in a resume does it take for you to decide not to consider a job candidate for a position with your company?” There's no mention as to the 'why' there.
> 2. Accountemps are the ones suggesting a (possible) "why", without presenting any evidence that it comes from said executives.




Number 2 is false.  They are not the one suggesting anything, they are stating why the manager do what they do.  They don't have to have it in their survey for them to have discussed with the managers why they do what they do.



> I've also not seen evidence that the trashing of said sloppy resumes is due to the assumption of sloppy work habits. There are other plausible (and less potentially libellous or slanderous) reasons for doing so.




Google it.  It's all over the place.

Maybe such evidence does exist. I'm not going to go searching for it, nor am I expecting you to. But you haven't shown it here.



> Sure, there's no proof they're myths. I'm no expert (or even an amateur) in the subject, but my understanding is that there's some archeological evidence that some sort charismatic person was present in the area around Jerusalem a couple millenia ago, and may have sparked a couple of major religions.
> 
> Given that a lot of what is written about him is scientifically impossible though...




We're making invisibility suits and discovering how to do a lot of what was scientifically impossible 50 or 100 years ago.  Also, science may not be everything.  



> People don't *believe* in science. A lot of anti-science folk sure like to project such an idea, trying to liken the idea of science into a religion.



A lot of people including scientists believe the big bang even though the theory is based only on events we can observe now and can't actually prove.  People also observed events and attributed them to God. There could very well be 12 other theories that also fit the observable events.  There is a lot of faith that goes on in science.  They just mask it better.

My favorites are 1) many years ago I read in an astronomy magazine that some scientists believed that there was once no matter in the universe, but the conditions were right for matter to pop into existence from nothing and eventually it condensed into the mass that exploded into the big bang.  Conditions were not right for that anymore, so it couldn't happen these days.  2) I read in another science magazine the theory that the universe has always existed and never had a beginning.

Those same scientists deride religions that believe that God popped into existence from nothing or has always existed and never had a beginning.  It's hysterical.



> Science works by *convincing* people of the idea that some theory or another is our best (or at least a useful) current model for understanding a particular phenomenon. This convincing is done by showing observations, linking evidence, and producing repeatable predictions based on said theory's model. Eventually, certain predictions don't continue to match observations, and new models are designed.




Sure.  Science is more likely to change it's beliefs than a religion is, but that still doesn't stop people who believe in a theory from believing in science.


----------



## Maxperson

Cor Azer said:


> Edit: I also wanted to pull this forward again, since [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] didn't answer it and we kind of swept past it...
> 
> OK, but earlier...
> 
> Emphasis mine.
> 
> How is that not putting personal reasons before business reasons?



Because I clarified how I would truly run my business in a later post and wasn't quite that way.  I thought it was you I answered it to.


----------



## billd91

Maxperson said:


> A lot of people including scientists believe the big bang even though the theory is based only on events we can observe now and can't actually prove.  People also observed events and attributed them to God. There could very well be 12 other theories that also fit the observable events.  There is a lot of faith that goes on in science.  They just mask it better.




Just because a theory based on the observations we can make now and the evidence and understanding we have now might be incorrect doesn't make believing it now an act of faith akin to religion, at the very least, it's probably not the way most religions want faith to operate. If they were truly so similar, then I think a lot of religious groups would be embarrassed because it would pretty much drop the pretense that the objects of religion exist prior to the social construction of the religion.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ovinomancer said:


> Unlikely, but also not unreasonable fear of true transvestites.




The only long-term study of transgender outcomes concluded that “Male to Female” transsexuals retain male-pattern criminality, including crimes against women.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885 

Presumably, even though not all transvestites transition into becoming transsexuals, that observed pattern would remain roughly true.

Now, while it is true that women and children have historically demonstrable reasons to fear men in concealed/unusual places- much moreso than the opposite- decriminalizing transvestism in bathrooms for those diagnosed with a gender dysphoria is unlikely to be any great advantage for predators.  Is it creepy?  Certainly, for many women it is, and I have no good answer for that beyond what I have already stated here.

First of all, it isn't a simple preference for drag.  Diagnosed dysphorics are often encouraged to try to live as the opposite gender by trained healthcare professionals, especially if they plan on having gender reassignment surgery.  Most predators would probably not have that.

Second, as pointed out, the truly offending behavior- preying on women or children- would remain illegal.

Third, a predator intent on dressing in drag to hunt women & children is unlikely to be thwarted by legal issues.

Fourth, all of the above applies to jackasses who think it would be funny to do so as well.


----------



## Kramodlog

> Unlikely, but also not unreasonable fear of true transvestites.



Change transvestites for guns and you've just made an argument for gun control. Funny.


----------



## Maxperson

billd91 said:


> Just because a theory based on the observations we can make now and the evidence and understanding we have now might be incorrect doesn't make believing it now an act of faith akin to religion, at the very least, it's probably not the way most religions want faith to operate. If they were truly so similar, then I think a lot of religious groups would be embarrassed because it would pretty much drop the pretense that the objects of religion exist prior to the social construction of the religion.




Yes, it pretty much does make it an act of faith like religious ones.  The basis is the same.  That basis is, "I believe X is true based on Y observable events."  Science is just much more willing to challenge its faith than religions are.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> Number 2 is false.  They are not the one suggesting anything, they are stating why the manager do what they do.  They don't have to have it in their survey for them to have discussed with the managers why they do what they do.




Did they "discuss" with the same people they surveyed, all of them?  Then it is still surveying.

If they only "discussed" with a subset of those they surveyed, then they are taking anecdotes and generalizing, which isn't a valid technique for getting at the truth.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> Did they "discuss" with the same people they surveyed, all of them?  Then it is still surveying.
> 
> If they only "discussed" with a subset of those they surveyed, then they are taking anecdotes and generalizing, which isn't a valid technique for getting at the truth.




A survey deals only with the specific survey questions it asks.  If the people conducting the survey later ask the participants why they answered the way they did, then it's not a part of the survey.  It would still be a valid thing to place into the article the way they did, though.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

billd91 said:


> Just because a theory based on the observations we can make now and the evidence and understanding we have now might be incorrect doesn't make believing it now an act of faith akin to religion, at the very least, it's probably not the way most religions want faith to operate. If they were truly so similar, then I think a lot of religious groups would be embarrassed because it would pretty much drop the pretense that the objects of religion exist prior to the social construction of the religion.



It's a trick of religious groups that want to discredit science, so it is lowered to the level of religion. It's not that these people want religion to operate like science, it's that they want to make you believe that science operates the way religion does. Part of this ruse is seen when people argue that evolution or the big bang is "just a theory." They do it to make you think that these scientific theories are just like any other theory. You have a theory on who Jon Snow's mother is? That theory is equal to the theory of evolution. It disregards the rigorous process that a scientific theory goes through. So you'll end up getting arguments that science is the same as religion.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

The confusion is made possible by the difference between the scientific use of the term "theory" and the layman's use of the word, which is actually more akin to how scientists use "hypothesis."  Then the conflation (intentional or not) begets confusion.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

It's intentional confusing used by those who want to equate religion and science. It's also why they use terms like evolution-"ist." It makes it seem as if somehow it's just another form of religion. Those who believe in the creation myth refer to themselves as creationist, thus labeling other as evolutionist just makes them seem the same. Science to them is no different than any other religion. And as with other religions, those religions that are not their own are just spreading lies.


----------



## Maxperson

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> It's a trick of religious groups that want to discredit science, so it is lowered to the level of religion. It's not that these people want religion to operate like science, it's that they want to make you believe that science operates the way religion does. Part of this ruse is seen when people argue that evolution or the big bang is "just a theory." They do it to make you think that these scientific theories are just like any other theory. You have a theory on who Jon Snow's mother is? That theory is equal to the theory of evolution. It disregards the rigorous process that a scientific theory goes through. So you'll end up getting arguments that science is the same as religion.




I'm not doing anything of the sort.  I have no interest in discrediting science, and I'm not saying that science operates like religion does.  In fact, I specifically said they operate differently.  I'm also only talking about a specific subsection of science, not the entire bundle.  

The Big Bang isn't anywhere close to being know as fact.  Science put that theory forth and it currently matches what we can observe, but that doesn't make it true.  All of the testing we can muster can't prove that the theory is correct.  If you believe that theory is true, you are taking it on faith.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> I'm not doing anything of the sort.



I haven't said you did such a thing. I said it was a trick of religious groups. You are an individual, not a group. Any similarity to what I have pointed out, and what you are saying/doing is strictly coincidental.


----------



## Maxperson

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I haven't said you did such a thing. I said it was a trick of religious groups. You are an individual, not a group. Any similarity to what I have pointed out, and what you are saying/doing is strictly coincidental.




Fair enough.  You mentioned it right after I brought it up, so it was unclear if you were lumping me in with them or not.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> Fair enough.  You mentioned it right after I brought it up, so it was unclear if you were lumping me in with them or not.




Max, how long have we known each other? 4+ years, right? You know I wouldn't do something like that to you.


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> Because I clarified how I would truly run my business in a later post and wasn't quite that way.  I thought it was you I answered it to.




Tangentially, perhaps.

I guess I'm not entirely sure why you'd ever have posted the bit about "not calling back names like that" if, as you say, you never put personal ahead of business.

If the resume is sloppy, then the name doesn't matter.
If the resume isn't sloppy, then the name *still* doesn't matter. Or at least, it shouldn't.

As for your belief-in-science screed, others have addressed how incorrect you are, although only you could say if it was intentional or not.


----------



## Cor Azer

Ovinomancer said:


> Except, you know, the law _would _allow a predator to wear a dress and lurk in women's bathrooms.  Unlikely, but also not unreasonable fear of true transvestites.  That you disagree that it would be a problem worth not passing the law seems to be akin to your disagreement with how resumes are treated -- there's no evidence seemingly for either direction, so neither case is proved or disproved.  You can't just insist that things must remain murky in one instance and then demand that they're obviously your way in another.  No evidence is no evidence, right?




As others have said, no, no this anti-discrimination law would not in any way aid predators. 
1. Current laws already address predatory behaviour.
2. Predators already show they don't care about laws
3. If they do want a "pretext" to be in there, it's easier to pose as a janitor

And yes, it is a completely unreasonable fear. It is transphobia, pure and simple. There has not been a single case of a transgender person using bathroom or locker room anti-discrimination laws in the US to commit or attempt predatory behaviour. There is plenty of evidence of transgender woman being assaulted in men's washrooms.

We. Just. Want. To. Pee.

You are, in fact, statistically more likely to encounter a Republican congressman engaging in nefarious deeds in a bathroom than a transgender person. Should we ban all Republican congressmen from using public bathrooms?

Also, as an aside, "transvestite" is an archaic, and at least mildly offensive, term. If the person has a gender identity different than assigned at birth, they're transgender. If they're simply wearing clothes from a different gender without an associated different gender identity, they're a crossdresser.


----------



## Cor Azer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The only long-term study of transgender outcomes concluded that “Male to Female” transsexuals retain male-pattern criminality, including crimes against women.
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
> 
> Presumably, even though not all transvestites transition into becoming transsexuals, that observed pattern would remain roughly true.




Be careful of conflating crossdressers and transgender people - while there may be superficial similarities, the motivations behind the two can and do vary considerably.

That said, skimming that paper doesn't really show much about the types of crimes, beyond the categories of "crime" and "violent crime".

Admittedly, this is pure hypothesis on my part, but given that transgender people often can be and are evicted or fired simply for being transgender (you know, what HERO was trying to prevent), many do find themselves resorting to sex work, which is criminalized in most regions of the world.

And while I admit this part is a result of my heavy bias, I would also hypothesize that that same lack of anti-discrimination protections gives rise to transgender people being convicted on flimsier evidence than might suffice for cisgender people.


----------



## Maxperson

Cor Azer said:


> As for your belief-in-science screed, others have addressed how incorrect you are, although only you could say if it was intentional or not.




Right, because no one believes that the big bang happened.  It's hypocrisy for people to slam religions for believing religious things based on observations, but support themselves for believing things based on observations.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Cor Azer said:


> Be careful of conflating crossdressers and transgender people - while there may be superficial similarities, the motivations behind the two can and do vary considerably.



That's why I added the "presumably" caveat.



> That said, skimming that paper doesn't really show much about the types of crimes, beyond the categories of "crime" and "violent crime".




After defining crimes they looked at:


> Any criminal conviction during follow-up was counted; specifically, violent crime was defined as homicide and attempted homicide, aggravated assault and assault, robbery, threatening behaviour, harassment, arson, or any sexual offense.




They looked at their data and came to the conclusion:


> This suggests that the sex reassignment procedure neither increased nor decreased the risk for criminal offending in male-to-females.


----------



## billd91

Maxperson said:


> It's hypocrisy for people to slam religions for believing religious things based on observations, but support themselves for believing things based on observations.




No, it's not. Believing religious things based on observations means that you're observing something and then imparting or creating some divine creature-based action or motive behind it. When the ancient Greeks saw the sun pass across they sky, they fabricated the story that it was Helios driving a solar chariot across the sky - anthropomorphizing the whole affair. And that's key to believing religious things - that there's an influenceable intelligence behind things that could be propitiated with sacrifices, offerings, or prayers or that things unfold according to some important being's plan. Building up knowledge through observation in scientific inquiry isn't about that. It's about understanding the way things work without assuming any sort of divine will to make things happen. We observe that the sun travels across the sky and, with other observations, conclude that the earth is rotating on its axis and that causes our view on any particularly point on the planet to change throughout that rotation. No intelligent being is necessary for this to occur. There are no quirky personalities, foibles, jealousies, or beings to worship for fear that the process may stop because some god's got a burr up his butt again.


----------



## Maxperson

billd91 said:


> No, it's not. Believing religious things based on observations means that you're observing something and then imparting or creating some divine creature-based action or motive behind it. When the ancient Greeks saw the sun pass across they sky, they fabricated the story that it was Helios driving a solar chariot across the sky - anthropomorphizing the whole affair. And that's key to believing religious things - that there's an influenceable intelligence behind things that could be propitiated with sacrifices, offerings, or prayers or that things unfold according to some important being's plan. *Building up knowledge through observation in scientific inquiry isn't about that. It's about understanding the way things work without assuming any sort of divine will to make things happen. *We observe that the sun travels across the sky and, with other observations, conclude that the earth is rotating on its axis and that causes our view on any particularly point on the planet to change throughout that rotation. No intelligent being is necessary for this to occur. There are no quirky personalities, foibles, jealousies, or beings to worship for fear that the process may stop because some god's got a burr up his butt again.




Correct.  Science assumes scientific reasons rather than religious ones.  It assumes them because it cant prove them.  Assumption is assumption and it's hypocrisy to tell religions that they are bad for assuming while scientists are not bad for assuming.  That scientists say they have better reasons for their assumptions does not absolve them of their hypocrisy.


----------



## Ryujin

Maxperson said:


> Correct.  Science assumes scientific reasons rather than religious ones.  It assumes them because it cant prove them.  Assumption is assumption and it's hypocrisy to tell religions that they are bad for assuming while scientists are not bad for assuming.  That scientists say they have better reasons for their assumptions does not absolve them of their hypocrisy.




That's like saying that j-walking and murder are both crimes, and so are equal.


----------



## Maxperson

Ryujin said:


> That's like saying that j-walking and murder are both crimes, and so are equal.




Who said anything about equal?  Not me.  I'm saying that a thief calling a murderer bad for being a criminal is a hypocrite, and he is.  Both are bad for being criminals.  Equality isn't a part of it.


----------



## Ryujin

Maxperson said:


> Who said anything about equal?  Not me.  I'm saying that a thief calling a murderer bad for being a criminal is a hypocrite, and he is.  Both are bad for being criminals.  Equality isn't a part of it.




And there's a little thing that enters into such issues that is referred to as "scale." There's a big difference between examining all available evidence and formulating, and then testing a hypothesis, or immediately leaping to the conclusion that the sun rises because the Great God Steve opens the cosmic refrigerator door. One is a best estimate based or observable and repeatable phenomena, while the other is blind faith. You are equating the two, using a disingenuous premise.


----------



## Nagol

Maxperson said:


> Correct.  Science assumes scientific reasons rather than religious ones.  It assumes them because it cant prove them.  Assumption is assumption and it's hypocrisy to tell religions that they are bad for assuming while scientists are not bad for assuming.  That scientists say they have better reasons for their assumptions does not absolve them of their hypocrisy.




No, science builds models that work according to observation; they are called theories.  If the model doesn't work well enough to properly explain/predict all the observations, science looks for a new model or a modification of the current one to better match observation.  If observations can best be modelled by intelligent meddling, you can bet that will be one of the competing models science will look at.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> Correct.  Science assumes scientific reasons rather than religious ones.




What is a "scientific reason"?



> It assumes them because it cant prove them.




Science does not generally assume reasons - a scientist posits a hypothesis, and then *tests* it to see if it holds up under scrutiny.  And then they test some other way.  And then other people find yet more ways to test.  Putting something to a barrage of tests to see if hit holds water is pretty much the opposite of assuming a thing to be true.

And even when something seems to pass all the barrage of tests, it is still subject to revision later - see Newton and Einstein as an example.

If there is a "belief" at in all of this, it is in the idea that this process of testing, revising, and testing again eventually gets you closer and closer to a accurate picture of what's going on.  A belief that has the result of all the technology that is part of your life seems like a pretty reasonable thing to hold, rather than something hypocritical



> Assumption is assumption and it's hypocrisy to tell religions that they are bad for assuming while scientists are not bad for assuming.




While a particular scientists may become dogmatic about a given theory or hypothesis, science, overall and in the long run, is not.  You are mis-characterizing science.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

The fundamental differences between religious beliefs and the scientific process isn't the assumptions, it is in the standard of proof & testability/falsifiability.

If a scientist's assumptions are not provable from observable, repeatable tests, they're tossed.

Religious beliefs do not face that kind of scrutiny.  They don't get tossed.

That fundamental difference is why Catholicism does not teach that science and religion are incompatible: science derives from the rational testing, faith is a gift from the divine.

(See also Thomas Aquinas's teachings.)


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Religious beliefs do not face that kind of scrutiny.  They don't get tossed.




Moreover, they *cannot* be given that kind of scrutiny.  If you posit an omnipotent, omniscient deity, then when dealing with a religious belief, any potential evidence contradicting the belief can be dismissed with, "That's what God wants it to look like."  Religious beliefs are fundamentally non-falsifiable - there is no test or data that can disprove them because one can always, "play the God card."


----------



## Maxperson

Ryujin said:


> And there's a little thing that enters into such issues that is referred to as "scale." There's a big difference between examining all available evidence and formulating, and then testing a hypothesis, or immediately leaping to the conclusion that the sun rises because the Great God Steve opens the cosmic refrigerator door. One is a best estimate based or observable and repeatable phenomena, while the other is blind faith. You are equating the two, using a disingenuous premise.




Scale is irrelevant when it comes to hypocrisy.  Either you are being hypocritical or you are not.  You don't get to make assumptions, even if those assumption are based on rigorous testing and then call others out for assumptions of any kind.   You can disagree with them, but if you put them down for assuming you are a hypocrite.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> What is a "scientific reason"?




A reason based in the scientific process.



> Science does not generally assume reasons - a scientist posits a hypothesis, and then *tests* it to see if it holds up under scrutiny.  And then they test some other way.  And then other people find yet more ways to test.  Putting something to a barrage of tests to see if hit holds water is pretty much the opposite of assuming a thing to be true.
> 
> And even when something seems to pass all the barrage of tests, it is still subject to revision later - see Newton and Einstein as an example.
> 
> If there is a "belief" at in all of this, it is in the idea that this process of testing, revising, and testing again eventually gets you closer and closer to a accurate picture of what's going on.  A belief that has the result of all the technology that is part of your life seems like a pretty reasonable thing to hold, rather than something hypocritical
> 
> While a particular scientists may become dogmatic about a given theory or hypothesis, science, overall and in the long run, is not.  You are mis-characterizing science.




Some things such as the big bang cannot be proven in any way.  You cant test that theory for truth.  You can only look at how things are working (or we think they're working) in the universe and see if it contradicts the theory or not.


----------



## Ryujin

Maxperson said:


> Scale is irrelevant when it comes to hypocrisy.  Either you are being hypocritical or you are not.  You don't get to make assumptions, even if those assumption are based on rigorous testing and then call others out for assumptions of any kind.   You can disagree with them, but if you put them down for assuming you are a hypocrite.




It's not hypocritical and you certainly can call out the assumptions of others, when the very process behind your own assumptions calls for the constant and consistent attempts to disprove your own. THAT is science.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> A reason based in the scientific process.




Reasons, in and of themselves, are not based in the scientific process.  The Universe is what it is.  Its operation is based in itself.  It would be what it is whether or not primates or any other organisms anywhere developed science.  The action of a cell is not *based on* the microscope - the microscope allows you see the actions of the cell.

The scientific process (which is a glib phrase, but I'll allow it for the moment) is a method for *finding* reasons.  Science is merely a set of  tools and processes we mere mortals with our limited sensory apparatus and cognitive quirks have to finding out what the Universe is and how it operates.  



> Some things such as the big bang cannot be proven in any way.




Depends what you call "proof".  In the same sense as a logical mathematical proof?  No, but then nothing outside mathematics can be so proven, and no practical scientists claims to prove anything in that sense.  In the more colloquial sense of having tons of evidence for it, and making predictions which turn out to happen in reality, however, science does pretty well.



> You cant test that theory for truth.  You can only look at how things are working (or we think they're working) in the universe and see if it contradicts the theory or not.




And, if the action of the universe contradicts the theory, we know the theory is wrong, now don't we?  If the action of the universe *fails* to contradict the theory, and the theory clearly, measurably, and repeatedly predicts what actually happens in many ways, then why shouldn't we figure we are onto something?

And, you can do slightly more than what you say above.  A good working theory has the following characteristics:

1) It is consistent with what you already know - all currently known phenomena are covered by the theory.
2) It is consistent with or predicts phenomena that are not covered by other theories.

For the basics, Einsteinian gravity reduces to Newtonian gravity.  However, Newtonian gravity doesn't predict the precession of the orbit of Mercury, doesn't properly predict the lensing of light around the Sun, and doesn't handle gravitational redshift of light.  Einsteinian gravity does all those better than Newtonian mechanics does.  And it isn't that Einstein just cobbled together something that predicts the results of known experiments of his time - there's tests that he couldn't make in his own time, that have been done since - when a theory predicts phenomena that its own creator didn't consider, and fits old phenomena to levels of accuracy and precision unavailable to in the time of the original formulation, that's rather more than, "We can see if the universe contradicts the theory."


----------



## Maxperson

Ryujin said:


> It's not hypocritical and you certainly can call out the assumptions of others, when the very process behind your own assumptions calls for the constant and consistent attempts to disprove your own. THAT is science.




Ahh, so you think it's okay to be a hypocrite if you believe that your reasons for assuming are better than the other guy's.  Sorry, that's not the way it works.  You don't get a pass just because you think your way is superior.  Heck, you don't get a pass even if your way really is superior.  If you do something and call someone out for doing the same thing, the reasons you do it are irrelevant.  You are a hypocrite.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> Moreover, they *cannot* be given that kind of scrutiny.  If you posit an omnipotent, omniscient deity, then when dealing with a religious belief, any potential evidence contradicting the belief can be dismissed with, "That's what God wants it to look like."  Religious beliefs are fundamentally non-falsifiable - there is no test or data that can disprove them because one can always, "play the God card."



Yep.


----------



## Ryujin

Maxperson said:


> Ahh, so you think it's okay to be a hypocrite if you believe that your reasons for assuming are better than the other guy's.  Sorry, that's not the way it works.  You don't get a pass just because you think your way is superior.  Heck, you don't get a pass even if your way really is superior.  If you do something and call someone out for doing the same thing, the reasons you do it are irrelevant.  You are a hypocrite.




Nice deflection. Not simply assuming that your own beliefs are correct _IS_ superior and building a logical structure that begins with the belief that your assumptions are incorrect, then continues to test them as more knowledge is obtained, is far from hypocritical.


----------



## Maxperson

Ryujin said:


> Nice deflection. Not simply assuming that your own beliefs are correct _IS_ superior and building a logical structure that begins with the belief that your assumptions are incorrect, then continues to test them as more knowledge is obtained, is far from hypocritical.




Prove it.  You need to prove that assuming is not assuming, since that's what your arguments are effectively claiming.  You are saying that because science assumes in a different way than religion, that it is not really assuming.  That's the only way it wouldn't be hypocritical, because if science's assumptions were assumptions, they would be hypocrites for getting down on religion for making assumptions.  

And the only deflections going on here are yours.  Superiority doesn't matter.  Scale doesn't matter.  How you go about coming to your assumptions doesn't matter.  Stop deflecting and prove that science isn't being hypocritical by engaging in "Do what I say, not what I do."


----------



## Ryujin

Maxperson said:


> Prove it.  You need to prove that assuming is not assuming, since that's what your arguments are effectively claiming.  You are saying that because science assumes in a different way than religion, that it is not really assuming.  That's the only way it wouldn't be hypocritical, because if science's assumptions were assumptions, they would be hypocrites for getting down on religion for making assumptions.
> 
> And the only deflections going on here are yours.  Superiority doesn't matter.  Scale doesn't matter.  How you go about coming to your assumptions doesn't matter.  Stop deflecting and prove that science isn't being hypocritical by engaging in "Do what I say, not what I do."




Yup, if I needed any proof that walking away from this the first time was the right decision, I've just had that decision supported. Up is down and black is white and I am the walrus. Goo goo g'joob.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> Right, because no one believes that the big bang happened.  It's hypocrisy for people to slam religions for believing religious things based on observations, but support themselves for believing things based on observations.



You actually saw god!? Does it have a gender?


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> You need to prove that assuming is not assuming...




"Have you stopped beating your wife?"  The question has an implicit assumption of an action taking place that has not happened (wife beating in Groucho's case, science assuming things in your case), and so is nonsensical.



> Stop deflecting and prove that science isn't being hypocritical by engaging in "Do what I say, not what I do."




Let us take the Big Bang as an example.  

Back in 1920, Einstein's version of the Universe in General Relativity was static - neither growing nor shrinking in time, and having always existed and always would exist.  In 1922 and 1923, Edwin Hubble showed that the Milky Way was not the whole of the Universe, that there were other galaxies outside our own.

In 1927 Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître put forth a model of an expanding universe, based on Einstein's equations.  Einstein admitted the math was good, but had issues with the non-static result.  In 1929, observations by Edwin Hubble (because of how things got names, a lot of people don't realize the initial theory was Lemaître's, not Hubble's) backed up Lemaître's theory.  For many years, there was a great deal of arguing over this - many, including Einstein, were not comfortable with the idea of an expanding Universe, thought Einstein actually encouraged Lemaître to keep working on the theory.  In 1948, Ralph Alpher, and Robert Herman worked out that if the Universe had once been a small, dense, hot ball, there would be some leftover background radiation to the Universe.  The existence of this radiation was discovered in 1964  by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson at the Crawford Hill location of Bell Telephone Laboratories in Holmdel Township, New Jersey (scooping several other groups in so doing).

Since then, the model has been updated several times over.

This is pretty much the poster child for science overall *not* making assumptions.  Each step of the development of the model has been accompanied by wrangling, lots of math, and experimental verification, rather than flat assumption of correctness.  Yes, today is it taken as likely the best guess we have as to how the Universe came to be - though it is understood there's still stuff about it we don't know.  But, there are still a couple of competing theories out there - they either make predictions that don't match observations nearly as well as Big Bang does, or are actually non-falsifiable (either practically of the moment, or outright theoretically).


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> Let us take the Big Bang as an example.
> 
> Back in 1902, Einstein's version of the Universe in General Relativity was static - neither growing nor shrinking in time, and having always existed and always would exist.  In 1922 and 1923, Edwin Hubble showed that the Milky Way was not the whole of the Universe, that there were other galaxies outside our own.
> 
> In 1927 Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître put forth a model of an expanding universe, based on Einstein's equations.  Einstein admitted the math was good, but had issues with the non-static result.  In 1929, observations by Edwin Hubble (because of how things got names, a lot of people don't realize the initial theory was Lemaître's, not Hubble's) backed up Lemaître's theory.  For many years, there was a great deal of arguing over this - many, including Einstein, were not comfortable with the idea of an expanding Universe, thought Einstein actually encouraged Lemaître to keep working on the theory.  In 1948, Ralph Alpher, and Robert Herman worked out that if the Universe had once been a small, dense, hot ball, there would be some leftover background radiation to the Universe.  *The existence of this radiation* was discovered in 1964  by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson at the Crawford Hill location of Bell Telephone Laboratories in Holmdel Township, New Jersey (scooping several other groups in so doing).
> 
> Since then, the model has been updated several times over.
> 
> This is pretty much the poster child for science overall *not* making assumptions.  Each step of the development of the model has been accompanied by wrangling, lots of math, and experimental verification, rather than flat assumption of correctness.  Yes, today is it taken as likely the best guess we have as to how the Universe came to be - though it is understood there's still stuff about it we don't know.  But, there are still a couple of competing theories out there - they either make predictions that don't match observations nearly as well as Big Bang does, or are actually non-falsifiable (either practically of the moment, or outright theoretically).




I get that it wasn't a flat assumption.  I'm not saying that.  However, assumption is there.  It was assumed by Einstein that due to his math, the universe was constant and not moving.  It was then assumed by the others due to their math that it was moving.  It was then assumed by Herman that there would be radiation if the universe began as a small mass.  The next assumption is bolded above.  The existence of radiation was discovered.  Whether it was "this" radiation or some other radiation isn't known, but is assumed to be from the big bang.

I'm not disputing that the assumptions of science aren't grounded in math and other more solid approaches to the blind faith of religion, or that those assumptions are not subject to challenge and change.  That's a stark difference from religious assumptions.  However, they are still assumptions.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> It was assumed by Einstein that due to his math, the universe was constant and not moving.




Actually, no it wasn't!  

Einstein's original formulation could allow for either an expending, or a static universe - the difference between them is a constant (usually called the "Cosmological constant").  He could go either way.  Since the universe *as observed at the time* was constant, he chose that formulation.  When given evidence that the static universe was incorrect, he resisted some, but he also did encourage the line of investigation.  Eventually, he did accept the expending Universe, and the formulation that allows expansion was used for some time, with the constant left out.

Then, after Einstein passed, we discovered the rate of expansion was still increasing... and back came the constant, with a different value, and that seems to explain our Dark Energy.  



> It was then assumed by the others due to their math that it was moving.




Nope.  Someone put forth a model where it was expanding.  This is not "assumed due to their math".  It was seen to be a possibility, so someone worked out the details, and it was discussed in the community at great length.  Then, later, observations were made that supported the hypothesis.  And more observations, and yet more, until the evidence was such that it seems a pretty good bet that's what happened.

And, as I said, there are still other theories out there.

So, I still reject your characterization of science "assuming" much of anything - we are quite capable to exploring and testing ideas without assuming them to be actually true - we design an experiment that will turn out one way if the model is accurate, and other ways if it isn't.  We don't have to assume one way or another when the data will eventually tell us.

Yes, individual practitioners will sometimes have their favorites.  But even then, folks (like Einstein, above) come around with data.  And, science, as a collective endeavor, thrives on the differences of guesses, not on everyone assuming the same thing is correct.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Starbucks joins in on the Christian persecution.


----------



## Ryujin

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Starbucks joins in on the Christian persecution.




How dare Starbucks fail to display that image central to Christianity; the snowflake! Yes, that was sarcasm, if there was any doubt.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Starbucks joins in on the Christian persecution.




Oyyyyyyyy vey.


----------



## Kramodlog

I guess my family is very anti-Christmas/Christian this year. We've chosen to make and eat Italian food this year. Antipasto and insalata instead eating turkey like Baby Jesus did in the manger.


----------



## Maxperson

To make matter even more bizarre.  In order to accuse Starbucks of being anti-Christmas, those people had to ignore that Starbucks sells a Christmas blend, a Christmas card, and an Advent calendar.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Nagol said:


> No, science builds models that work according to observation; they are called theories.  If the model doesn't work well enough to properly explain/predict all the observations, science looks for a new model or a modification of the current one to better match observation.  If observations can best be modelled by intelligent meddling, you can bet that will be one of the competing models science will look at.



Not really.  Science is incapable of dealing with things that cannot be observed, and so doesn't generally bother.  Science, for instance, is quite moot on the topic of an intelligent creator kicking everything into motion and then watching (the watch-maker deist theories).  And it will forever be, so it doesn't bother.


Dannyalcatraz said:


> The fundamental differences between religious beliefs and the scientific process isn't the assumptions, it is in the standard of proof & testability/falsifiability.
> 
> If a scientist's assumptions are not provable from observable, repeatable tests, they're tossed.
> 
> Religious beliefs do not face that kind of scrutiny.  They don't get tossed.
> 
> That fundamental difference is why Catholicism does not teach that science and religion are incompatible: science derives from the rational testing, faith is a gift from the divine.
> 
> (See also Thomas Aquinas's teachings.)



Long term, that's probably correct.  Science as a tool, in the long run, generally discards the bad and adopts the good.  The problem is that people assume the long term trend in mirrored in the short term; that because it's science, it must always be moving towards the correct goal at all times.  This is flatly false.  Indeed, post-normal science rarely bothers with repeatable testing, sometimes discarding testing altogether because it's hard or impossible to test, yet the truthiness of the theory proposed is enough to get there (maybe with some modeling).  Global warming is a great example:  a rock solid, tested theory that more CO2 will, ceteris paribus, cause warming to a known amount, but then saddled with guess after guess and layered with uncertain model results to get a specific answer that hasn't be verified in the least (it's all theory).  Sure, maybe it's right, but you'll never see the massive uncertainties associated with the theory presented alongside it's predictions of doom.  Post-normal science. 

(for the record, I fully anticipate that the coming warming will be solidly within the estimates provided by the IPCC.)




Umbran said:


> Moreover, they *cannot* be given that kind of scrutiny.  If you posit an omnipotent, omniscient deity, then when dealing with a religious belief, any potential evidence contradicting the belief can be dismissed with, "That's what God wants it to look like."  Religious beliefs are fundamentally non-falsifiable - there is no test or data that can disprove them because one can always, "play the God card."




To be fair, science rests on some critical assumptions no less untestable or verifiable, but that we all take for granted.  That observation reveals truth.  That the fundamental axioms of math are true.  Etc.  Sure, we have a long history of success with those assumptions, but they're still assumptions.  

Science is a wonderful tool for discovery of the natural world.  But it's not the only tool, nor always the best one.  Sometimes it's the wrong tool entirely.  Science isn't suited to determining moral questions, for instance.  It's the belief that science is the only, best tool to solve all problems that's quasi-religious -- it's as unfounded as belief in God(s), but it doesn't some otherwise very bright people from doing it.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> Not really.  Science is incapable of dealing with things that cannot be observed...




That is not a limit of science, but of humanity.  Nobody is capable of dealing with things that cannot be observed.  Or, at least, such "dealing with" cannot be demonstrated, even to yourself.



> To be fair, science rests on some critical assumptions no less untestable or verifiable, but that we all take for granted.  That observation reveals truth.




That's not actually a base assumption.  That observation reveals truth is gleaned by science through inductive reasoning.  Science is very much, "the proof is in the pudding".



> That the fundamental axioms of math are true.




Again, not actually a base assumption, but more inductive reasoning.  If math didn't produce results, we would not use it in science.  



> Science is a wonderful tool for discovery of the natural world.  But it's not the only tool, nor always the best one.  Sometimes it's the wrong tool entirely.  Science isn't suited to determining moral questions, for instance.




Upon what do you base that assertion?

You need to be very careful with the reasoning here, in that there's a gulf between, "science isn't suited," and, "science is not yet advanced enough."  Can you support the assertion that even with advances in psychology, cognitive sciences, sociology and anthropology, science will not ever be able to take on moral questions?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I'm not a big fan of Starbucks, but I may have to get a red cup of something before the Apocalypse.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-...ping_b_8510244.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm not a big fan of Starbucks, but I may have to get a red cup of something before the Apocalypse.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-...ping_b_8510244.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592




Feuersetin. Ugh.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> That is not a limit of science, but of humanity.  Nobody is capable of dealing with things that cannot be observed.  Or, at least, such "dealing with" cannot be demonstrated, even to yourself.



Morality can't be observed, yet it's a core dealing of philosophy.  Numbers can't be observed, yet science assumes their reality.





> That's not actually a base assumption.  That observation reveals truth is gleaned by science through inductive reasoning.  Science is very much, "the proof is in the pudding".



Inductive reasoning starts from unverifiable axioms.  If you're using inductive reasoning to verify your axioms, you're doing it wrong.




> Again, not actually a base assumption, but more inductive reasoning.  If math didn't produce results, we would not use it in science.



No, it is a core assumption.  If it is not, please provide the formal inductive reasoning, with no underlying axioms, that proves it, as a Fields Medal is in your immediate future.



> Upon what do you base that assertion?
> 
> You need to be very careful with the reasoning here, in that there's a gulf between, "science isn't suited," and, "science is not yet advanced enough."  Can you support the assertion that even with advances in psychology, cognitive sciences, sociology and anthropology, science will not ever be able to take on moral questions?




Ah, the 'science will one day be able to uncover all truths.'  Truly, sir, I did not mean to offend your religion.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> Ah, the 'science will one day be able to uncover all truths.'  Truly, sir, I did not mean to offend your religion.




Positivism is a philosophy, not a religion.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> Morality can't be observed, yet it's a core dealing of philosophy.




You know what I'm going to say to that, right?  How do you *know* morality cannot be observed?  Your personal assertion of it as fact is hardly sufficient.  We need at least some logic there.

You have undoubtedly seen, at some point, someone who saw a charitable action by a person, and said, "That was a good thing she did," or, "She's such a good person!"  How is this not someone observing morality?

I will accept that, at the moment, morality is much like pornography - "I'll know it when I see it."  But the fact that it is currently difficult to define does not prove that we cannot observe it.  The fact that we know it when we *see* it, instead, speaks to it being observable, but that quantifying it is difficult.  



> Numbers can't be observed, yet science assumes their reality.




No.  Science assumes their *utility*.  Whether numbers have some intrinsic reality is generally left to the philosophers.  We use them because they happen to be extremely functional.  Functional to the point where, in our philosophical moments, we do wonder about their reality, sure.  Even scientists have their moments of musing.



> Inductive reasoning starts from unverifiable axioms.  If you're using inductive reasoning to verify your axioms, you're doing it wrong.




Um, no.  *Deductive* reasoning starts from unverifiable axioms.  Inductive reasoning is the process of making many specific observations, and deriving general principles from their commonalities.  Note that this is different from "mathematical induction", which, despite the name, is a form of deductive reasoning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning



> No, it is a core assumption.  If it is not, please provide the formal inductive reasoning, with no underlying axioms, that proves it, as a Fields Medal is in your immediate future.




That comes across as a bit snarky.  Maybe you want to review the terminology, and see if you want to continue with that tone.  Inductive reasoning admits to a measure of uncertainty - inductive reasoning does not give "proof" in the formal mathematical sense.



> Ah, the 'science will one day be able to uncover all truths.'  Truly, sir, I did not mean to offend your religion.




Religion is not sentient, and cannot be offended.  You have not offended me.  You have wandered into being what I am tempted to call, "not even wrong," which is not offensive, merely regrettable to see.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> You know what I'm going to say to that, right?  How do you *know* morality cannot be observed?  Your personal assertion of it as fact is hardly sufficient.  We need at least some logic there.
> 
> You have undoubtedly seen, at some point, someone who saw a charitable action by a person, and said, "That was a good thing she did," or, "She's such a good person!"  How is this not someone observing morality?
> 
> I will accept that, at the moment, morality is much like pornography - "I'll know it when I see it."  But the fact that it is currently difficult to define does not prove that we cannot observe it.  The fact that we know it when we *see* it, instead, speaks to it being observable, but that quantifying it is difficult.



Seriously, that's the extent of your argument?  A weak form of the argument from ignorance?  You're actually proposing that there is a definite, universal, absolute morality with measurable quanta that science can get a hold of?  Interesting theory.  I'll just stick with my 'science and morality don't mix' and accept your poo-pooing that I can't prove it so.  The alternative is a bit too wonky for me to work with.




> No.  Science assumes their *utility*.  Whether numbers have some intrinsic reality is generally left to the philosophers.  We use them because they happen to be extremely functional.  Functional to the point where, in our philosophical moments, we do wonder about their reality, sure.  Even scientists have their moments of musing.



So you're freely admitting that science is based on an assumption of the utility of something that may or may not exist, not that science can prove it, yes?  

It's like I say, "science has some fundamental assumptions that it cannot resolve," and you say, "no, it doesn't," and I say, "look at numbers," and you say, "numbers are something we just take on faith because their useful, whether they exist or not is up to [not-science]."  And then, I say, "thank you for making my point for me."



> Um, no.  *Deductive* reasoning starts from unverifiable axioms.  Inductive reasoning is the process of making many specific observations, and deriving general principles from their commonalities.  Note that this is different from "mathematical induction", which, despite the name, is a form of deductive reasoning.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning




I was aware of that, and was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't serious mean inductive reasoning, and had intended deductive.  Inductive reasoning is saying 'our best guess' which is totally unsuited as an answer to my statement that the fundamental axioms of math are true.  You've essentially stated by using inductive reasoning that 'since we use math, we assume math is true.'  Which is exactly what I said when I said that science assumes fundamental facts in order to function.



> That comes across as a bit snarky.  Maybe you want to review the terminology, and see if you want to continue with that tone.  Inductive reasoning admits to a measure of uncertainty - inductive reasoning does not give "proof" in the formal mathematical sense.



I meant the snark.  I mean it more now that you've clarified that you did indeed mean to use inductive, not deductive.  You've ceded the argument to me while arguing otherwise.



> Religion is not sentient, and cannot be offended.  You have not offended me.  You have wandered into being what I am tempted to call, "not even wrong," which is not offensive, merely regrettable to see.



No, that turn of phrase isn't meant to say that I offended religion itself, only your religious beliefs -- that science will one day be the answer for everything.  

I respect science.  I use it and it's products daily.  But it's a tool, nothing more.  It's not the only tool, and sometimes not even a useful tool, but it's mostly a damned good one.  I just don't mistake the tool for anything more.


----------



## Istbor

I just can't understand fellow Christians some times. How one can take the Bible and its teachings as absolute when it concerns things you are against, but then completely ignore the words that profess humility and understanding.  In the same book. 

What is worse, is that there are no official denouncements of such people. I mean sure, it can go without saying that another's opinion does not reflect on the Religion as a whole.  At a certain point though?  What would be so wrong with denouncing a few practitioners who are consistently spouting misinformation and vitriol.


----------



## Umbran

Istbor said:


> What is worse, is that there are no official denouncements of such people. I mean sure, it can go without saying that another's opinion does not reflect on the Religion as a whole.  At a certain point though?  What would be so wrong with denouncing a few practitioners who are consistently spouting misinformation and vitriol.




It isn't like most denominations are unified enough, or have authority figures well-known enough, to be heard.  How many people off the tops of their heads know the name of even a single current major religious authority other than the Pope?  And sure, the Pope or a Cardinal might denounce some major Catholic public figure who goes off the rails, but nobody is going to listen to a Catholic denouncing a Baptist, or a Lutheran, or something.  

Any number of moderate Muslim clerics, for example *have* denounced the policies and actions of Muslim extreme factions.  Can you name one?  I can't.  Some American politicos keep asking why the moderate Muslim community doesn't come out against the extremists, when they *have* been doing so!  

There is also an issue of possible conflict of interest involved.  Major religious authorities, of course, want their voices to be heard by as many as possible.  How much can you advocate for your own voice to be heard at the same time as you are effectively trying to silence another?  We have, in the past, had bloody wars over even minor bits of Christian dogma, and "Papist" was used as a dirty word for a long time in mostly-Protestant early America.  I suspect the community overall is not interested in engaging in the business of telling some of their number they are *wrong* these days.

So, maybe the question isn't so much, "What would be wrong with...?" as "What's the point, and does it help to do so, really?"


----------



## Istbor

I see where you are coming from. It is true that some of the denominations do not have a central figure or system so it would be that much more difficult.  

I can't agree with your final point however.  I may have presented a flawed question that I can admit. The thought that it is futile and so we just need to let it be, is something I will not get behind. Ultimately it is up to those organizations.  If they are fine with followers producing such content, they cannot be forced. I just don't believe a call for change or betterment should be stifled with "but what good will it do?".

I will adjust my question to "What should be done?", or "Are we okay as a society with allowing such actions to perpetuate?" and perhaps even "Should something be done about this?".


----------



## Kramodlog

Istbor said:


> I will adjust my question to "What should be done?", or "Are we okay as a society with allowing such actions to perpetuate?" and perhaps even "Should something be done about this?".




Ain't the fact that it ended up in the media and that Christians like you say it isn't Christian behavior enough? The Christian persecution sentiment that emerged in the US (maybe), didn't emerge overnight because of one incident. The counter movement will also take time. Racism and sexism are still being fought for. 

The question is how far are you willing to go? What you say in your everyday life and on the web is enough, but you can get involved more if you want. Christian messianism is such a poweful force when it is time to convert pagans, but when it comes to this or defend homosexuals, it doesn't seem to be able to mobilize as much.


----------



## Istbor

goldomark said:


> Ain't the fact that it ended up in the media and that Christians like you say it isn't Christian behavior enough? The Christian persecution sentiment that emerged in the US (maybe), didn't emerge overnight because of one incident. The counter movement will also take time. Racism and sexism are still being fought for.
> 
> The question is how far are you willing to go? What you say in your everyday life and on the web is enough, but you can get involved more if you want. Christian messianism is such a poweful force when it is time to convert pagans, but when it comes to this or defend homosexuals, it doesn't seem to be able to mobilize as much.




It is certainly good to see people, hopefully fellow Christians included, telling off someone who only seems to focus on more negative interpretations of the Bible and Religion as a whole.  It is a good start. To drive something like that home though, more seems to be needed. I think responses from the organized Religion, whatever the denomination, can come across as more official.  

Even if it is just the local parish or community. Stating that such gross statements go against fundamental teachings.  I cannot speak 100% for every different church, generally there is the pervading theme of "Love thy neighbor". 

I agree with you, that the moderate followers of a given Christian faith are not doing all that can be done to refute that their Religions categorically are against homosexuality.  It is getting better though. 

For what it is worth, I don't think God would care one bit about sexual orientation. If God does, it is not the sort of God I would want to worship.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

There's also the aspect of some sects of Christianity that have somewhat reversed the power structure of the faith hierarchy.  In the Catholic, Anglican, Episcopalian, and Orthodox traditions, priests are assigned to a parish.  Only his superiors can remove one: don't like what you hear, go somewhere else.  However, in many American Protestant/Evangelical churches, the pastor is an employee of the flock.  He can be fired.

The difference in culpability affects many things, including the messages emanating from the pulpit.  Here's an example from an article about the curious cocktail of faith & firearms:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...al-activist-changed-his-mind-on-gun-violence/



> Disney said that before she met Schenck, she spoke with three white evangelical megachurch pastors who told her she was right to point out the connection between gun violence and life, but they told her, “If I say anything, I’ll be destroyed.”


----------



## Kramodlog

Istbor said:


> Even if it is just the local parish or community. Stating that such gross statements go against fundamental teachings.  I cannot speak 100% for every different church, generally there is the pervading theme of "Love thy neighbor".




Its pretty easy to have the Bible say what you want. Jesus said to turn the other cheek? He also said he comes with a sword. Let the interpretations beging!

If some people think that there is a state of insurgency, "Christmas is under attack!" to name an example, maybe debunking that there is a state of insurgency is a better approach as it leaves less room for interpretation. 

But that sentiment of insurgency about Christmas is just the tip of a much bigger iceberg. The sentiment extends to gun control, abortions, same sex-unions, unauthorized immigrants, the birth place of Obama, Obamacare, socialism, taxes, corruption in Congress, the media, etc. There is a whole infractructure dedicated to fanning the sentiment of insurgency among people and tackling that is more complicated.


----------



## Umbran

Istbor said:


> The thought that it is futile and so we just need to let it be, is something I will not get behind.




Well, note that I didn't say, "let it be."  I questioned whether denouncing people, specifically, is a worthwhile action.  I didn't say there are no worthwhile actions!



> I will adjust my question to "What should be done?", or "Are we okay as a society with allowing such actions to perpetuate?" and perhaps even "Should something be done about this?".




I am not convinced that attempts to expunge objectionable opinions from the present are generally effective or useful (there may be specific instances, I'm talking about general plans here).  The more you try to silence some group, the more they dig in, and the louder they get.  You effectively wind up giving their position more exposure, rather than less, and you perpetuate the narrative of, "THEY are against US!"  This holds for more than just objectional religious ideas - sexism, racism, homophobia all show similar dynamics.

We see improvement in such things not by denouncing the leaders of the present, but through generational change.  As Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young said, "Teach your children well.  Their father's hell did slowly go by.  And feed them on your dreams, the one they fix, the one you'll know by."   On large social issues, it is perhaps  more important to teach kids what is right, than tell adults what is wrong.


----------



## Istbor

Can't teach an old dog new tricks. 

I see that is going on.  It is sad, but it is also human nature it seems. We still seem to only enact change until we MUST enact that change. Even then, it isn't pretty. 

Maybe I misspoke, at this stage I am not suggesting simply removing those objectionable opinions.  More like, reinforcing word out there that this is not the popular opinion of a particular church.  Regardless of the additional exposure. I would be interested to see what certain loud groups would make of it, when the very organizations they are claiming to defend or speak for publically denounce that that is the case. 

Ha, but then again that is what some people will want. 

And yes, I agree that teaching the next generation to avoid the same mistakes we make is very important.  That however... raises a lot of issues in my mind.  Especially with the saturation of social media, and its uses as an outlet for all sorts of positions.


----------



## MechaPilot

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Starbucks joins in on the Christian persecution.




Unfortunately, it's too little too late.

Christmas is the beast that will never stop eating.  It ate Thanksgiving.  It ate New Years.  It's chomping at the bit to eat my birthday (Halloween).  And it probably won't be too long before it starts expanding in the other direction again and tries to eat Valentine's Day.  Heck, I know people who start saving for Christmas gifts as soon as they get their tax refund in March or April.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

MechaPilot said:


> Unfortunately, it's too little too late.
> 
> Christmas is the beast that will never stop eating.  It ate Thanksgiving.  It ate New Years.  It's chomping at the bit to eat my birthday (Halloween).  And it probably won't be too long before it starts expanding in the other direction again and tries to eat Valentine's Day.  Heck, I know people who start saving for Christmas gifts as soon as they get their tax refund in March or April.



Well happy late birthday. Mine is actually November first. Christmas already ate my birthday. Down here in Miami, Christmas has already eaten your birthday as well as half of October. I'm pretty sure by next year, it'll be down to June, which for us is the start of hurricane season. I'm betting the first hurricane of the season in 2016 will be called Christmas.


----------



## MechaPilot

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Well happy late birthday. Mine is actually November first. Christmas already ate my birthday. Down here in Miami, Christmas has already eaten your birthday as well as half of October. I'm pretty sure by next year, it'll be down to June, which for us is the start of hurricane season. I'm betting the first hurricane of the season in 2016 will be called Christmas.




Thank you, and a belated happy birthday to you as well.

I think naming a hurricane "Christmas" would be quite amusing.  Then again, given the tendency for some people to feel down during the holidays, a "tropical depression Christmas" might be equally appropriate.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

MechaPilot said:


> Thank you, and a belated happy birthday to you as well.
> 
> I think naming a hurricane "Christmas" would be quite amusing.  Then again, given the tendency for some people to feel down during the holidays, a "tropical depression Christmas" might be equally appropriate.



Thanks.
I'm sure retailers are pushing hard to make it happen. Home Depot and Lowes will probably be bringing out commercials telling people to buy storm shutter as Christmas gifts.


----------



## Maxperson

MechaPilot said:


> Unfortunately, it's too little too late.
> 
> Christmas is the beast that will never stop eating.  It ate Thanksgiving.  It ate New Years.  It's chomping at the bit to eat my birthday (Halloween).  And it probably won't be too long before it starts expanding in the other direction again and tries to eat Valentine's Day.  Heck, I know people who start saving for Christmas gifts as soon as they get their tax refund in March or April.




I've seen more than one Los Angeles store with Christmas in July to sell the left over stuff from the prior year.


----------



## Kramodlog

Since this is a religion thread. 

Baby Jesus? Clearly an anchor baby designed to give Roman citizenship to a citizen of Heaven.


----------



## Maxperson

There is no way to properly vet people coming from a country where you can literally buy whatever identity you want via bribery.  It would be nice if we could, but we can't and Obama is straight out lying when he says that's what he is doing.


----------



## Kramodlog

Since 9/11, the US has let 745,000 refugees in the US and none of them has been arrested for domestic terrorism charges. http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ng?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/yearningtobreathefree

Seems vetting is possible.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> There is no way to properly vet people coming from a country where you can literally buy whatever identity you want via bribery.




You can buy what documents you want, but "identity" goes rather deeper than documents, if you are digging.  

But that is neither here nor there.  Reacting to this attack by blocking Syrian refugees is kind of like insisting that everyone in town by snow tires after a terrible car crash in the summertime.  The response may seem to have some logic to it, but it is not evidence-based.  One actor in the Paris attack had a (fake) Syrian passport, but the rest were European nationals.  The guy who planned it was Belgian.  Restricting refugees would not have stopped the attack.

The fact of the matter is, trying to come in via the refugee path is *stupid*.  The process takes years, you cannot count on which individuals will be chosen, and the people are scrutinized carefully.  I saw it best summed up in this way:

“Hmm, we want to attack the United States. I know! Let’s go in as refugees! First, we have to hope that the UN High Commission for Refugees or another official entity places us in that lucky 1% that’s eligible for resettlement, which will take 4-10 months to determine. Then we’ll hopefully be referred to the Resettlement Support Center and pass that extensive background check and in-person interview with the Department of Homeland Security, in addition to further security clearance processes from the Consular Lookout and Support System and potentially the Security Advisory Opinion. If all of these bodies say we’re clear and then we pass the medical screening, are matched with a sponsor agency, and then pass an additional security check to see if anything new has developed, then we might be admitted! It will only take us at lowest a year and a half, but probably two years or maybe even three. It’s probably the toughest way to come in to the US - pretty much every other way is easier - but we must do this refugee route!” 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ming-to-the-u-s-as-refugees-in-one-paragraph/

Refugees are a non-issue.  

"A State Department spokesperson said of the nearly 785,000 refugees admitted through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program since 9/11, “only about a dozen — a tiny fraction of one percent of admitted refugees — have been arrested or removed from the U.S. due to terrorism concerns that existed prior to their resettlement in the U.S. None of them were Syrian.” The spokesperson declined to specify what exactly the security concerns were, how many of the dozen were arrested, and for what charges." 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-been-arrested-on-domestic-terrorism-charges/

So that's one percent of one percent of refugees in 14 years.  So far, statistically, white guys with guns are a much bigger threat than terrorists masquerading as refugees.


----------



## Ryujin

Umbran said:


> You can buy what documents you want, but "identity" goes rather deeper than documents, if you are digging.
> 
> But that is neither here nor there.  Reacting to this attack by blocking Syrian refugees is kind of like insisting that everyone in town by snow tires after a terrible car crash in the summertime.  The response may seem to have some logic to it, but it is not evidence-based.  One actor in the Paris attack had a (fake) Syrian passport, but the rest were European nationals.  The guy who planned it was Belgian.  Restricting refugees would not have stopped the attack.
> 
> The fact of the matter is, trying to come in via the refugee path is *stupid*.  The process takes years, you cannot count on which individuals will be chosen, and the people are scrutinized carefully.  I saw it best summed up in this way:
> 
> “Hmm, we want to attack the United States. I know! Let’s go in as refugees! First, we have to hope that the UN High Commission for Refugees or another official entity places us in that lucky 1% that’s eligible for resettlement, which will take 4-10 months to determine. Then we’ll hopefully be referred to the Resettlement Support Center and pass that extensive background check and in-person interview with the Department of Homeland Security, in addition to further security clearance processes from the Consular Lookout and Support System and potentially the Security Advisory Opinion. If all of these bodies say we’re clear and then we pass the medical screening, are matched with a sponsor agency, and then pass an additional security check to see if anything new has developed, then we might be admitted! It will only take us at lowest a year and a half, but probably two years or maybe even three. It’s probably the toughest way to come in to the US - pretty much every other way is easier - but we must do this refugee route!”
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ming-to-the-u-s-as-refugees-in-one-paragraph/
> 
> Refugees are a non-issue.
> 
> "A State Department spokesperson said of the nearly 785,000 refugees admitted through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program since 9/11, “only about a dozen — a tiny fraction of one percent of admitted refugees — have been arrested or removed from the U.S. due to terrorism concerns that existed prior to their resettlement in the U.S. None of them were Syrian.” The spokesperson declined to specify what exactly the security concerns were, how many of the dozen were arrested, and for what charges."
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-been-arrested-on-domestic-terrorism-charges/
> 
> So that's one percent of one percent of refugees in 14 years.  So far, statistically, white guys with guns are a much bigger threat than terrorists masquerading as refugees.




Ultimately, people will believe what they choose to believe. For instance there are still a fair number of Americans who believe that the 9/11 terrorists got into the US by way of Canada, due to early poorly vetted reports in the media.


----------



## Umbran

Ryujin said:


> Ultimately, people will believe what they choose to believe.




Yes.  And it thus behooves us to give them reasons to believe things that are at least vaguely related to reality.


----------



## Cor Azer

Umbran said:


> Yes.  And it thus behooves us to give them reasons to believe things that are at least vaguely related to reality.




Now that's just crazy talk!


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> Ultimately, people will believe what they choose to believe.



So in a representatie democracy, should elected officials act according to what the population wants and believes, even if it is wrong, or should they act according to what is true and best? Probably defined by intellectual elites in various areas of expertice.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

As I pointed out in a similar discussion elsewhere, fearing the Syrian refugees because of the past or possible actions of terrorists among them is as nonsensical as blaming all whites for the actions of the KKK or all NRA members for the actions of family annihilators and spree killers (mass murderers who, by and large, commit their crimes with legally purchased guns).

The word for that is "paranoia."

Not only that, it is paranoia that endangers us more than in protects: studies show refugees are more likely to become radicalized the closer they are to the conflict they're fleeing; they are more likely to become radicalized if forced to live in camps & return instead of being allowed to resettle elsewhere.  (The leader of the recent attacks in Paris was apparently radicalized in a Iraqi POW camp.)

The odds of radicalization among Middle Eastern refugees drop even further when they are allowed to resettle in Western nations.

http://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-halp...terrorists-and-xenophobia-hurts-democracy-968

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...-in-not-accepting-syrian-refugees-into-the-us


----------



## tuxgeo

goldomark said:


> So in a representatie democracy, should elected officials act according to what the population wants and believes, even if it is wrong, or should they act according to what is true and best? Probably defined by intellectual elites in various areas of expertice.




That's the central quandary of western democracy. Thank you for pointing it out. 

The answer, according to the founders of the USA, was to insulate the actions of government from too much popular opinion by recognizing, and stating explicitly in the Constitution, that the people have rights that they cannot easily abandon; and by restricting the ability of the government to change the rules on a passing whim -- for values of "passing" that extend to decades or even centuries.

As to the "Probably defined . . ." portion of the quote above: 
_More likely defined by the accumulated perspective of more then two thousand years of history._ The current elites of the western democracies are largely on board with one pervasive, current, passing whim of largely shared policy, but that's not the best guide for how the government should act because it's so _'passing.'_ 

_(Unanimity in delusion is a prescription for catastrophe.)_


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> \
> But that is neither here nor there.  Reacting to this attack by blocking Syrian refugees is kind of like insisting that everyone in town by snow tires after a terrible car crash in the summertime.  The response may seem to have some logic to it, but it is not evidence-based.  One actor in the Paris attack had a (fake) Syrian passport, but the rest were European nationals.  The guy who planned it was Belgian.  Restricting refugees would not have stopped the attack.




They have no business being here.  It's not our job to take in everyone fleeing some world crisis.  There is always a crisis of some sort somewhere.  There are many surrounding countries that should be taking the Syrian refugees in locally so that they can go home when the crisis is over.



> “Hmm, we want to attack the United States. I know! Let’s go in as refugees! First, we have to hope that the UN High Commission for Refugees or another official entity places us in that lucky 1% that’s eligible for resettlement, which will take 4-10 months to determine. Then we’ll hopefully be referred to the Resettlement Support Center and pass that extensive background check and in-person interview with the Department of Homeland Security, in addition to further security clearance processes from the Consular Lookout and Support System and potentially the Security Advisory Opinion. If all of these bodies say we’re clear and then we pass the medical screening, are matched with a sponsor agency, and then pass an additional security check to see if anything new has developed, then we might be admitted! It will only take us at lowest a year and a half, but probably two years or maybe even three. It’s probably the toughest way to come in to the US - pretty much every other way is easier - but we must do this refugee route!”




You don't think that they plan things years in advance?  Or that they would try several different avenues to get into the country?



> Refugees are a non-issue.
> 
> "A State Department spokesperson said of the nearly 785,000 refugees admitted through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program since 9/11, “only about a dozen — a tiny fraction of one percent of admitted refugees — have been arrested or removed from the U.S. due to terrorism concerns that existed prior to their resettlement in the U.S. None of them were Syrian.” The spokesperson declined to specify what exactly the security concerns were, how many of the dozen were arrested, and for what charges."




A dozen is an issue, and that's just the dozen that was caught.  



> So that's one percent of one percent of refugees in 14 years.  So far, statistically, white guys with guns are a much bigger threat than terrorists masquerading as refugees.



Statistically, accidental deaths from cars dwarfs the number of deaths from even 9/11, so I guess we should just stop security altogether.  It doesn't matter if someone else is a bigger threat, you still need to take care of the small threats when you can.


----------



## Morrus

Maxperson said:


> They have no business being here.  It's not our job to take in everyone fleeing some world crisis.




Yes it is. It's everybody's job. Your country, my country, all the countries. That's what makes us not evil. We help people in need. We give to those less fortunate than ourselves. It is humanity's duty. 

The whole world is doing it. Everyone is doing what they can. 

Just like during WW2 when people fled the Nazi persecution. That enriched your country, particularly. Not that the benefit is why it should be done. 

To have so much and deny it to those is desperate need is wrong.


----------



## Maxperson

Morrus said:


> Yes it is. It's everybody's job. Your country, my country, all the countries. That's what makes us not evil. We help people in need. We give to those less fortunate than ourselves. It is humanity's duty.




Then let's give them some money to help them in one of their local countries.  We don't have to burden our country when we can help them survive and get back home by putting them up in the Middle East.



> Just like during WW2 when people fled the Nazi persecution. That enriched your country, particularly. Not that the benefit is why it should be done.
> 
> To have so much and deny it to those is desperate need is wrong.




This is not like WWII.  You're comparing a match to a bonfire and declaring it the same.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> They have no business being here.




Whoa. Flashback from 1938. 




https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...f-jewish-refugees-on-the-eve-of-world-war-ii/

Maybe any objection is just doom to fail. The right buttons have been pushed. The right levers pulled. The West is just gonna go down the path Islamists want it to go: stigmatize, exclude and bomb Muslims. It certainly makes recruitment easier.


----------



## MechaPilot

Maxperson said:


> They have no business being here.




If you're referring to the U.S., they have as much business being here as anyone else does.  Perhaps they have more business being here than in other nations since we have a national monument whose inscription specifically invites them by quoting the following poem (The New Colossus):


Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles.  From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips.  "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"



If that isn't literally an engraved invitation to those seeking refuge, what is?


----------



## MechaPilot

Maxperson said:


> This is not like WWII.  You're comparing a match to a bonfire and declaring it the same.




To be fair, there are enough similarities that I feel the comparison has some valid weight to it.

Nazis and Islamic extremists are (or were, for the Nazis) death cults attempting to masquerade as legitimate authorities.

They both preach a philosophy of hate and murder while trying to bill themselves as "heroically defending" the oppressed.

They both want to wipe out the Jewish people.



And let's not forget that WWII didn't start out as WWII.  For a long time we just didn't give a crap about what the Nazis did because it didn't affect our isolationist society.  Hell, Hitler was Time magazine's Man of the Year for 1938, only one year prior to the start of WWII.  The fact is that most people in the U.S. still tend to forget that the rest of the world is even there (apart from a few major allies and rivals).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> They have no business being here.  It's not our job to take in everyone fleeing some world crisis.  There is always a crisis of some sort somewhere.  There are many surrounding countries that should be taking the Syrian refugees in locally so that they can go home when the crisis is over.




I'll repost this, since you seem to have missed it:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...-in-not-accepting-syrian-refugees-into-the-us

The farther away you can remove refugees from the conflict they are fleeing, the lower their chance of becoming radicalized.  IOW, just looking at the issue through the lens of the goal of reducing odds of particular refugees becoming radicalized, we're better off with helping them here than we are trying to help them there.

The data they're using goes back decades: Arabic refugees from the conflicts between Arab nations and Israel who went into the refugee camps in the adjacent nations (they were not allowed to resettle, but had to remain in the camps) were far more likely to join the litany of anti-Israeli groups than those refugees who resettled in Europe or the USA.

See also US history repeating itself:





> You don't think that they plan things years in advance?  Or that they would try several different avenues to get into the country?



Certainly they can, but attempting to enter the USA via the refugee process, which takes 18-24 months and subjects you to the highest level of scrutiny is asking to fail.  It is literally the path of greatest resistance.  They're far more likely to gain entry via our student visa program, our guest worker programs, or the various paths of illegal immigration.




> A dozen is an issue, and that's just the dozen that was caught.




That is just paranoid. If I were to follow that kind of logic, I should be demanding the exile of all white people and NRA members.


----------



## Morrus

Maxperson said:


> Then let's give them some money to help them in one of their local countries.  We don't have to burden our country when we can help them survive and get back home by putting them up in the Middle East.




"Their local countries"? What on earth does distance have to do with it? Did you only accept aid from Canada during Katrina?

Yes, we do have to burden our countries. It is the right thing to do. We have so much. 

Do you really want the embarrassment of your country being the only Western country not to do their part?

You know the day after it was attacked, France announced it would accept an additional 30,000 refugees? 



> This is not like WWII.  You're comparing a match to a bonfire and declaring it the same.




Scale is not the point, and a poor excuse for not helping your neighbour. 

Ugh. This thread is making me feel a little sick. I'm getting out if it. I don't need to be seeing things like this.


----------



## Maxperson

MechaPilot said:


> To be fair, there are enough similarities that I feel the comparison has some valid weight to it.
> 
> Nazis and Islamic extremists are (or were, for the Nazis) death cults attempting to masquerade as legitimate authorities.
> 
> They both preach a philosophy of hate and murder while trying to bill themselves as "heroically defending" the oppressed.
> 
> They both want to wipe out the Jewish people.




As I pointed out, it's a matter of scope.  A match doesn't warrant the same response as a raging bonfire does.


----------



## Maxperson

Morrus said:


> "Their local countries"? What on earth does distance have to do with it? Did you only accept aid from Canada during Katrina?




We didn't move to Canada or any other country over it.  Give them aid........over there.



> Yes, we do have to burden our countries. It is the right thing to do. We have so much.




Then let's burden it with aid and locate them close to home so they don't have far to go when the turmoil ends.



> Do you really want the embarrassment of your country being the only Western country not to do their part?




I'm not embarrassed by it.  Nor am I suggesting that we not do "our part."  Our part, however, is to give them aid so that they can live close to home and be able to return to where they live when the turmoil is done.  "Our part" doesn't require that we take in refugees.



> You know the day after it was attacked, France announced it would accept an additional 30,000 refugees?
> 
> Scale is not the point, and a poor excuse for not helping your neighbour.
> 
> Ugh. This thread is making me feel a little sick. I'm getting out if it. I don't need to be seeing things like this.




If you're seeing things you don't like, look in a different direction.  You're only looking down the very narrow pathway that you want to look down and that only includes us letting refugees in.  If you were looking elsewhere, you wouldn't have suggested that I'm saying that we don't help.  I'm not suggesting that we don't help.  I'm suggesting we help in other ways.


----------



## MechaPilot

Maxperson said:


> As I pointed out, it's a matter of scope.  A match doesn't warrant the same response as a raging bonfire does.




Granted, that's why the response to WWII and ISIS should vary in scope.  However, accepting more refugees is a step up from current policy: it recognizes that ISIS is a real threat to the stability of the region, it focuses on the humanitarian crisis, and it doesn't accelerate us straight to WWIII like ground-invasion would (which, sadly, is a thing that I've seen news clips of people suggesting we should do).


----------



## Maxperson

MechaPilot said:


> Granted, that's why the response to WWII and ISIS should vary in scope.  However, accepting more refugees is a step up from current policy: it recognizes that ISIS is a real threat to the stability of the region, it focuses on the humanitarian crisis, and it doesn't accelerate us straight to WWIII like ground-invasion would (which, sadly, is a thing that I've seen news clips of people suggesting we should do).




Well, to be fair, a ground invasion wouldn't be anything like WWIII.  If it was, we'd be talking about WWVII or something.  There have been a lot of ground wars since WWII.  I don't support a ground invasion, but neither do I think that ISIS will be taken out by the locals or by air strikes.


----------



## Staffan

Maxperson said:


> They have no business being here.  It's not our job to take in everyone fleeing some world crisis.  There is always a crisis of some sort somewhere.  There are many surrounding countries that should be taking the Syrian refugees in locally so that they can go home when the crisis is over.




Hans Rosling, could you please explain to this person where the Syrian refugees are?
[video=youtube_share;0_QrIapiNOw]http://youtu.be/0_QrIapiNOw[/video]



> Statistically, accidental deaths from cars dwarfs the number of deaths from even 9/11, so I guess we should just stop security altogether.  It doesn't matter if someone else is a bigger threat, you still need to take care of the small threats when you can.



We shouldn't stop security altogether, but dialing back the mass surveillance state and the immense amount of security theater that has grown up in the Western world over the last 10-15 years would be a very good idea. The idea that I can't bring a coke bottle on a plane because someone once tried and failed to smuggle in explosives that way is ridiculous.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'll repost this, since you seem to have missed it:
> 
> The farther away you can remove refugees from the conflict they are fleeing, the lower their chance of becoming radicalized.  IOW, just looking at the issue through the lens of the goal of reducing odds of particular refugees becoming radicalized, we're better off with helping them here than we are trying to help them there.
> 
> The data they're using goes back decades: Arabic refugees from the conflicts between Arab nations and Israel who went into the refugee camps in the adjacent nations (they were not allowed to resettle, but had to remain in the camps) were far more likely to join the litany of anti-Israeli groups than those refugees who resettled in Europe or the USA.




Do you have something from a less biased and more reputable source?



> See also US history repeating itself:




Apples and oranges.  The scope again makes this a completely different situation.



> Certainly they can, but attempting to enter the USA via the refugee process, which takes 18-24 months and subjects you to the highest level of scrutiny is asking to fail.  It is literally the path of greatest resistance.  They're far more likely to gain entry via our student visa program, our guest worker programs, or the various paths of illegal immigration.




Probably why so few have tried it, but they do try it.  A dozen of those how have tried it have been caught.  Who knows how many more weren't caught.



> That is just paranoid. If I were to follow that kind of logic, I should be demanding the exile of all white people and NRA members.




Less than a dozen took out the twin towers.


----------



## Maxperson

Staffan said:


> Hans Rosling, could you please explain to this person where the Syrian refugees are?




Then the rest could go to Turkey, Iran or other countries in the area.



> We shouldn't stop security altogether, but dialing back the mass surveillance state and the immense amount of security theater that has grown up in the Western world over the last 10-15 years would be a very good idea. The idea that I can't bring a coke bottle on a plane because someone once tried and failed to smuggle in explosives that way is ridiculous.




I agree.  Pre-911 levels of security were plenty sufficient.  9/11 didn't happen because security levels weren't good enough.  It happened because agencies didn't talk to each other.  The info was there.  Some changes were warranted, such as no box cutters on planes and adding more air marshals to flights, as well as checking shoes after the shoe bomber thing.  Those are minor changes, though.  The scanners, which constantly fail tests and have yet to catch anything, the Patriot Act, and the NSA are all over the top and should be gotten rid of entirely or radically changed.


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> So in a representatie democracy, should elected officials act according to what the population wants and believes, even if it is wrong, or should they act according to what is true and best? Probably defined by intellectual elites in various areas of expertice.




I can only speak to my own beliefs on this rather than some global, all-encompassing "should." I want to vote for people who are smarter and better informed than am I. I want to elect people who will do the right thing, rather than the popular thing. I want people in charge who can explain to me why my opinion is wrong and make me see the logic of it, when I really am wrong. I want people in charge who can put reality ahead of their partisan views.

Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be how democracy operates.



Morrus said:


> Yes it is. It's everybody's job. Your country, my country, all the countries. That's what makes us not evil. We help people in need. We give to those less fortunate than ourselves. It is humanity's duty.
> 
> The whole world is doing it. Everyone is doing what they can.
> 
> Just like during WW2 when people fled the Nazi persecution. That enriched your country, particularly. Not that the benefit is why it should be done.
> 
> To have so much and deny it to those is desperate need is wrong.




Unfortunately, prior to WWII, my country and many others did not have a stellar record where harbouring the vulnerable is concerned. We screwed the pooch. Badly. We turned back people who would later die in concentration camps.

We need to be better than that.

There are literally millions of displaced people in camps. Canada is looking at bringing in some 25,000 of them, some of whom have been in those camps for as long as 4 years, but many are worried that this will possibly result in the importation of radicals, who will commit terrorist acts. If they could put 'sleepers' in place and wait that long, with the possibility that such agents could be shipped out anywhere or nowhere, then ISIL is far more capable than any government on the planet. They are not a danger to us. Quite the opposite; they are in danger.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> They have no business being here.




Let's just be clear that this argument is a non-starter.  Humans are not native to this continent.  More historically, the United States was formed in significant part by folks fleeing oppression in Europe.  Our borders were filled with folks who desperately needed a better place to go.  "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," has ever been this nation's _modus operandi_.  They have as much business being here as anyone else. 

And, personally - I am the son of refugees.  My parents, as children, were given refuge from the Soviets by this nation. 



> It's not our job to take in everyone fleeing some world crisis.




Nobody is saying you have to take everyone.  Just that you should take some.



> There is always a crisis of some sort somewhere.




Yep.   And, historically, we're always bringing in some - about three-quarters of a million of them in the past 15 years or so.



> There are many surrounding countries that should be taking the Syrian refugees in locally so that they can go home when the crisis is over.




You're not up on the news, are you.  The surrounding countries are taking them in - and are swamped.  Turkey and Greece can't handle any more.  And "when the crisis is over" will be years from now, and it has been going for years already.  Those people need someplace to actually make a life, not a tent.



> You don't think that they plan things years in advance?




The UN only sends a small percentage of the people our way even to be considered.  When you only have a 1% chance to even begin a year's long process, that's not a viable plan.  If they do plan years ahead, this would be a bad one.



> Or that they would try several different avenues to get into the country?




Exactly, and when *every other avenue* is easier, there's no cause to use this one, which is extra hard.  

American Conservatives are often fast to say, "Laws won't stop criminals."  Usually this is trotted out about guns, but it fits here, too.  Refugee status is for getting in law-abiding folks.  Terrorists, who are quite willing and able to break the law, just don't need to wait through the process.



> Statistically, accidental deaths from cars dwarfs the number of deaths from even 9/11, so I guess we should just stop security altogether.




Most of the "security" enacted since 9/11 is better termed "security theater" - it is a show, and not terribly effective at stopping bad guys, but good at inconveniencing and putting the freedoms of law abiding citizens at risk.  Shall we pull out how effective the TSA is at actually stopping people from getting contraband on planes as an example?



> It doesn't matter if someone else is a bigger threat, you still need to take care of the small threats when you can.




A few million Syrians left with no real life are a far larger threat - if yo uare worried about radicals, imagine how radical they'll become left in tent cities in the cold and heat with no prospects for years.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> Let's just be clear that this argument is a non-starter.  Humans are not native to this continent.  More historically, the United States was formed in significant part by folks fleeing oppression in Europe.  Our borders were filled with folks who desperately needed a better place to go.  "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," has ever been this nation's _modus operandi_.  They have as much business being here as anyone else.




We have to set limits.  We already have far too many flowing over the southern border.  



> And, personally - I am the son of refugees.  My parents, as children, were given refuge from the Soviets by this nation.




My great grandparents came from Russia after the revolution and subsequent turn towards communism.  7 of them anyway.  The last was from Romania.  They came through normal legal immigration, though, and not from a country with many people who wanted to come kill us.



> You're not up on the news, are you.  The surrounding countries are taking them in - and are swamped.  Turkey and Greece can't handle any more.  And "when the crisis is over" will be years from now, and it has been going for years already.  Those people need someplace to actually make a life, not a tent.




There's still Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia



> American Conservatives are often fast to say, "Laws won't stop criminals."  Usually this is trotted out about guns, but it fits here, too.  Refugee status is for getting in law-abiding folks.  Terrorists, who are quite willing and able to break the law, just don't need to wait through the process.




Legitimacy is worth a lot.  Don't sell it short.  They don't.



> Most of the "security" enacted since 9/11 is better termed "security theater" - it is a show, and not terribly effective at stopping bad guys, but good at inconveniencing and putting the freedoms of law abiding citizens at risk.  Shall we pull out how effective the TSA is at actually stopping people from getting contraband on planes as an example?




That's very different from stopping security measures altogether, so it's not really a response to what I said.  I will agree with you about the results of the "security measures" enacted since 9/11, though.  



> A few million Syrians left with no real life are a far larger threat - if yo uare worried about radicals, imagine how radical they'll become left in tent cities in the cold and heat with no prospects for years.




Why would they radicalize against the U.S.?  We didn't do it to them and they know it.


----------



## MechaPilot

Maxperson said:


> We have to set limits.  We already have far too many flowing over the southern border.




Depends on how you define too many.  Part of the reason that Social Security is at risk is because the current generation of taxpayers doesn't have enough numbers to support the retiring generation.  More immigrants could actually be a potential fix for social security.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> Do you have something from a less biased and more reputable source?




What, more reputable than a peer reviewed study by Univerity professors & PhD candidates?  You're probably not going to find one.
http://www.michael-findley.com/files/theme/mike_cv.pdf

Or is your response here a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that said research is cited by The Hill?



> Apples and oranges.  The scope again makes this a completely different situation.



It seems to me the scope is identical- taking in 10,000 refugees (and only after many months of investigation).  That is all that has been proposed by the executive branch.  (Some in the legislative branches have bandied larger numbers about.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/w...ion-to-accept-10000-syrian-refugees.html?_r=0

Welcoming numbers larger than that have been trotted out by Catholic Bishops and Evangelical leaders, though:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/17/politics/catholics-evangelicals-refugees/



> Probably why so few have tried it, but they do try it.  A dozen of those how have tried it have been caught.  Who knows how many more weren't caught.



Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman entered the USA IN 1990.
Mir Aimal Kansi murdered two CIA employees in 1993
Ramzi Yousef, was sentenced to death for masterminding the first attack on the World Trade Center.

All three DID enter the USA via our asylum-seeking/refugee program while their cases were pending...pre-9/11.  Since then, the regs have gotten tighter- including preventing asylum seekers/refugees in other countries from entering the USA out of the country until their process is completed.  As noted, the refugee vetting process can take as long as 2 years, and no major terrorist operation involving a refugee has occurred since.



> Less than a dozen took out the twin towers.




Talk about apples and oranges- _the WTC bombers were not refugees._.  Every last one of the September 11 hijackers entered the country using nonimmigrant visas (also called temporary visas), which follow completely different, lesser investigative standards.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> We have to set limits.  We already have far too many flowing over the southern border.




Actually, more are leaving than entering. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34874315


----------



## Maxperson

MechaPilot said:


> Depends on how you define too many.  Part of the reason that Social Security is at risk is because the current generation of taxpayers doesn't have enough numbers to support the retiring generation.  More immigrants could actually be a potential fix for social security.




The vast majority of those coming over the southern border are unskilled labor.  Unskilled labor doesn't pay taxes.  They get refunds.  Even if you legalized them all, they would pay little into the system and take a lot more than they put in.  They'd increase the burden, not relieve it.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> I can only speak to my own beliefs on this rather than some global, all-encompassing "should." I want to vote for people who are smarter and better informed than am I. I want to elect people who will do the right thing, rather than the popular thing. I want people in charge who can explain to me why my opinion is wrong and make me see the logic of it, when I really am wrong. I want people in charge who can put reality ahead of their partisan views.
> 
> Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be how democracy operates.



Trudeau as such beautiful hair. 

I kid, so far I have to agree with his stance on refugees and stopping the bombings in Syria.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> What, more reputable than a peer reviewed study by Univerity professors & PhD candidates?  You're probably not going to find one.
> http://www.michael-findley.com/files/theme/mike_cv.pdf
> 
> Or is your response here a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that said research is cited by The Hill?




Studies are often wrong and/or biased.  When a study is cited in a disreputable source like The Hill, I'm not even going to look at it.  Extremely biased sources like The Hill, FOX News, and others are a waste of my time in the vast majority of instances and I value my time.  Does that mean that I will miss the rare gem of truth in such a source?  Sure.  That's a risk that I'm willing to take so that I don't waste a portion of my life reading through biased sludge.

If you have that study quoted in a reputable source, though, I'd be happy to look at it.



> It seems to me the scope is identical- taking in 10,000 refugees (and only after many months of investigation).  That is all that has been proposed by the executive branch.  (Some in the legislative branches have bandied larger numbers about.)



Sorry for being unclear.  I was talking about the scope of the conflict.  In WWII, Germany made it so that you really couldn't go to a neighboring country.  Almost all of them were in the conflict.



> Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman entered the USA IN 1990.
> Mir Aimal Kansi murdered two CIA employees in 1993
> Ramzi Yousef, was sentenced to death for masterminding the first attack on the World Trade Center.
> 
> All three DID enter the USA via our asylum-seeking/refugee program while their cases were pending...pre-9/11.  Since then, the regs have gotten tighter- including preventing asylum seekers/refugees in other countries from entering the USA out of the country until their process is completed.  As noted, the refugee vetting process can take as long as 2 years, and no major terrorist operation involving a refugee has occurred since.




We don't know whether the lack of attack was because no terrorists have tried, or whether they have succeeded in coming and are sleeping until time.  A dozen so far have been caught, so they are succeeding in getting through the system.  We don't know the numbers.



> Talk about apples and oranges- _the WTC bombers were not refugees._.  Every last one of the September 11 hijackers entered the country using nonimmigrant visas (also called temporary visas), which follow completely different, lesser investigative standards.




Nice Strawman.  I wasn't talking about how the 9/11 highjackers got into America.  You made the claim that I was being paranoid about a dozen terrorists.  My argument was purely about numbers.  Less than a dozen terrorists took down the twin towers.  That makes numbers that low a serious concern.  We don't need for there to be hundreds of terrorists coming into the country via the refugee program in order for it to become a serious and valid concern.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> Actually, more are leaving than entering. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34874315




More of your misleading posting.  That article included the recession where those illegals left.  Since the recession ended, more are coming over than are leaving.  While it may still technically be a net loss, it won't be for long and hasn't been a net loss if you look at the last 2-3 years.


----------



## El Mahdi

Stephen Colbert recently had something to say about the Syrian refugee issue...

Plenty of humor of course, but some good points also.

[video=youtube;lkRpAK3OtqQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkRpAK3OtqQ[/video]


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> Since the recession ended, more are coming over than are leaving.



Truthiness to the rescue!


----------



## MechaPilot

Maxperson said:


> The vast majority of those coming over the southern border are unskilled labor.  Unskilled labor doesn't pay taxes.  They get refunds.  Even if you legalized them all, they would pay little into the system and take a lot more than they put in.  They'd increase the burden, not relieve it.




That is not correct, for a few reasons.

First, more people creates more demand for certain services: food, housing, utilities, tax return preparation, etc.  The businesses that provide those services earn more revenue for themselves, which in turn generates tax revenue.

Secondly, while it is true that most low-income taxpayers get refunds for federal income tax withheld from their checks, they do not get their social security and medicare withholding refunded.

Thirdly, the tax burden of refunds to low-income taxpayers pales in comparison to situations like GE paying no taxes at all, and corporations avoiding taxes by keeping their profits overseas.

Fourthly, many low-income taxpayers who receive refunds are retired persons who are the ones social security and medicare were intended to help in the first place.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

On the validity of the study:

It actually is just one of the latest in a host of scholarly research papers (by him and others) that basically say the same thing.

See the work of Megan Spencer, Daniel J. Milton, Cameron Harris, Kenneth Rogerson Justin Conrad, William Berry and Matt Golder, to name a few, in peer reviewed publications like The Journal of Politics, The Journal of Human Rights, International Interactions, the Journal of Information Technology and Politics, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, etc.

Essentially, keeping the refugees close to Syria is akin to storing your firewood & propane next to your bonfire.

The International Security and Defense Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community recently presented similar data to the Office of the Secretary of Defense in a report by William Young, David Stebbins, Bryan A. Frederick and Omar Al-Shahery.

The paper presents a number of factors increasing the likelihood of refugee radicalization and the spread of open warfare to neighbors countries: 

1) several of those countries sponsor terrorist groups or are otherwise engaged in efforts to destabilize their neighbors.

2) the region is the base of operations of numerous terrorist groups who can operate with impunity.  With the region's porous borders, jihadists may freely travel to and from battlefields and refugee camps. 

3) the resources allocated to help refugees in surrounding countries are already near breaking points, and the demands of supporting those camps are seen as being in conflict with meeting daily needs of their own citizens

Example: Jordan has 6.7M citizens, and they have accepted 670,000 refugees- IOW, @ 1/10th of their population.  They don't have adequate resources to clothe, feed, house and- key to this discussion- check out & monitor all of those people.  Hizbollah, Iran’s Quds Force and agents of Damascus are known to have carried out attacks in Jordan.  They have also tried to radicalize the refugees.  With easy access to the refugees, terrorists have large and receptive recruitment pool.

Lebanon, with a population of 4.5M has taken in @1M refugees, face the same issues of jihadist operations, have even fewer resources...and is more politically unstable.

The RAND report thus predicts a high probability of Jordan & Lebanon becoming new fronts in open hostilities if the Syrian crisis isn't resolved soon.  At no point in the study do they take seriously the notion that giving "more aid over there" will be a major factor to stem the tide of radicalization.  Instead, they conclude:



> Policy measures that are focused solely on the effects of the spill- over (such as helping Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan deal with the flow of refugees within their borders) are unlikely to be sufficient—like a doctor treating only the visible symptoms of an infectious disease: The patient and others standing nearby will continue to be at risk.




IOW, that study's assertion is pretty non-controversial stuff; it is the mainstream position in the community of experts and administrators dealing with refugees.


----------



## El Mahdi

goldomark said:


> Actually, more are leaving than entering. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34874315




This is true, especially if you count the sudden drop off due to the recession; but doing so is a bit misleading.  However, it's currently about even; contrary to Maxperson's claim.




Maxperson said:


> More of your misleading posting.  That article included the recession where those illegals left.  Since the recession ended, more are coming over than are leaving.  While it may still technically be a net loss, it won't be for long and hasn't been a net loss if you look at the last 2-3 years.




His post is a bit misleading, but yours is entirely incorrect.

If you look at the actual Pew Research data (not just the BBC story), you'll see that the population of unauthorized Mexican immigrants has declined and then stabilized over the last 2-3 years.

2010: 6.2 million
2011: 6.2 million
2012: 5.9 million
2013: 5.6 million
2014: 5.6 million

For the last three years, that's a net loss of about 300,000.  For the last two years it's practically dead even.

The overall trend of illegal immigrants from all nationalities is pretty close also.

2009: 11.3 million
2010: 11.4 million
2011: 11.5 million
2012: 11.2 million
2013: 11.3 million
2014: 11.3 million

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/19/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...mmigrant-population-stable-for-half-a-decade/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/




goldomark said:


> Truthiness to the rescue!




Nope.  Not truth.  Not rescued.


----------



## Maxperson

MechaPilot said:


> First, more people creates more demand for certain services: food, housing, utilities, tax return preparation, etc.  The businesses that provide those services earn more revenue for themselves, which in turn generates tax revenue.





Some responses to those statements.

First, that amount of increased taxes won't even make a dent in what is needed for social security to be solvent.  Secondly, that money doesn't go towards social security and it never will, so it has no bearing on a discussion about paying for social security.



> Secondly, while it is true that most low-income taxpayers get refunds for federal income tax withheld from their checks, they do not get their social security and medicare withholding refunded.




The money withheld from such workers is a pittance and won't even come remotely close to making a difference.



> Thirdly, the tax burden of refunds to low-income taxpayers pales in comparison to situations like GE paying no taxes at all, and corporations avoiding taxes by keeping their profits overseas.




This is entirely irrelevant.  The taxes that companies like GE avoid paying doesn't go towards social security and never will.  



> Fourthly, many low-income taxpayers who receive refunds are retired persons who are the ones social security and medicare were intended to help in the first place.




And?  Virtually all illegals are low income "taxpayers" and that includes them at all ages.


----------



## Ryujin

El Mahdi said:


> Nope.  Not truth.  Not rescued.




"Truthiness" has very little to do with actual, literal truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness


----------



## El Mahdi

Ryujin said:


> "Truthiness" has very little to do with actual, literal truth.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness




That's so very _True_...


----------



## MechaPilot

Maxperson said:


> Some responses to those statements.
> 
> First, that amount of increased taxes won't even make a dent in what is needed for social security to be solvent.  Secondly, that money doesn't go towards social security and it never will, so it has no bearing on a discussion about paying for social security.
> 
> 
> 
> The money withheld from such workers is a pittance and won't even come remotely close to making a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> This is entirely irrelevant.  The taxes that companies like GE avoid paying doesn't go towards social security and never will.
> 
> 
> 
> And?  Virtually all illegals are low income "taxpayers" and that includes them at all ages.





You're the one who brought up a general net negative tax revenue effect when you mentioned refunds, not me.  The net negative effect that you brought up makes GE, the increased tax revenue from increased sales of food/housing/utilities/etc, and the off-shore sheltering of corporate revenues from taxation relevant for that topic that, again, you interjected into the discussion.

Now, we can have a debate about whether we need to raise the social security and medicare taxes, whether we should remove the income cap from the social security tax, and whether we should alter the schedule by which the age for full retirement benefits is determined, but none of that changes the fact that more taxpayers means tax revenues and payments into the social security and medicare funds increase.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> We have to set limits.  We already have far too many flowing over the southern border.




That's a separate problem.  What we do about Syrian refugees will not impact that.



> There's still Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia




Egypt has taken over 100,000 already.  Saudi Arabia has taken 100,000 refugees, and then something like 400,000 more that aren't legally speaking refugees (and so they don't have the same rights and protections as refugees)

Iran is problematic.  Iran supports Assad - you know, the guy who used chemical weapons on his own civilians, the ones who are now fleeing from the country?  Why would we think they'd be appropriate sterwards, and why would we think Syrians who were protesting Assad's regime would be willing to go to those who support the man they were trying to oust?

And, never mind the fact that this whole thing started with massive drought in Syria - drought that's still going on, and will leave much of the country unsuitable unless it is under expert management, which to date it has not.  "Hold them in tents until they can go home," assumes there's a home to return to.  



> Legitimacy is worth a lot.  Don't sell it short.  They don't.




Efficiency, is worth a lot too, as is reliability.  And coming in as refugees is really, really not efficient or reliable.

But, again, there's no *evidence* this is happening in any numbers.  There is *fear* that they will do it.  Fear.  Remember, that's the specialty of terrorists.  We should strongly avoid making decisions based on fear.  Base it on evidence, real data.



> That's very different from stopping security measures altogether, so it's not really a response to what I said.  I will agree with you about the results of the "security measures" enacted since 9/11, though.




Yes, well, the discussion at the moment shares much in common with the discussion and action after 9/11: knee-jerk and facile.  The attackers in Paris were not Syrian, not refugees, and didn't use major encryption to conceal their communications.  But, the discussion is about Syrians, refugees, and encryption.  



> Why would they radicalize against the U.S.?  We didn't do it to them and they know it.




You're expecting rationality (that matches your personal thought, even) from a religious radical?  

Once they are desperate, with no apparent route to something like a quality life, radicals will come to them and make very cogent arguments that the West, including the US, really are at the root of their problems.  They will indicate all the things we have done to destabilize the region over the past several decades.  And on many of those points, they will be factually correct.  And it will become very, very easy for them to hate us.


----------



## Maxperson

MechaPilot said:


> You're the one who brought up a general net negative tax revenue effect when you mentioned refunds, not me.  The net negative effect that you brought up makes GE, the increased tax revenue from increased sales of food/housing/utilities/etc, and the off-shore sheltering of corporate revenues from taxation relevant for that topic that, again, you interjected into the discussion.
> 
> Now, we can have a debate about whether we need to raise the social security and medicare taxes, whether we should remove the income cap from the social security tax, and whether we should alter the schedule by which the age for full retirement benefits is determined, but none of that changes the fact that more taxpayers means tax revenues and payments into the social security and medicare funds increase.




The long and the short of it is that what companies make is irrelevant and what the illegals add is not enough to cover themselves, let alone themselves and everyone else.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> That's a separate problem.  What we do about Syrian refugees will not impact that.
> 
> Egypt has taken over 100,000 already.  Saudi Arabia has taken 100,000 refugees, and then something like 400,000 more that aren't legally speaking refugees (and so they don't have the same rights and protections as refugees)



They can take more, especially if we're helping support them with money.



> Iran is problematic.  Iran supports Assad - you know, the guy who used chemical weapons on his own civilians, the ones who are now fleeing from the country?  Why would we think they'd be appropriate sterwards, and why would we think Syrians who were protesting Assad's regime would be willing to go to those who support the man they were trying to oust?




It's not my job or responsibility to judge where they decide to live.  And hey, according to Obama, they've decided against trying for any nuclear weapons and we should take them at their word and remove sanctions.  If they're worthy of that kind of trust, they're worthy of taking care of some neighbors for a time.



> And, never mind the fact that this whole thing started with massive drought in Syria - drought that's still going on, and will leave much of the country unsuitable unless it is under expert management, which to date it has not.  "Hold them in tents until they can go home," assumes there's a home to return to.




It's a desert.  Besides, they really aren't fleeing the drought.  They are fleeing Assad and Isis.



> But, again, there's no *evidence* this is happening in any numbers.  There is *fear* that they will do it.  Fear.  Remember, that's the specialty of terrorists.  We should strongly avoid making decisions based on fear.  Base it on evidence, real data.[/quote
> 
> The real data is that we've caught more of them coming in as refugees than are required for an attack that can take down sky scrapers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, well, the discussion at the moment shares much in common with the discussion and action after 9/11: knee-jerk and facile.  The attackers in Paris were not Syrian, not refugees, and didn't use major encryption to conceal their communications.  But, the discussion is about Syrians, refugees, and encryption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's irrelevant.  It doesn't matter if some attacks aren't refugees. Others are.  That we've caught a dozen of them proves that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're expecting rationality (that matches your personal thought, even) from a religious radical?
> 
> Once they are desperate, with no apparent route to something like a quality life, radicals will come to them and make very cogent arguments that the West, including the US, really are at the root of their problems.  They will indicate all the things we have done to destabilize the region over the past several decades.  And on many of those points, they will be factually correct.  And it will become very, very easy for them to hate us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.  They could totally radicalize against martians, too.  Seriously, though, the only solution for what you laid out is to completely depopulate the region.  That region will always have problems and the U.S. will be to blame for them.  If not these refugees, then others will become radicals.  Bringing this group to the U.S. solves nothing.
Click to expand...


----------



## MechaPilot

Maxperson said:


> The long and the short of it is that what companies make is irrelevant and what the illegals add is not enough to cover themselves, let alone themselves and everyone else.




Additional taxpayers do not cover themselves when it comes to social security and medicare.  The system was designed so that the current generation of retirees is supported by the current generation of workers.  The theory was that populations would only continue to expand, and that flawed theory has created a significant under-funding problem.  Adding more taxpayers does add to the fund without placing an additional demand for current payment on the fund.

"The long and the short of it" is that if you want an immediate increase in current contributions to the fund with no increase in current distributions from the fund and without increasing the withholding taxes, then you must add more taxpayers (so the system can work the way that it was actually designed to).  Other things should probably also be done to correct problems with the system, and those things can be discussed as amicably as possible, but an infusion of cash via a method that was a central conceit of how the system would work when it was created will only assist in fixing the problem.


----------



## Maxperson

MechaPilot said:


> Additional taxpayers do not cover themselves when it comes to social security and medicare.  The system was designed so that the current generation of retirees is supported by the current generation of workers.  The theory was that populations would only continue to expand, and that flawed theory has created a significant under-funding problem.  Adding more taxpayers does add to the fund without placing an additional demand for current payment on the fund.
> 
> "The long and the short of it" is that if you want an immediate increase in current contributions to the fund with no increase in current distributions from the fund and without increasing the withholding taxes, then you must add more taxpayers (so the system can work the way that it was actually designed to).  Other things should probably also be done to correct problems with the system, and those things can be discussed as amicably as possible, but an infusion of cash via a method that was a central conceit of how the system would work when it was created will only assist in fixing the problem.




You seriously expect 11.5 million people to be able to cover a several billion dollar shortfall that is increasing annually?  You'll slow it down........at the expense of creating a worse disaster down the road.  We need to overhaul the system, not compound the problem.

You're also overlooking that a huge portion of them won't be working.  They'll be on welfare and other public programs sucking up cash instead of contributing it.


----------



## MechaPilot

Maxperson said:


> You seriously expect 11.5 million people to be able to cover a several billion dollar shortfall that is increasing annually?  You'll slow it down........at the expense of creating a worse disaster down the road.  We need to overhaul the system, not compound the problem.




I didn't say that it would entirely fix the problem.  In fact, I specifically said that other things should probably be done as well, which you seem to be agreeing with.  You also seem to be agreeing with me that a current infusion of cash would only help.




Maxperson said:


> You're also overlooking that a huge portion of them won't be working.  They'll be on welfare and other public programs sucking up cash instead of contributing it.




First of all, that's an assumption.  Let's look at actual fact.

The fact is that they will need several things that are provided by local businesses (food, housing, utilities, etc).  Increased business generally results in hiring more staff to handle the increase, or in capital expansions which requires someone somewhere to do work for money (whether it's construction or the building of equipment for use in a trade or business).

Also pertinent is that legal, non-refugee immigrants are also not working when they come here.  Most of the people who have come to the U.S. have done so with the hope but not the actual promise of a job, and were therefore unemployed the moment they hit our shores.  Those people found jobs.  That's what immigrants do: they go to a foreign land, find a job, and make a new home in the country they immigrated to.

As far as welfare, you can't have your cake and eat it too.  Either we are talking about a tax revenue effect that extends beyond social security and medicare fund payments, in which case several other things that you already dismissed are relevant, or we are not and welfare payments are irrelevant.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

As for this:


Maxperson said:


> .
> Nice Strawman.  I wasn't talking about how the 9/11 highjackers got into America.  You made the claim that I was being paranoid about a dozen terrorists.  My argument was purely about numbers.  Less than a dozen terrorists took down the twin towers.  That makes numbers that low a serious concern.  We don't need for there to be hundreds of terrorists coming into the country via the refugee program in order for it to become a serious and valid concern.




Thinking that stopping refugees from entering the country is an effective anti-terrorism tactic is empirically wrong.  By that logic, we should simply seal our borders and let no one enter.

Furthermore, considering that none of the 9/11 bombers were Syrian, keeping Syrians refugees from entering the USA based on what Saudis, Lebanese, Egyptians and 2 guys from the UAE did sounds like pure islamophobia.

During The Troubles, there were @10,000 bombings.  We didn't ban all Irish or Catholics from entry.

In 1946, radical zionists bombed the King David hotel, killing @91 people and injuring another 40+.  We didn't bar Jews from entering the USA.

A single Norwegian- Anders Behring Breivik- with an ANFO van bomb and some guns- killed 77 and injured over 300.  Norwegians are still allowed to enter this country.

Two white Christians- Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols- detonated an ammonium nitate truck bomb, killing 168 and injuring 680.  There was no call to exile Christian caucasians or stop from entering the USA.

As many known jihadis in Syria have come from Western nations like France, England, Italy, Australia and the Netherlands as have originated in Libya, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq and Jordan.  We don't have any special restrictions on refugees from any of those Western nations.


----------



## Maxperson

MechaPilot said:


> I didn't say that it would entirely fix the problem.  In fact, I specifically said that other things should probably be done as well, which you seem to be agreeing with.  You also seem to be agreeing with me that a current infusion of cash would only help.




Sure, but not at the expense of compounding the disaster by adding millions of more people to the problem.  Something other than new people needs to be done.



> First of all, that's an assumption.  Let's look at actual fact.




It's an assumption in the same way assuming that the Earth isn't going to be destroyed by an asteroid tomorrow is an assumption.  It's a very, very safe one.



> The fact is that they will need several things that are provided by local businesses (food, housing, utilities, etc).  Increased business generally results in hiring more staff to handle the increase, or in capital expansions which requires someone somewhere to do work for money (whether it's construction or the building of equipment for use in a trade or business).




Um, they're already here spending money.  Making them legal isn't suddenly going cause them to double themselves by fission and get more jobs.  No new money is going to be added to business.



> Also pertinent is that legal, non-refugee immigrants are also not working when they come here.  Most of the people who have come to the U.S. have done so with the hope but not the actual promise of a job, and were therefore unemployed the moment they hit our shores.  Those people found jobs.  That's what immigrants do: they go to a foreign land, find a job, and make a new home in the country they immigrated to.




Maybe other countries.  Here in America a great many create anchor babies and get welfare for them.



> As far as welfare, you can't have your cake and eat it too.  Either we are talking about a tax revenue effect that extends beyond social security and medicare fund payments, in which case several other things that you already dismissed are relevant, or we are not and welfare payments are irrelevant.




You're going to have to explain that one better.  It didn't make any sense to me.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Thinking that stopping refugees from entering the country is an effective anti-terrorism tactic is empirically wrong.  By that logic, we should simply seal our borders and let no one enter.




Right, because there's no middle ground.  Security is not an all or nothing thing.



> Furthermore, considering that none of the 9/11 bombers were Syrian, keeping Syrians refugees from entering the USA based on what Saudis, Lebanese, Egyptians and 2 guys from the UAE did sounds like pure islamophobia.




Called you on the first Strawman so you doubled down with a second one?  Where the 9/11 bombers came from or how they got here is irrelevant.  The only relevance is that there were less than a dozen.  Fewer than the *number* that has already been caught as refugees.



> During The Troubles, there were @10,000 bombings.  We didn't ban all Irish or Catholics from entry.
> 
> In 1946, radical zionists bombed the King David hotel, killing @91 people and injuring another 40+.  We didn't bar Jews from entering the USA.
> 
> A single Norwegian- Anders Behring Breivik- with an ANFO van bomb and some guns- killed 77 and injured over 300.  Norwegians are still allowed to enter this country.




Maybe, just maaaaaaaaybe, that's because none of those were trying to bomb AMERICA.  Unlike Muslim extremists.



> Two white Christians- Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols- detonated an ammonium nitate truck bomb, killing 168 and injuring 680.  There was no call to exile Christian caucasians or stop from entering the USA.




And I'm not suggesting that we evict all Muslims, either.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Maybe, just maaaaaaaaybe, that's because none of those were trying to bomb AMERICA. Unlike Muslim extremists.




While the IRA didn't conduct any known terrorist acts within our borders, they did use us as a base of operations and received a LOT of financial support here, much to the chagrin of the English.  (You know, our allies?)

There have been at least 18 terrorist acts attributed to Zionist extremists in the USA.

While I know of no Norwegian terrorists in the USA, Breivik self-identified as a national socialist, aka a Nazi or Neo-nazi.  In the USA, followers of that particular right-wing philosophy account for more terrorist attacks on US soil than Islamofascists.  The 9/11 attacks represent a spike in Islamic terror; it is an aberration, not the trend.  Before and after that attack, right-wing white supremacists and anti-government malcontents are responsible for more deaths.

Soooo...yeah, they DO damage America, either by direct attacks on American citizens/targets or by attacking our allies.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There have been at least 18 terrorist acts attributed to Zionist extremists in the USA.




I only went through two pages of anti-semitic junk and conspiracy theories when I googles Zionist attacks in the USA.  Not one even semi-reputable source had anything at all.  Are you including 9/11 in those 18?



> While the IRA didn't conduct any known terrorist acts within our borders, they did use us as a base of operations and received a LOT of financial support here, much to the chagrin of the English. (You know, our allies?)




That's not an attack on our soil.  



> While I know of no Norwegian terrorists in the USA, Breivik self-identified as a national socialist, aka a Nazi or Neo-nazi.  In the USA, followers of that particular right-wing philosophy account for more terrorist attacks on US soil than Islamofascists.  The 9/11 attacks represent a spike in Islamic terror; it is an aberration, not the trend.  Before and after that attack, right-wing white supremacists and anti-government malcontents are responsible for more deaths.




Ahhhh.  You're one of those who label every attack by one group on another as a "terrorist" attack.  Hate attacks are not terrorist attacks.  Islamic extremists not only attack for hate reasons, but also to sow as much terror as they can through their targets.  That's the difference that many people don't seem to get.  Hate =/= terror.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ohhhh, Maxperson...

1) the JDL (Jewish Defense League) is classified as a terrorist group by the FBI and SPL.  They have at least 18 attacks attributed to them in US soil- no, 9/11 is not one of them.  Jewish Armed Resistance and Jewish Action Movement have several American terror attacks to their name, including a firebombing at JFK airport.

2) the IRA attacks were not on our soil, but we gave them aid & comfort.  A safe harbor of operations.  And at least one American- Kenneth Salveson- was killed as a result.

3) White supremacist/Neonazi/KKK attacks on Jews, blacks and others definitely meet even your definition of terrorism.  There is a reason.  Lynching, church bombings/arsons/shootings, arsons of neighborhoods (the Vienna, Il arson of "N****rtown", as white residents called it), synagogue shootings, deaths by dragging (like James Byrd, Jr.)- those tactics are as much about sowing fear as killing those they hate.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> They can take more, especially if we're helping support them with money.




You may not be aware, but dealing with refugees has two basic stages.  The first is immediate, and generally encompasses setting them up in tent cities, with at best the basics of life - food, sanitation, and the like.  The second is resettlement into someplace they can actually make a life.  You cannot throw short-term money at the second to have it succeed, as it is the process of them having a real life, getting a job, and so on, integrated into the nation around them.  The UN is in the business of helping spread these folks around, because you cannot dump them all into the local economies, which are already disrupted by the problems that created the refugees, and not create even more problems.  



> It's not my job or responsibility to judge where they decide to live.




Except that's what you're doing by saying they can't live here in the US.



> It's a desert.  Besides, they really aren't fleeing the drought.  They are fleeing Assad and Isis.




Only some of it is a desert.  Much of Syria is historically a Mediterranean climate.  

From 2006 to 2011, Syria suffered a major drought - a killing 85% of the livestock kind of drought.  A million or so farmers lost their lands.  Asad's regime, which was used to handing out benefits along political lines, was not capable of managing the issues as these folks crowded into the cities looking to get by.  This led to unrest, which Assad dealt with in even worse fashion, which led to civil war, ISIS getting a foothold, and so on.

At this point, Syria is on track to lose another 50% of its agricultural productivity in the next 35 years.  This, on top of the infrastructure they've lost in years of war, and the country simply will not be able to handle the same number of people for some time to come - those refugees need to go somewhere else, as Syria can't support them.



> The real data is that we've caught more of them coming in as refugees than are required for an attack that can take down sky scrapers.




None of the 12 arrested were brought up on domestic terrorism charges - three were arrested for trying to assist actions intended to take place in the Middle East.  The reasons the others were arrested (not convicted, just arrested) has not otherwise been specified.  None of them were Syrian.  And those are *all* of them since 9/11, out of 750,000+ refugees we've taken in over that time.  That's 0.0016% or so.

Meanwhile, in that time, there have been on average 337 home grown terrorist attacks in the US _each year_.  This in a population of about 100 million adult men.  That's 0.0033%

Which means that refugees are *less* likely to be terrorists than our male citizens.  A male US citizen is *TWICE AS LIKELY* to be a terrorist!  Statistically, the refugees are safer than your neighbors.  



> That we've caught a dozen of them proves that.




See above about "proof".  When you crunch the numbers, the refugees prove to be less problematic than our own citizens.



> Bringing this group to the U.S. solves nothing.




Nobody said it was in and of itself a solution - except in the sense that it gives tens of thousands of people a life when they had none to speak of.  Whether or not it solves any major world problem, it is still the right thing to do.

However, it is *part* of a solution to a very complex problem.  In the process, it can generate large amounts of goodwill in the moderate Muslim community (which we really, really want to have).


----------



## El Mahdi

Maxperson said:


> Ahhhh.  You're one of those who label every attack by one group on another as a "terrorist" attack.  Hate attacks are not terrorist attacks.  Islamic extremists not only attack for hate reasons, but also to sow as much terror as they can through their targets.  That's the difference that many people don't seem to get.  Hate =/= terror.




Well, while we're clarifying, let's go all the way: whether hate groups/crimes or terrorists - which I'd say is mostly a pedantic argument anyways, as the end result is the killing of innocent people in the name of *something* - let's be clear that the answer being pushed is to ban entire ethnic groups from entry into the United States.

No matter which way one tries to spin it, doing so is a reaction based on fear and not logic - by the way, a reaction which the terrorists _want_ us to make - and just happens to be completely against the fundamental beliefs our country was based on.  They have said, quite often, that our beliefs and system are flawed - that we're immoral and decadent.  That when challenged, we'll drop our values as soon as they're inconvenient.

If we ban these refugees, strategically/tactically, that's doing what our enemy wants us to do.  We will be letting them dictate our actions.  Watch any football game to see how well that strategy works.

And what good is surviving against terrorism if we lose who we are in the process?

Do we really want to hand that victory to them so easily?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> None of the 12 arrested were brought up on domestic terrorism charges - three were arrested for trying to assist actions intended to take place in the Middle East.




Which puts them into the same category as the IRA members in the USA.


----------



## MechaPilot

Maxperson said:


> Um, they're already here spending money.  Making them legal isn't suddenly going cause them to double themselves by fission and get more jobs.  No new money is going to be added to business.




Why are you using the idea that illegal immigrants are already here to object to legally allowing more refugees and other immigrants who are not already here to come here and earn and spend money here?  The illegal immigrants in the U.S. are entirely irrelevant to that discussion.

However, let's talk illegal immigrants and legalization for a moment.  Most illegal immigrants get paid "under-the-table," and in doing so get paid substantially less than a legal worker would be paid, and don't have any withholding from their pay.  Legalization would allow them to get jobs for at least minimum wage, which is usually a step up from under-the-table pay rates, and it would see them paying into the social security and medicare funds through withholding.

Now, some illegal immigrants actually use false documents to get jobs, and some of them even pay their taxes every year.  The ones who have false documents and who get paid with checks do have withholding.  Legalizing them won't automatically lead to more withholding, but it might allow them to legally pursue higher paying jobs that they couldn't go after before because of background check concerns.  Ultimately though, I don't have an issue with legalizing illegals who not criminals, who are gainfully employed, and especially not those who are so civic-minded that they file tax returns.





Maxperson said:


> Maybe other countries.  Here in America a great many create anchor babies and get welfare for them.




Legal immigrants (which is who I actually specified in the segment you responded to) don't create anchor-babies because they are here LEGALLY.  They create additional legal citizens.





Maxperson said:


> You're going to have to explain that one better.  It didn't make any sense to me.




Sure, let me give a brief history of what happened for context:

The discussion was about refugees and legal immigration, and how increasing the numbers of taxpayers immediately increases the payments into the social security and medicare funds without creating an immediate demand for paying out of those funds.

Then you brought up welfare, which is paid out of different funds and is irrelevant to the social security discussion, but you did it anyway (presumably to try to confuse the issue).

That is when I brought up increases in tax revenues that would be created by increasing the population, and the potential tax revenues lost by policies that let companies like GE pay no tax at all, and the tax revenues lost by allowing companies to shelter profits overseas.

You then said those revenues didn't matter because they didn't feed the social security and medicare funds, despite the fact that you started that particular tangent in the discussion.  You also said that illegals don't add enough to cover themselves.

Now, while I will admit that I missed the fact that you said "illegals," which I likely missed because illegal immigration had absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing at the time and was probably just a derailment attempt, I then reminded you that individual taxpayers don't cover their own social security and medicare costs, that the system was designed so that each generation pays for the previous one (I assume you already knew that's how it works).  And I said that an inflow of cash into those funds certainly wouldn't hurt.

That's when you brought up immigrants being on welfare.  And that's where your logic is circling back around to things that you have already said are irrelevant.  Welfare does not come out of the social security fund.  If GE and off-shore sheltering of income from taxation can be excluded as being irrelevant because those revenues don't pay into social security and medicare, then any expenses that don't get paid out of those same funds can be excluded for the same reason.  Hence the "have your cake and eat it too" comment.

To put it more simply, you cannot say that revenues unrelated to a fund are irrelevant and then say that expenses that are also unrelated to the fund are relevant.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Re: "anchor-babies"

Up until September or so, I personally used that term to describe children of illegal immigrants born in the USA.  I stopped.

The reason why I stopped is because, if nothing else, the term is wholly inaccurate and leads to false narratives.  "Anchor-babies" anchor no one.  Children's status as natural born US citizens is irrelevant in Immigration/Naturalization court deportation hearings: if their parents are to be deported, the kids must either be deported along with their parents, or the parents must find someone to care for them in the US until they can be reunited.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> Maybe other countries.  Here in America a great many create anchor babies and get welfare for them.




As has been noted by Danny, "anchor babies" are largely a myth.  

The only "anchor" they provide is that, 21 years after they are born, they can sponsor the legal immigration of family members.  But, to act as a sponsor, they themselves have to meet minimum income requirements, and have responsibilities to provide financial support for the immigrant(s).  The sponsor exists so that the immigrant *won't* be a burden on society.

But, as noted, you have to be 21 to be a sponsor.  That's a *long* anchor chain.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-myth-of-the-anchor-baby-deportation-defense/


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> I only went through two pages of anti-semitic junk and conspiracy theories when I googles Zionist attacks in the USA.  Not one even semi-reputable source had anything at all.  Are you including 9/11 in those 18?




The Jewish Defense League are nice folks. Last year, two members were found guilty of placing a bomb in a journalist's car in France. They involved two minors when placing that bomb. The JDL recently tried to intimidate AFP journalists and attacked a Buzzfeed journalists. Even Buzzfeed doesn't deserve that. http://www.theguardian.com/media/20...rnalist-attacked-paris-david-perrotin-ldj-afp

Strangely, no one is saying that Israelis should be banned from entering France or Europe.


----------



## El Mahdi

Maxperson said:


> Maybe other countries.  Here in America a great many create anchor babies and get welfare for them






Dannyalcatraz said:


> Re: "anchor-babies"
> 
> Up until September or so, I personally used that term to describe children of illegal immigrants born in the USA.  I stopped.
> 
> The reason why I stopped is because, if nothing else, the term is wholly inaccurate and leads to false narratives.  "Anchor-babies" anchor no one.  Children's status as natural born US citizens is irrelevant in Immigration/Naturalization court deportation hearings: if their parents are to be deported, the kids must either be deported along with their parents, or the parents must find someone to care for them in the US until they can be reunited.




All true, and not to mention that the purpose of most so-called "anchor-babies" has almost nothing to do with immediate immigration legitimacy or seeking welfare benefits.  First, a so-called "anchor-baby" can't sponsor immigration for family members until they turn 21 - that's a rather long time to wait when there are far faster means.  And second, the majority of today's so-called "anchor-babies" (as opposed to those from a few decades ago) are actually children of affluent foreigners - mostly Chinese - trying to get around the "one-child" policy or setting up future access to elite colleges for their children.  They don't necessarily want to immigrate to the US, they just want to be able to send their kids to Harvard and Yale.


----------



## El Mahdi

Maxperson said:


> My great grandparents came from Russia after the revolution and subsequent turn towards communism.  7 of them anyway.  The last was from Romania.  They came through normal legal immigration, though, and not from a country with many people who wanted to come kill us.




Oh how quickly we forget history.

Maybe there weren't a lot of people in Russia and Eastern Europe that wanted to kill us at that time...

...but we certainly believed there were.

It was called the _First Red Scare_, and was predicated upon exactly the 1919 Wall Street Bombing, among other events.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare


In the minds of most Americans of that time, Bolsheviks and Anarchists were considered one and the same, regardless of country of origin - they were all _"Communists."_

They said Bolsheviks and Anarchists were hiding among those claiming to escape the revolution.  (Today, it's Islamic terrorists hiding among Syrian refugees.)

They said Bolsheviks and Anarchists were hiding among worker unions and trying to subvert our country to establish a Communist Government.  (Today, it's Muslims trying to establish Sharia Law in the US.)

If Americans of that day had fully given in to the fear that many tried to promote (especially Attorney General of the United States A._Mitchell_Palmer), you could very well be speaking Russian right now - or not exist at all.


Not to mention that coming to America as refugees is _"Legal Immigration"_...


----------



## Ryujin

And now we have Donald Trump calling for the 'tagging' of Muslims. Amazing, isn't it, how history is simply a repeating cycle?


----------



## Kramodlog

He is also saying he saw thousands Muslims or Arabs celebrate in Jersey City when the Towers fell on 9/11. When a Black Lives Matter protester got beaten up this week at one of his rally, he said that maybe the protester needed to be roughed up. The man is becoming increasingly dangerous. 

It is even more worrisome when you consider that a new ABC poll gives him 32% of support and an NBC poll that came out two days ago gives him 28%. Both show an increase in his support.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ryujin said:


> And now we have Donald Trump calling for the 'tagging' of Muslims. Amazing, isn't it, how history is simply a repeating cycle?




Well, given his praise of both Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback" and the Caucasian attendees who roughed up a black protester at one of his events, are you surprised?


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, given his praise of both Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback" and the Caucasian attendees who roughed up a black protester at one of his events, are you surprised?




Not really. I just like to point out the obvious, every now and then.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> You may not be aware, but dealing with refugees has two basic stages.  The first is immediate, and generally encompasses setting them up in tent cities, with at best the basics of life - food, sanitation, and the like.  The second is resettlement into someplace they can actually make a life.  You cannot throw short-term money at the second to have it succeed, as it is the process of them having a real life, getting a job, and so on, integrated into the nation around them.  The UN is in the business of helping spread these folks around, because you cannot dump them all into the local economies, which are already disrupted by the problems that created the refugees, and not create even more problems.




The UN needs to be abolished.  It does more harm than good these days. 



> Except that's what you're doing by saying they can't live here in the US.




No I'm not.  My saying they can't live here is not deciding where they live.  It's deciding one place that they can't live.  There is a difference, even if you don't want to see it.



> Only some of it is a desert.  Much of Syria is historically a Mediterranean climate.
> 
> From 2006 to 2011, Syria suffered a major drought - a killing 85% of the livestock kind of drought.  A million or so farmers lost their lands.  Asad's regime, which was used to handing out benefits along political lines, was not capable of managing the issues as these folks crowded into the cities looking to get by.  This led to unrest, which Assad dealt with in even worse fashion, which led to civil war, ISIS getting a foothold, and so on.




So the rest of the world is on the hook for placing everyone who lives there?  No.  People don't care when other countries refuse refugees.  It's only the U.S. that gets a bad wrap.  We want to close our southern borders and we're racist jerks.  Never mind that Mexico has far stricter border laws and enforcement than we ever will.



> At this point, Syria is on track to lose another 50% of its agricultural productivity in the next 35 years.  This, on top of the infrastructure they've lost in years of war, and the country simply will not be able to handle the same number of people for some time to come - those refugees need to go somewhere else, as Syria can't support them.




Send them to Russia.  Lots of room there and Putin is responsible for keeping Assad in power.  Let's see Putin's response to the UN deciding that's where refugees should go.  Oh, wait.  We already know it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...2/Russia-refuses-to-help-Syrian-refugees.html



> None of the 12 arrested were brought up on domestic terrorism charges - three were arrested for trying to assist actions intended to take place in the Middle East.  The reasons the others were arrested (not convicted, just arrested) has not otherwise been specified.  None of them were Syrian.  And those are *all* of them since 9/11, out of 750,000+ refugees we've taken in over that time.  That's 0.0016% or so.




Really?  You know for a fact that those were the only 12?  We're really sure we have 100% of all those refugees with terrorist ties have been caught?  Of for none of them being Syrian, that's really not relevant.  The Syrian crisis is new, so now is the time that those Syrian terrorists will be coming.



> Meanwhile, in that time, there have been on average 337 home grown terrorist attacks in the US _each year_.  This in a population of about 100 million adult men.  That's 0.0033%




Home grown is a different problem.  You also don't make a situation better by adding fuels to the fire.  It's not okay to let terrorists in just because we already have home grown ones here.



> Which means that refugees are *less* likely to be terrorists than our male citizens.  A male US citizen is *TWICE AS LIKELY* to be a terrorist!  Statistically, the refugees are safer than your neighbors.




No it doesn't.  That only means that the ones we know of are less common that home grown ones.  It does not mean that they are less likely to be terrorists as we don't know just how many unknown refugee terrorists there are.



> Nobody said it was in and of itself a solution - except in the sense that it gives tens of thousands of people a life when they had none to speak of.  Whether or not it solves any major world problem, it is still the right thing to do.
> 
> However, it is *part* of a solution to a very complex problem.  In the process, it can generate large amounts of goodwill in the moderate Muslim community (which we really, really want to have).




Tens of thousands?  We have homeless people here that need to be taken care of.  Once we solve our own issues, then we can worry about the issues of others.  Every dollar spent on a refugee is better spent on the homeless veterans and people with mental issues that are out on our streets.  I'm really tired of the U.S. treating the people of other countries better than we treat our own.


----------



## Maxperson

MechaPilot said:


> Why are you using the idea that illegal immigrants are already here to object to legally allowing more refugees and other immigrants who are not already here to come here and earn and spend money here?  The illegal immigrants in the U.S. are entirely irrelevant to that discussion.
> 
> However, let's talk illegal immigrants and legalization for a moment.  Most illegal immigrants get paid "under-the-table," and in doing so get paid substantially less than a legal worker would be paid, and don't have any withholding from their pay.  Legalization would allow them to get jobs for at least minimum wage, which is usually a step up from under-the-table pay rates, and it would see them paying into the social security and medicare funds through withholding.
> 
> Now, some illegal immigrants actually use false documents to get jobs, and some of them even pay their taxes every year.  The ones who have false documents and who get paid with checks do have withholding.  Legalizing them won't automatically lead to more withholding, but it might allow them to legally pursue higher paying jobs that they couldn't go after before because of background check concerns.  Ultimately though, I don't have an issue with legalizing illegals who not criminals, who are gainfully employed, and especially not those who are so civic-minded that they file tax returns.




Legalizing them will not only not fix the problem, because they won't be paying enough with their minimum wage jobs, but will compound the problem by adding millions of people to the system who will be entitled social security later.  We need to fix the problem, not make it worse.



> Then you brought up welfare, which is paid out of different funds and is irrelevant to the social security discussion, but you did it anyway (presumably to try to confuse the issue).




I brought up welfare for a few reasons, none of which was confusion.  First, they drain resources better spent elsewhere, like shoring up the legal citizens retirement.  Second, you don't contribute to social security when you are on welfare, so the millions of illegals who will be on welfare the minute they are legally able, will only be sucking from the U.S., not contributing anything.



> Now, while I will admit that I missed the fact that you said "illegals," which I likely missed because illegal immigration had absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing at the time and was probably just a derailment attempt, I then reminded you that individual taxpayers don't cover their own social security and medicare costs, that the system was designed so that each generation pays for the previous one (I assume you already knew that's how it works).  And I said that an inflow of cash into those funds certainly wouldn't hurt.




The system is now unsustainable.  Your ideas will just make the situation worse.



> That's when you brought up immigrants being on welfare.  And that's where your logic is circling back around to things that you have already said are irrelevant.  Welfare does not come out of the social security fund.  If GE and off-shore sheltering of income from taxation can be excluded as being irrelevant because those revenues don't pay into social security and medicare, then any expenses that don't get paid out of those same funds can be excluded for the same reason.  Hence the "have your cake and eat it too" comment.




First, currently we are not fixing the social security problem even though we need to.  Taxes could help, but our politicians don't seem inclined to either fix the tax issues, or use money outside of social security on social security.  It would be nice if both happened, and that's a far better solution than your idea to make the problem worse, but I doubt it will happen.


----------



## MechaPilot

Maxperson said:


> We need to fix the problem. . .
> 
> The system is now unsustainable. . . .




^^^ Basically the only parts of what you said that I agree with.


The fact is that adding more taxpayers now improves the longevity of the fund by increasing contributions to it, and that makes a longer-term fix more likely to work.  Is adding more taxpayers all that needs to be done?  No, but it does put pressure on the wound and reduce the bleeding.


As far as minimum wage goes, it's a joke.  Minimum wage needs to be adjusted for inflation and made a wage that people can actually live on.  Doing that would also increase spending in the economy and would increase contributions to the fund.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> The UN needs to be abolished.  It does more harm than good these days.




Right.  Thanks for letting us know where you stand.



> There is a difference, even if you don't want to see it.




Yeah... you don't know what I want.  The internet is not an appropriate medium for telepathy, so you cannot read my, or anyone else's mind.  Please stop speaking as if you can, as it's pretty rude.



> So the rest of the world is on the hook for placing everyone who lives there?




It is in their own best interests to do so.  Whether they are 'on the hook' is irrelevant - it is both the smart and the moral thing to do.



> It's only the U.S. that gets a bad wrap.




No.  I expect you only hear about the US getting criticized for it, because you're probably mostly listening to US news sources, that are not in the business of giving you a full account of world news.  Confirmation bias
 takes care of the rest.



> We want to close our southern borders and we're racist jerks.




No.  Say that you want to close the border because all those Mexicans are criminals and drug dealers and worthless layabouts, and you'll be a racist jerk.  You'll also be kinda dumb, because the land border is just to darned long to close, and there's two bodies of water they could use, too.  It simply isn't practical to really close the border.



> Send them to Russia.  Lots of room there and Putin is responsible for keeping Assad in power.




Siberia isn't yet particularly liveable real estate.  And Putin isn't exactly what I'd call benign.  And his economy isn't actually in all that great shape either.  And, finally, in a geopolitical sense, I don't think it is a great idea to have him being better friends with the Muslim world than Europe and the US.  



> Really?  You know for a fact that those were the only 12?  We're really sure we have 100% of all those refugees with terrorist ties have been caught?




No, but then, I really don't have to.  We have abotu 2.5 million people die each year in the USA.  In the past decade, not a single one has died as a result of refugee-enacted terrorism.  Not a single one.

I live in a free society.  That means that perfect safety will always be denied me.  Rather than seeking perfect safety, I seek "good enough" safety, and I prioritize, and pick my battles.  The chance of folks dying at the hands of refugee terrorists is way, way down on the list of things that can kill us.  So, I can instead turn to the far more likely causes of death to Americans.



> Of for none of them being Syrian, that's really not relevant.  The Syrian crisis is new




Not really - the crisis has been around for some time.  Even with our long entrance procedures, we have 1500 Syrian refugees in the US now, iirc.  



> That only means that the ones we know of are less common that home grown ones.




And the ones we don't know of might not even be there!  Without *evidence* you are jumping at shadows. 



> Tens of thousands?  We have homeless people here that need to be taken care of.  Once we solve our own issues, then we can worry about the issues of others.  Every dollar spent on a refugee is better spent on the homeless veterans and people with mental issues that are out on our streets.




Common misdirection tactic:  Say, "We cannot deal with C until we first deal with A and B!" and then quietly never actually deal with A and B.  You can use this as a reason only when you have another thread in which you propose cogent and workable solutions to those problems, and can show that we will not have resources left for this.  Until then, this is handwaving.

Plus, it isn't at all clear that you can safely afford to ignore the issue - it is central to the Middle East at this point, and the world economy is still tied to petroleum coming form there.  You can't let it to go to heck in a handbasket, or the current homeless will be a drop in the bucket compared to what you'll have to deal with.



> I'm really tired of the U.S. treating the people of other countries better than we treat our own.




I'm not the one stopping us - and neither are the other folks you are arguing with, I suspect.  I am pretty sure we are quite ready to treat our own quite well.


----------



## Maxperson

El Mahdi said:


> All true, and not to mention that the purpose of most so-called "anchor-babies" has almost nothing to do with immediate immigration legitimacy or seeking welfare benefits.  First, a so-called "anchor-baby" can't sponsor immigration for family members until they turn 21 - that's a rather long time to wait when there are far faster means.  And second, the majority of today's so-called "anchor-babies" (as opposed to those from a few decades ago) are actually children of affluent foreigners - mostly Chinese - trying to get around the "one-child" policy or setting up future access to elite colleges for their children.  They don't necessarily want to immigrate to the US, they just want to be able to send their kids to Harvard and Yale.




First, the odds of any illegal being deported are slim, and it drops for mothers of American citizens.  That a few are deported doesn't stop the children from being anchors.  Second, the notion that there are millions of Chinese women flying in to have babies is absurd.  There are some that do it for sure.  Here in Los Angeles there were some high end houses set up for just that purpose.  The numbers pale in comparison to the millions of illegals from south of the border, though.  It's not even possible for the number of Chinese women flying to America to have babies to surpass the normal child birthrate of the millions of illegals from central and south america.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> He is also saying he saw thousands Muslims or Arabs celebrate in Jersey City when the Towers fell on 9/11. When a Black Lives Matter protester got beaten up this week at one of his rally, he said that maybe the protester needed to be roughed up. The man is becoming increasingly dangerous.




He isn't droning American citizens to death.


----------



## Maxperson

MechaPilot said:


> The fact is that adding more taxpayers now improves the longevity of the fund by increasing contributions to it, and that makes a longer-term fix more likely to work.  Is adding more taxpayers all that needs to be done?  No, but it does put pressure on the wound and reduce the bleeding.




At the expense of possible solutions.  Any solution will necessarily have to be far more comprehensive and expensive than it currently will, possibly to the point of being unworkable.  All so that you can stave off the disaster for a short period of time.  

Legalizing the illegals will cause more economic harm than good, as most will contribute little or nothing to the social security, but will be entitled to many more economic programs, as well as social security.  Then there's the massive influx of new illegals that happens every time we legalize a batch.



> As far as minimum wage goes, it's a joke.  Minimum wage needs to be adjusted for inflation and made a wage that people can actually live on.  Doing that would also increase spending in the economy and would increase contributions to the fund.




You really think businesses won't pass on the cost to the consumers?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> He isn't droning American citizens to death.




That's Amazon's job.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local/drone-disrupts-careflight-landing/ng94n/

http://www.westvaautoaccidentattorney.com/man-arrested-drone-interferes-careflight-landing/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...8c1716-758c-11e4-bd1b-03009bd3e984_story.html


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That's Amazon's job.
> http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local/drone-disrupts-careflight-landing/ng94n/
> 
> http://www.westvaautoaccidentattorney.com/man-arrested-drone-interferes-careflight-landing/
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...8c1716-758c-11e4-bd1b-03009bd3e984_story.html




Heh.  Good one.  

Still, Obama is doing a much better job of it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> Legalizing the illegals will cause more economic harm than good, as most will contribute little or nothing to the social security, but will be entitled to many more economic programs, as well as social security.  Then there's the massive influx of new illegals that happens every time we legalize a batch.




Back when I was getting my Econ degree (mid 1980's), the math showed that illegal immigrants were a net boon to the economy.  This was in part because they were paid illegally low wages, reducing businesses overhead, and thus, prices paid by end consumers.

That basic dynamic hasn't changed.

In addition, usingDHS's latest numbers, the cost of catching, trying and deporting 80% of the illegals in tis country (assuming a self-deportation rate of 20%) is $260B, with a $17B cost annually after that.  (Note: those numbers do not include the costs of erecting and maintaining a wall along the US-Mexico border.)
https://newrepublic.com/article/118...ed-immigrants-would-cost-billions-immigration

As noted, the libertarian think-tank Cato Institute estimated that the non-law enforcement costs of a mass deportation program would be equally large: lessening economic growth by $250B annually.

In contrast, some conservative think tanks have put forth an estimate that it will cost $6T over 50 years to legalize the illegal immigrants in the country today.  Sounds like a lot, but it is less per year than the cost of deporting them (per DHS numbers) and the hit the economy would take per The Cato Institute's estimates.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Back when I was getting my Econ degree (mid 1980's), the math showed that illegal immigrants were a net boon to the economy.  This was in part because they were paid illegally low wages, reducing businesses overhead, and thus, prices paid by end consumers.
> 
> That basic dynamic hasn't changed.
> 
> In addition, usingDHS's latest numbers, the cost of catching, trying and deporting 80% of the illegals in tis country (assuming a self-deportation rate of 20%) is $260B, with a $17B cost annually after that.  (Note: those numbers do not include the costs of erecting and maintaining a wall along the US-Mexico border.)
> https://newrepublic.com/article/118...ed-immigrants-would-cost-billions-immigration
> 
> As noted, the libertarian think-tank Cato Institute estimated that the non-law enforcement costs of a mass deportation program would be equally large: lessening economic growth by $250B annually.




The idea of catching and deporting 80% of the illegals is absurd.  It can't work.  That's why you have to hit them where it hurts.  In the pocket.  If you aggressively hunt down and severely punish businesses and individuals that hire them, people won't hire them and they will leave.  For proof of that, all you have to do is look at recession we just had.  The illegals couldn't find work and were self-deporting all over the place.  Wonder of wonders, we had a negative flow of illegals for a few years.


----------



## MechaPilot

Maxperson said:


> At the expense of possible solutions.




No.  Not at the expense of possible solutions.  Adding money to the fund now grants time for a more comprehensive solution.  The easiest way to add money to the fund is to add more taxpayers.





Maxperson said:


> Legalizing the illegals will cause more economic harm than good, as most will contribute little or nothing to the social security, but will be entitled to many more economic programs, as well as social security.  Then there's the massive influx of new illegals that happens every time we legalize a batch.




This is NOT about your illegal alien fetish.  I am talking about legally adding more taxpayers by accepting more refugees.  YOU keep interjecting illegal aliens like it's some kind of Tourettes tick.





Maxperson said:


> You really think businesses won't pass on the cost to the consumers?




Of course they will.  They did it before when the minimum wage was first created (and every time it was raised), and it didn't cause any catastrophe.  According to the BLS, the percentage of change in the minimum wage has historically not affected the percentage of change in U.S. GDP, nor has raising the minimum wage affected the steady increase in per capita GDP.  BLS also estimates that raising the minimum wage will result in 3.1 million people no longer needing food stamps.  It is also known that people at the lowest end of the economic spectrum don't just throw this money in the bank, or in stocks: they spend it on things that they actually need but have been doing without, so that money will go right back into the economy and trickle across (?*). 600 economists, including seven Nobel Laureates agree that the minimum wage should be raised.

*I added a question mark because the bulk of increased spending doesn't trickle down, it trickles up to business-owners, B2B suppliers, and to taxing authorities.  Only a small portion of it actually trickles down.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In contrast, some conservative think tanks have put forth an estimate that it will cost $6T over 50 years to legalize the illegal immigrants in the country today.  Sounds like a lot, but it is less per year than the cost of deporting them (per DHS numbers) and the hit the economy would take per The Cato Institute's estimates.




17 billion x 50 years is 850 billion.  Add in that 260 initial billion and you're at 1.11 trillion.  How is that more than 6 trillion?

You didn't include the numbers for the cost of the fence, but I doubt it's going to be nearly 5 trillion dollars.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> The idea of catching and deporting 80% of the illegals is absurd.  It can't work.




I'm glad that you recognize that- that puts you ahead of the GOP frontrunner.



> That's why you have to hit them where it hurts.  In the pocket.  If you aggressively hunt down and severely punish businesses and individuals that hire them, people won't hire them and they will leave.  For proof of that, all you have to do is look at recession we just had.  The illegals couldn't find work and were self-deporting all over the place.  Wonder of wonders, we had a negative flow of illegals for a few years.




In economics, there is a rarely discussed principle called the economically efficient level of crime prevention.  At some point, every crime becomes more expensive to prevent than permit.

Given the hundreds of billions of dollars economic contraction caused by even self-deportation of illegal immigrants, we may already be at that point.  And that is assuming The Cato Institute accounted for the inflationary effects of businesses having to pay higher wages.


----------



## Maxperson

MechaPilot said:


> This is NOT about your illegal alien fetish.  I am talking about legally adding more taxpayers by accepting more refugees.  YOU keep interjecting illegal aliens like it's some kind of Tourettes tick.




Then your plan is even more absurd than I thought.  There aren't enough refugees to make a dent in the amount we currently need.  I was using illegals, because at least they have numbers in the millions and could make a dent.  Millions can't overcome the current deficit.  Thousands of refugees have less of a chance than I do of winning the lottery.



> Of course they will.  They did it before when the minimum wage was first created (and every time it was raised), and it didn't cause any catastrophe.  According to the BLS, the percentage of change in the minimum wage has historically not affected the percentage of change in U.S. GDP, nor has raising the minimum wage affected the steady increase in per capita GDP.  BLS also estimates that raising the minimum wage will result in 3.1 million people no longer needing food stamps.  It is also known that people at the lowest end of the economic spectrum don't just throw this money in the bank, or in stocks: they spend it on things that they actually need but have been doing without, so that money will go right back into the economy and trickle across (?*). 600 economists, including seven Nobel Laureates agree that the minimum wage should be raised.
> 
> *I added a question mark because the bulk of increased spending doesn't trickle down, it trickles up to business-owners, B2B suppliers, and to taxing authorities.  Only a small portion of it actually trickles down.




First, ever watch economists make guesses as to how the economy will react to events?  I have.  It's funny to see how many different opinions (mostly wrong) you get.  Second, 600 is hardly the bulk of economists.  In 2012 there were 16,900 with jobs (in the U.S.) and God knows how many more without.


----------



## MechaPilot

Maxperson said:


> Then your plan is even more absurd than I thought.  There aren't enough refugees to make a dent in the amount we currently need.  I was using illegals, because at least they have numbers in the millions and could make a dent.  Millions can't overcome the current deficit.  Thousands of refugees have less of a chance than I do of winning the lottery.




New taxpayers alone don't have to overcome the deficit.  The point of adding new taxpayers, as I have REPEATEDLY pointed out now is to provide an inflow of cash to the fund while a proper fix is hammered out.  Social security probably never should have been designed so that the current generation of workers pays for the current generation of retirees, but it was also probably the only way they had to make payments to retirees available quickly when the program was created and implemented.  Add it to the list of things that aren't perfect right away and that need eventual fixing (i.e. everything).





Maxperson said:


> First, ever watch economists make guesses as to how the economy will react to events?  I have.  It's funny to see how many different opinions (mostly wrong) you get.  Second, 600 is hardly the bulk of economists.  In 2012 there were 16,900 with jobs (in the U.S.) and God knows how many more without.




I didn't say that 600 was the bulk of them, but getting 600 scholarly types to agree on just about anything is difficult enough that it's impressive.  And don't forget the seven Nobel Laureates among that group.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> 17 billion x 50 years is 850 billion.  Add in that 260 initial billion and you're at 1.11 trillion.  How is that more than 6 trillion?



For one thing, you've left out the $250B in _annual_ economic contraction because there are @9.5-11.5M fewer economic actors being removed from the equation.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> He isn't droning American citizens to death.




You consider this a valid argument?


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> For one thing, you've left out the $250B in _annual_ economic contraction because there are @9.5-11.5M fewer economic actors being removed from the equation.




Saving us billions annually in medical costs, schooling costs, and other programs that the illegals take advantage of.  California alone pays 10.5 billion a year.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/6/20041206-102115-6766r/?page=all


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Honestly, I was surprised he even brought it up- at least one of the 4 Americans in question was strongly suspected as being a terrorist, and the warrants for the strikes were all cleared through the secret court process set up during the Bush administration.  All 4 strikes were on foreign soil- not in the USA.  

The other 3 killed were collateral damage- unfortunate, no doubt, but a small number compared to collateral damage expectations from traditional air strikes.  And, from what I understand, despite not being the target of the strike, at least one of those 3 was also a suspected terrorist.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm glad that you recognize that- that puts you ahead of the GOP frontrunner.




There isn't a GOP candidate that could get my vote.  The only Democrat that has a shot of getting my vote is Martin O'Malley and I doubt he can beat the disaster that is Clinton to get the nomination.



> In economics, there is a rarely discussed principle called the economically efficient level of crime prevention.  At some point, every crime becomes more expensive to prevent than permit.
> 
> Given the hundreds of billions of dollars economic contraction caused by even self-deportation of illegal immigrants, we may already be at that point.  And that is assuming The Cato Institute accounted for the inflationary effects of businesses having to pay higher wages.




I know you haven't made this argument, but many here seem to think that raising the minimum wage for several million people won't have the impact you are describing there.  If that's true, then it also won't have the impact when it comes to the illegals.  Assuming 11.6 million illegals, many of them will be old, young or housewives.  You're probably looking at 3-4 million in the workforce, a number of whom already make more than 7.25 an hour.  That's far less than number of American's who will be affected by a minimum wage raise to the Federally proposed 10.10 an hour.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> Saving us billions annually in medical costs, schooling costs, and other programs that the illegals take advantage of.  California alone pays 10.5 billion a year.
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/6/20041206-102115-6766r/?page=all




The Cato Institute's number was a _net_ figure- IOW, costs like that were accounted for in their calculations to reach that total.

Their 2009 report explicitly mentions that they took into account said savings.  (The 2012 report I cited used the same methodology.)
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tpa-040.pdf

A CBO (Congressional Budget Office) report on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 concluded that a path to legalization for immigrants would _increase_ federal revenues by $48 billion. Such a plan would see $23 billion in increased costs from the use of public services, but ultimately, it would produce a surplus of $25 billion for government coffers.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Honestly, I was surprised he even brought it up- at least one of the 4 Americans in question was strongly suspected as being a terrorist, and the warrants for the strikes were all cleared through the secret court process set up during the Bush administration.  All 4 strikes were on foreign soil- not in the USA.
> 
> The other 3 killed were collateral damage- unfortunate, no doubt, but a small number compared to collateral damage expectations from traditional air strikes.  And, from what I understand, despite not being the target of the strike, at least one of those 3 was also a suspected terrorist.




I know who the target was, but I don't approve of even a single American being targeted for murder by our government.  That's a line that should not be crossed and Obama is a monster for crossing it.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> ...and it drops for mothers of American citizens.




That is a myth, as has been pointed out a couple of times already - being the mother of a citizen is not considered in deportation hearings.  "Anchor babies," don't have that effect.


----------



## Kramodlog

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Honestly, I was surprised he even brought it up- at least one of the 4 Americans in question was strongly suspected as being a terrorist, and the warrants for the strikes were all cleared through the secret court process set up during the Bush administration.  All 4 strikes were on foreign soil- not in the USA.
> 
> The other 3 killed were collateral damage- unfortunate, no doubt, but a small number compared to collateral damage expectations from traditional air strikes.  And, from what I understand, despite not being the target of the strike, at least one of those 3 was also a suspected terrorist.




I'm always amused by this rationalization of the killing of civilians, people who were killed without due process and the language used to dehumanize them (collateral damage). It is the same logic used by so called terrorists. All is done for the greater good. I am less amused that people eat up this propaganda.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> That is a myth, as has been pointed out a couple of times already - being the mother of a citizen is not considered in deportation hearings.  "Anchor babies," don't have that effect.




It's in getting them to deportation hearings in the first place.  The U.S. doesn't target mothers like it does criminals and others.  Hell, it doesn't even hold the illegals it catches coming across the border.  It lets them go with a piece of paper telling them that they have to show up for the hearing.  Guess how effective that is.  

Maybe the judges don't consider the motherhood, but if the mothers aren't showing up in front of them, there's nothing to "not consider."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Every loss of human life is a bad thing, but in war, it will happen.  At least in the case of legitimate soldiery, efforts are taken to REDUCE casualties of uninvolved civilians.

Terrorists, OTOH, seek to INCREASE said casualties.

That is a significant ethical difference, IMHO.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> I'm always amused by this rationalization of the killing of civilians, people who were killed without due process and the language used to dehumanize them (collateral damage). It is the same logic used by so called terrorists. All is done for the greater good. I am less amused that people eat up this propaganda.




In any war, collateral damage must happen.  You either fight back and accept collateral damage, or you lose.  Collateral damage is different from the direct intentional targeting of Americans or even foreign civilians.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> I know who the target was, but I don't approve of even a single American being targeted for murder by our government.  That's a line that should not be crossed and Obama is a monster for crossing it.




Then perhaps you should take a closer look at those who made such a tool available to him.

Also: would you have been happier if they had used a cruise missile or Special Forces (as Clinton did and Bush would have before drone tech) as opposed to drones on their intended targets (kill or capture), knowing that both of those options would likely have increased the number of innocents killed?


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> Assuming 11.6 million illegals, many of them will be old, young or housewives.




I don't think illegals have the luxury of having "housewives" all that often.  



> You're probably looking at 3-4 million in the workforce, a number of whom already make more than 7.25 an hour.




"A number"?  What number?  Remember, they're illegal, getting paid under the table - the minimum wage laws don't apply.



> That's far less than number of American's who will be affected by a minimum wage raise to the Federally proposed 10.10 an hour.




According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2013 about 3.3 million people made at or below the Federal minimum wage.  This number will not include most of the illegals, whose income is not reported in their taxes.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> It's in getting them to deportation hearings in the first place.  The U.S. doesn't target mothers like it does criminals and others.




Unsupported assertion.  Citation needed.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Then perhaps you should take a closer look at those who made such a tool available to him.
> 
> Also: would you have been happier if they had used a cruise missile or Special Forces (as Clinton did and Bush would have before drone tech) as opposed to drones on their intended targets (kill or capture), knowing that both of those options would likely have increased the number of innocents killed?




If Bush or Clinton had targeted Americans to be murdered without due process I would be just as critical of them.  Bush and Obama are running neck and neck for the worst Presidents ever.  Clinton I really liked.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> I don't think illegals have the luxury of having "housewives" all that often.




I guess you don't live in California.  Many women stay at home with the kids while the men of the household families go earn the money to pay the rent. 



> "A number"?  What number?  Remember, they're illegal, getting paid under the table - the minimum wage laws don't apply.



Who said anything about minimum wage laws right there.  If they make 7.25 an hour or better, and many of them do, then they make more than 7.25 an hour. 



> According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2013 about 3.3 million people made at or below the Federal minimum wage.  This number will not include most of the illegals, whose income is not reported in their taxes.




Right.  That means it ignored anyone making 7.26 an hour to 10.09 an hour, which is a huge number that will all see increases.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> If Bush or Clinton had targeted Americans to be murdered without due process I would be just as critical of them.  Bush and Obama are running neck and neck for the worst Presidents ever.  Clinton I really liked.




Pardon me, but apparently you have a misunderstanding of "due process": all that that means is that a person is entitled to the legal proceedings the government has set forth in its judicial/legal frameworks.

In the case of the American targeted by the drone strike, _he got due process under current US law_.  As noted upthread, all 4 drone strikes were authorized by the secret courts set up during the Bush admin- by the laws passed in our Legislative branch- for handling the targeting terrorists, either for certain kinds of surveillance, capture, or termination.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> In any war, collateral damage must happen.  You either fight back and accept collateral damage, or you lose.  Collateral damage is different from the direct intentional targeting of Americans or even foreign civilians.




It is not. It is just something people made up to not look like the bad guys and feel good. It is the same logic that operates for either side. No sides wants to see itself as the bad guy, so they try to justify their actions, but the the fact of the matter is that both side kill people.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In the case of the American targeted by the drone strike, _he got due process under current US law_.




As I understand it, basically if you get yourself declared an "enemy combatant", then the kid gloves can come off.

There are a bunch of problems with current US law on this subject, for which there are actually some really simple fixes.  "Secret court" is a major problem.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> As I understand it, basically if you get yourself declared an "enemy combatant", then the kid gloves can come off.
> 
> There are a bunch of problems with current US law on this subject, for which there are actually some really simple fixes.  "Secret court" is a major problem.




Oh, I completely agree. It is every much against foundational principles of our country.

But I have just as big a problem with those who approve of the creation of a tool and then who cry foul when it is used as intended or in a way that was completely forseeable.  Or of those who complain when we try to make those tools conform more to our broader legal system.

For example, many politicians on the Right were very publically pro-"enhanced interrogation techniques"...until Alan Dershowitz called for such techniques to be subject to a process including obtaining a "Torture Warrant", which would require people to sign their names to a document authorizing the use of those techniques.  While sealed from the view of anyone without proper clearance, said warrants would still make individuals accountable for their actions if the right people made the right complaints.

That call for potential for legal scrutiny and accountability quieted a lot of saber rattling.


----------



## billd91

MechaPilot said:


> And let's not forget that WWII didn't start out as WWII.  For a long time we just didn't give a crap about what the Nazis did because it didn't affect our isolationist society.  Hell, Hitler was Time magazine's Man of the Year for 1938, only one year prior to the start of WWII.  The fact is that most people in the U.S. still tend to forget that the rest of the world is even there (apart from a few major allies and rivals).




I'm not sure exactly where you are going with the Hitler as Time's Man of the Year in 1938. Keep in mind that Time's designation of someone as Man (now Person) of the Year isn't an accolade. It's a declaration of who was the biggest news driver of the year, for good or bad. Hitler certainly fit that bill in 1938. Unfortunately, since they declared Ayatollah Khomeini Person of the Year in 1979 and received backlash, Time has been more timid about their Person of the Year declarations - hence Rudy Giuliani in 2001  instead of Osama bin Laden despite how large bin Laden loomed in the news.
Moreover, selection of Hitler in 1938 suggests that we *weren't* entirely forgetting that the rest of the world was out there...


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> I guess you don't live in California.  Many women stay at home with the kids while the men of the household families go earn the money to pay the rent.




How many?  That's the question.  Anecdotal evidence isn't enough.  



> Who said anything about minimum wage laws right there.  If they make 7.25 an hour or better, and many of them do, then they make more than 7.25 an hour.




You keep on asserting these things, but give no evidence.  You are not an accepted authority.  And *how many* get paid more is extremely relevant to your point.

My point was that the minimum wage law is not enforced for these people - it isn't like they can file a grievance about it.  So, why would we expect a significant number of them to be paid above minimum wage?  



> Right.  That means it ignored anyone making 7.26 an hour to 10.09 an hour, which is a huge number that will all see increases.




And *WHAT IS THE HUGE NUMBER*?  You wave your hands around making claims, and you don't back them up.  Why should anyone listen to you if you don't back up your assertions?

I did a quick search for how many people make under $10/hour, and the number I found was about 15 million.  Took me about 30 seconds to find a CNN article.  You're welcome.

When I went looking for the number of unauthorized immigrants in the workforce, the number I got was about 8 million.  At least twice as many as you assert.  You seem to have estimated that about a third of illegals were working, when the numbers say more like 70% or more of them are working.

Now, 8 is less than 15.  But, it means that illegals make up about a third of this low-wage pool, and therefore their impact can't be ignored.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

The 8m number corresponds to what I have found as well.  In a CNN piece citing the Cato Institute's 2011 testimony before the House Judiciary Sub-committee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement:



> Removing the approximately 8 million unauthorized workers in the United States would not automatically create 8 million job openings for unemployed Americans, said Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, in his 2011 testimony before the House Judiciary Sub-committee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement.
> 
> The reason, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is two-fold. For one, removing millions of undocumented workers from the economy would also remove millions of entrepreneurs, consumers and taxpayers. The economy would actually lose jobs. Second, native-born workers and immigrant workers tend to possess different skills that often complement one another.
> 
> According to Griswold, immigrants, regardless of status, fill the growing gap between expanding low-skilled jobs and the shrinking pool of native-born Americans who are willing to take such jobs. By facilitating the growth of such sectors as retail, agriculture, landscaping, restaurants, and hotels, low-skilled immigrants have enabled those sectors to expand, attract investment, and create middle-class jobs in management, design and engineering, bookkeeping, marketing and other areas that employ U.S. citizens.
> 
> America's unions support the president's executive action. "For far too long, our broken immigration system has allowed employers to drive down wages and working conditions in our country," the AFL-CIO says on its website. "The brunt of the impact has been born by immigrant workers, who face the highest rates of wage theft, sexual harassment, and death and injury on the job."




What Griswold & the AFL-CIO are hinting at is that the large number of unskilled laborers in the illegal immigrant pool essentially free up Americans to seek out higher, skilled-labor jobs.  (Historically, the AFL-CIO is not a fan of policies that drive down skilled labor salaries, so their position on immigrants should tell you something.)


----------



## cmad1977

Maxperson said:


> I guess you don't live in California.  Many women stay at home with the kids while the men of the household families go earn the money to pay the rent.




Wow. I'd like to live in your part of California. Here in Los Angeles, among my circle of married/unmarried/divorced people with kid(s) there is exactly one family where the man goes to make the money and the woman stay at home... It's mine. And actually it's the woman making the money and me at home with the kid. Everyone else, friends, coworkers(of my wife's and my former coworkers) need two incomes to pay rent/mortgages/bills and pretty soon I'm sure we will too. These are let servers and bartenders either. I'm talking tech people making 6 figures, film editors with serious accolades(Emmys etc). Business owners and the like. 

Of all the illegals I've worked with/around both the man and the woman worked.. Sometimes the kid too. So...
Again.. I would love to live in your California. Sounds so 50's!


----------



## Ovinomancer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Pardon me, but apparently you have a misunderstanding of "due process": all that that means is that a person is entitled to the legal proceedings the government has set forth in its judicial/legal frameworks.
> 
> In the case of the American targeted by the drone strike, _he got due process under current US law_.  As noted upthread, all 4 drone strikes were authorized by the secret courts set up during the Bush admin- by the laws passed in our Legislative branch- for handling the targeting terrorists, either for certain kinds of surveillance, capture, or termination.




Um, wow.  You're a lawyer and you describe due process like that?  It doesn't mean that you get some kind of hearing, it means that you're afforded ALL of the legal rights and protections.  Clearly Alwaki did not get a trial by jury, or the right to confront his accusers in court, or any of the other things afforded by due process to American citizens.  And he didn't get a hearing in a secret court, either, despite your claims he did.  Instead, he got a legal memo that said that the US government didn't think that he qualified for his due process rights under the 4th amendment, and that they thought that they could just kill him based on the authorization for use of military force (AUMF) that was currently in effect.  So he was categorically denied his due process, and no court ever sat to decide his fate.  It was all lawyers convincing their clients (the US government) that their clients didn't have to worry about the legal ramifications of assassinating a US citizen because the lawyers didn't think it was against the law.

Seriously, you can think this was a good thing, or make it into yet another 'blame Bush' moment, but Obama's administration decided to bureaucratically remove Alwaki's rights and then kill him.  Doesn't matter who left the gun on the table, it matters who picks it up and shoots someone.


----------



## Ryujin

When it comes to the Mexican illegal immigration issue, there seems to be a rather large disconnect, at least from the interactions that I have had with American Republicans. The typical comment on the problem is to build a wall and arm the Trebuchet of Deportation. Follow this up with questions about the cost of home renovations, restaurant means, fresh produce... and no one seems to want to pay more. So they want the illegals to do the drudge work, but they don't want them to be in the country. The remake of "Total Recall" comes immediately to mind.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> Um, wow.  You're a lawyer and you describe due process like that?




"Due process" is "the process due to you as defined by law".  



> It doesn't mean that you get some kind of hearing, it means that you're afforded ALL of the legal rights and protections.




You're confusing "standard process" with "due process".  Most of us get the standard process.  Under certain circumstances, the process due to you by law is not the standard process.  For example, the process due to military personnel much of the time is not the standard process, but is instead a court martial, which works by substantially different rules.  Enemy combatants get yet another process.



> Seriously, you can think this was a good thing, or make it into yet another 'blame Bush' moment, but Obama's administration decided to bureaucratically remove Alwaki's rights and then kill him.  Doesn't matter who left the gun on the table, it matters who picks it up and shoots someone.




I think the ability to do that (I believe it is a legal process, not a bureaucratic one) is in the Patriot Act. 

It is *both* of their faults - if you leave your gun lying around where it can be easily picked up, you are in part responsible for what happens from there - that's basic gun safety.  This guy is hardly the only person to have what we'd normally think of as his rights abrogated - a bunch of them are still sitting in Guantanamo, and Obama didn't put them there.  

This is a large part of why I give so much pushback to reactions to events that are based on anecdotes and the stories we tell ourselves about what might happen.  That kind of reaction led to the Patriot Act, which has some seriously messed up stuff in it.  If you don't like its consequences, we should do a better job of reacting to events this tome.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ovinomancer said:


> Um, wow.  You're a lawyer and you describe due process like that?




Yes, for the reasons Umbran already stated.



> It doesn't mean that you get some kind of hearing, it means that you're afforded ALL of the legal rights and protections.




Nope.  See above.

See also the diminished rights afforded "enemy combatants".



> Clearly Alwaki did not get a trial by jury, or the right to confront his accusers in court, or any of the other things afforded by due process to American citizens.




Because, with his status as an enemy combatant, he wasn't entitled to the full suite of those protections.



> And he didn't get a hearing in a secret court, either, despite your claims he did.  Instead, he got a legal memo that said that the US government didn't think that he qualified for his due process rights under the 4th amendment, and that they thought that they could just kill him based on the authorization for use of military force (AUMF) that was currently in effect.  So he was categorically denied his due process, and no court ever sat to decide his fate.



  It was all lawyers convincing their clients (the US government) that their clients didn't have to worry about the legal ramifications of assassinating a US citizen because the lawyers didn't think it was against the law.[/QUOTE]

The 4th prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.  Well, by law, the secret courts DO require a showing of probable cause before a judge.

But the secret courts don't act like jury trials.  They're more akin to warrant hearings or grand juries: the "defendant" has no right to testify or confront witnesses.

And as near as we can tell without higher clearance, his case DID pass through those secret courts:


> CNN’s Jessica Yellin asked Obama in a Sept. 5, 2012, interview if he decides who will be targeted in drone attacks. The president said, "As president, ultimately I’m responsible for decisions that are made by the administration," and said an "extensive process" is behind such decisions. He described criteria: the target must be "authorized by our laws"; there must be a serious, not speculative, threat; there must be no option to capture the targeted individual instead of using deadly force; and civilian casualties must be avoided.



http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...s-citizens-killed-obama-drone-strikes-3-were/




> Seriously, you can think this was a good thing, or make it into yet another 'blame Bush' moment, but Obama's administration decided to bureaucratically remove Alwaki's rights and then kill him.  Doesn't matter who left the gun on the table, it matters who picks it up and shoots someone.




This isn't about blaming Bush, even though he was the sitting president  when the Patriot Act was passed and signed.  Our Legislative branch has just as much blame to shoulder.  And, it should be noted, that other, subsequent laws were passed that expanded government powers in support of it, and extended it, and were signed by both Bush and Obama.

In the final analysis, Obama used a tool that was handed to him by Bush and prior legislators (of both parties)- there's blame enough to spread, if you wish.

But let us be 100% honest: 

1) as I asked before, would you be more comfortable if other methods with higher collateral damage probabilities been used?

2) what would the public & political if Obama (or any subsequent president) pushed for the repeal of the laws that let him order those drone strikes?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> "Due process" is "the process due to you as defined by law".



What a ridiculous statement.  Due process is clearly defined under the Constitution and related laws.  You don't get less due process because of another law.  That's not how that works.  You can have less protections because you voluntarily sign waive them (such as waiving Miranda rights) or if you have rights taken away from you due to a conviction in court (parolees, for instance, do not have protections against searches at any time for any reason by the police).  But aside from those options, there is no 'but a different law just says that you get less'.  That's definitionally unconstitutional on it's face.



> You're confusing "standard process" with "due process".  Most of us get the standard process.  Under certain circumstances, the process due to you by law is not the standard process.  For example, the process due to military personnel much of the time is not the standard process, but is instead a court martial, which works by substantially different rules.  Enemy combatants get yet another process.



No.  We ALL get standard process.  The military agrees to be held to a second set of laws, with a second set of rights assigned under those laws, but they agree to those up front and clearly -- it's briefed and understood that you are agreeing to a new paradigm.  Further, that paradigm isn't very much removed from "standard" as far as due process goes -- you still have a right to a jury trial, you still have right to representation, you still have the right to face your accuser, etc.  Your due process is handled by a different system, but is still there.  And, to top it off, if you commit a civilian crime while enlisted, you're prosecuted by the civilian authorities and get your full set of due process there.  So the military has a second set of laws, they don't obviate the "standard" set.

Enemy combatants are not US citizens nor are they on US soil.  It's a shorthand for non-uniformed hostiles, which actually affords them greater protections than the Geneva Convention does (the GC pretty much hangs out to dry non-uniformed combatants as having zero protections).  Even if you accept the concept that you can name a US citizen as an enemy combatant for whatever reasons, that naming doesn't remove his citizenship and _the due process that goes along with it_.



> I think the ability to do that (I believe it is a legal process, not a bureaucratic one) is in the Patriot Act.



It is not a legal process.  There was no legal process followed here.  The Administration dubbed Alwaki and enemy combatant and solicited a legal opinion from Justice as to whether or not they could kill him.  Justice said, 'Yup, we think so,' and so they did.  At no point did this ever become a legal process.



> It is *both* of their faults - if you leave your gun lying around where it can be easily picked up, you are in part responsible for what happens from there - that's basic gun safety.  This guy is hardly the only person to have what we'd normally think of as his rights abrogated - a bunch of them are still sitting in Guantanamo, and Obama didn't put them there.



So, your contention is that if something is left somewhere, which is not illegal but maybe foolish, and someone else does something horrible, then blame needs to be apportioned between the person that, without coercion, did something horrible, and the person that did something foolish?  Mmkay.  I suppose, then, that you apportion blame to Obama for people that use the ACA to commit fraud?  He left it there, right?

Any argument that apportions blame based on another party's actions is a straight up fail.  Bush didn't do anything right with the Patriot Act, and he did plenty more wrong under it and other things, but none of that, _none of that_, in any way makes him responsible in the least for Obama deciding, on his own, to pursue a new understanding of the law that allowed him to assassinate a US citizen without trial.

[/QUOTE]



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yes, for the reasons Umbran already stated.



Umbran is wrong, and you should know it.





> Nope.  See above.
> 
> See also the diminished rights afforded "enemy combatants".



Where was Alwaki's US citizenship revoked?  Under what circumstances can _your _due process be diminished?




> Because, with his status as an enemy combatant, he wasn't entitled to the full suite of those protections.



He was a US citizen, and had the full suite of those protections.  He was also an enemy combatant, with many fewer protections.  Under due process, he's entitled to ALL of the legal rights and protections he can have.  So he got the ones under enemy combatant, and conveniently was bureaucratically denied those under his US citizenship.

NOTHING revoked Alwaki's citizenship.  He died a (scumbag adherent of a vile ideology) US citizen.  One denied his due process.



> The 4th prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.  Well, by law, the secret courts DO require a showing of probable cause before a judge.



Yes, they do.  No warrant to search or seize Alwaki was issued.  You misunderstand what the FISA courts had jurisdiction over.



> But the secret courts don't act like jury trials.  They're more akin to warrant hearings or grand juries: the "defendant" has no right to testify or confront witnesses.



No, you are correct.  Grand juries can be used to indict ham sandwiches.  We appear to be in full agreement that Alwaki has not yet had his due process.



> And as near as we can tell without higher clearance, his case DID pass through those secret courts:
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...s-citizens-killed-obama-drone-strikes-3-were/



Your source says nothing about courts, and Alwaki's "case" didn't go through any court.  I scare quoted "case" because there wasn't anything like a case.

Your source does, however, vet my explanation of events.  Obama sought a legal opinion from Justice on whether or not he had the legal fig leaf to assassinate a US citizen abroad.  He then made the call.





> This isn't about blaming Bush, even though he was the sitting president  when the Patriot Act was passed and signed.  Our Legislative branch has just as much blame to shoulder.  And, it should be noted, that other, subsequent laws were passed that expanded government powers in support of it, and extended it, and were signed by both Bush and Obama.



Firstly, the only law Obama used to assassinate Alwaki was the AUMF.  The Patriot Act, grand pile of steaming mess that it was, really has no bearing here.



> In the final analysis, Obama used a tool that was handed to him by Bush and prior legislators (of both parties)- there's blame enough to spread, if you wish.



God forbid you ever hand your neighbor a screwdriver and he kills someone with it, because you'd have blame.  Right?



> But let us be 100% honest:



I haven't been anything but.



> 1) as I asked before, would you be more comfortable if other methods with higher collateral damage probabilities been used?



No, I disagree with the notion that we had the right to assassinate Alwaki the way we did. Why on Earth would you think that I would like a splashier method of assassination?



> 2) what would the public & political if Obama (or any subsequent president) pushed for the repeal of the laws that let him order those drone strikes?



Again, what?  If I manage to parse that properly, you're asking what the fallout would be for repealing the laws authorizing generic drone strikes?  I dunno, no one tried.  I've not be happy with the drone program for quite some time.  When used in direct support of US troops, I like drones.  When used as roving assassination tools, I hate them.  I'd have been fine with they're authorization revoked.

But that aside, the issue here isn't that Obama could either decide to reinterpret the AUMF to authorize drone strikes anywhere in the world (he did this) AND that they allowed the assassination of US citizen OR he could advocate for their repeal.  Obama did not have to use the tools left him.  Further, he didn't have to expand them in scope.  Even further, he didn't have to seek a new legal opinion about the legality of assassinating US citizens.  This isn't a serious case of 'he had to do it that way or he had to risk the political fallout of seeking the repeal of the laws that formed the basis of the drone program.' 

 I had thought you were wanting to be 100% honest, but it seems you'd rather just frame the conversation in stilted and illogical ways so that you can reach your desired outcome: Obama had no choice.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I'll address more stuff later, but:


> What a ridiculous statement. Due process is clearly defined under the Constitution and related laws. You don't get less due process because of another law. That's not how that works. You can have less protections because you voluntarily sign waive them (such as waiving Miranda rights) or if you have rights taken away from you due to a conviction in court (parolees, for instance, do not have protections against searches at any time for any reason by the police). But aside from those options, there is no 'but a different law just says that you get less'. That's definitionally unconstitutional on it's face.




Tell that to people subject to the UCMJ, and you'll get laughed at.  Due process under the UCMJ looks VERY different from what you'd see in a civilian criminal court.  Your rights to free speech are more restricted under the UCMJ.  Your rights to freedom of movement are more restricted under the UCMJ.

Long story short, what rights you have can be and are modified by subsequent legislation or judicial decisions.  Happens all the time.

Besides, most of your Constitutional rights apply only within the USA and its territories.  If you commit a crime and are extradited to the USA, those rights will probably- but not necessarily- attach.


----------



## El Mahdi

Maxperson said:


> First, the odds of any illegal being deported are slim, and it drops for mothers of American citizens.  That a few are deported doesn't stop the children from being anchors.




Danny covered this quite well.  The idea of having children here to "anchor" citizenship is simply not a major factor in illegal immigrants coming to the US or for having children here.  They are coming for jobs.  Having children is merely a part of living their lives - no ulterior motives other than to have a family.  It's essentially a manufactured issue.  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../illegal-immigrants-anchor-babies-birthright/

Not to mention that children of illegal immigrants are not automatically considered American Citizens.  I suggest reading up on the 14th Amendment.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

That highlighted part has been taken as precedent that there is no valid basis for granting citizenship to children of *illegal* immigrants.  _Subject to the jurisdiction_ requires living _legally_ within the United States.

There is no court that has said otherwise, including the Supreme Court.  The only way it works is if the parents are here legally.


You make the claim that these children help "anchor" families here, while providing no evidence to back it up.  Where are the numbers?  What source has informed your opinion that this is happening, or that the issue even exists in the first place?  What questioning of or research into this "source" have you done?

Show us the evidence and data, not just opinions...




Maxperson said:


> Second, the notion that there are millions of Chinese women flying in to have babies is absurd.




I didn't say or imply that there were millions of Chinese women flying in to have babies.  This is an argument without a premise.

The point of my post was that the only "anchor babies" that really exist are predominantly those by affluent foreigners that are here legally.

"Anchor Babies" by illegal immigrants have doubtful factual basis and no legal support.



On a personal note, I can't help but notice that this is the only post of mine to which you've replied.  Reading through these most recent pages, I've noticed a trend where you remain silent on posts that provide solid references and data against a claim or statement you've made.  You don't acknowledge the posts even exist, let alone state whether you agree, disagree, or acknowledge a claim or statement you've made is incorrect.

So I'm curious.  Do you believe that any of your statements or claims have been shown to be incorrect?

Has anything that anybody has posted informed or changed your opinions?

If so, what?

I'm especially interested in your thoughts on what I posted about the First Red Scare.  Do you find it interesting or ironic that if Americans between 1917 and the early 1920's had given in to the desire to do the same thing you want to do now (ban ethnic groups from immigration based on fear of who might come with them), that you quite possibly might not have grown up American...?

Do you see the parallels between things being said and done then, and things being said and done now?


----------



## El Mahdi

Ovinomancer said:


> Due process is clearly defined under the Constitution and related laws. You don't get less due process because of another law.






Dannyalcatraz said:


> Tell that to people subject to the UCMJ, and you'll get laughed at.  Due process under the UCMJ looks VERY different from what you'd see in a civilian criminal court.  Your rights to free speech are more restricted under the UCMJ.  Your rights to freedom of movement are more restricted under the UCMJ.




No joke there.

For instance, as concerns freedom of movement: Without being on leave, one can't travel more than a certain prescribed distance from their assigned installation.  That means, even on a weekend or holiday - even if one isn't scheduled to be on duty - if you're not on leave, you can't leave that area.  The extent of the area is usually designated by the installation or unit commander.  For instance, when I was stationed at K.I. Sawyer in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, that distance was about a 300 mile radius from the base.  It was just enough for me to be able to drive to my parents house in the Lower Peninsula, but any farther than that was out.

If you're a civilian and have the means (money) and desire to suddenly fly to Vegas for the weekend, you can.

If you're military, unless Vegas is within your allowed area, you can get in trouble for doing so.  By "trouble" I mean anything from losing a stripe (and the money that goes with it), having your pay docked for a period of time, confined to base/barracks, or even Court Martial with possible discharge and jail time.

Can your company file federal charges against you, with the resultant federal criminal record, for flying to Vegas on your weekend?


As to free speech, just do a Google search for cases of military members being punished for expressing their views in the wrong way.  Civilians have the right to pretty much say whatever they want, whenever they want - barring public safety issues (like yelling "Fire" in a theater).  You might get yourself fired, but you're not going to end up in jail.


Another aspect of Free Speech is Freedom of Association.  Guess what happens if the military finds out you're a member of the KKK?  Or a gang?  Sure, as a civilian there are proabably ramifications for being involved with these groups also - you might lose your job, socially vilified, etc. - but you can't be convicted of a crime and sent to jail simply for being a member (barring RICO trials and such).  Your membership is actually explicitly protected.  Not so if you're in the military.


And your right to privacy?  Protection against search and seizure?  Very Different.  That effectively goes out the window in a barracks or field environment.


And due process can take an entirely different form when you're involved in a war or in a combat zone...


----------



## Ovinomancer

El Mahdi said:


> No joke there.
> 
> For instance, as concerns freedom of movement: Without being on leave, one can't travel more than a certain prescribed distance from their assigned installation.  That means, even on a weekend or holiday - even if one isn't scheduled to be on duty - if you're not on leave, you can't leave that area.  The extent of the area is usually designated by the installation or unit commander.  For instance, when I was stationed at K.I. Sawyer in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, that distance was about a 300 mile radius from the base.  It was just enough for me to be able to drive to my parents house in the Lower Peninsula, but any farther than that was out.
> 
> If you're a civilian and have the means (money) and desire to suddenly fly to Vegas for the weekend, you can.
> 
> If you're military, unless Vegas is within your allowed area, you can get in trouble for doing so.  By "trouble" I mean anything from losing a stripe (and the money that goes with it), having your pay docked for a period of time, confined to base/barracks, or even Court Martial with possible discharge and jail time.
> 
> Can your company file federal charges against you, with the resultant federal criminal record, for flying to Vegas on your weekend?
> 
> 
> As to free speech, just do a Google search for cases of military members being punished for expressing their views in the wrong way.  Civilians have the right to pretty much say whatever they want, whenever they want - barring public safety issues (like yelling "Fire" in a theater).  You might get yourself fired, but you're not going to end up in jail.
> 
> 
> Another aspect of Free Speech is Freedom of Association.  Guess what happens if the military finds out you're a member of the KKK?  Or a gang?  Sure, as a civilian there are proabably ramifications for being involved with these groups also - you might lose your job, socially vilified, etc. - but you can't be convicted of a crime and sent to jail simply for being a member (barring RICO trials and such).  Your membership is actually explicitly protected.  Not so if you're in the military.
> 
> 
> And your right to privacy?  Protection against search and seizure?  Very Different.  That effectively goes out the window in a barracks or field environment.
> 
> 
> And due process can take an entirely different form when you're involved in a war or in a combat zone...




Fundamentally different things.  The military agrees to additional restrictions on their rights, and does so voluntarily, but that doesn't mean they lack due process.  It's not the same thing.  They still have clear due process rights even under the UCMJ.  They can always demand a court martial, which is a jury trial where they have all due process rights afforded civilians.

Trying to compare the voluntary agreement to the UCMJ when you join the military to the denial of a US citizen's rights by executive decree is both ludicrous and deeply insulting to anyone who's served.  I don't know about the rest of the veterans around here, but I didn't serve so that Americans can have their rights revoked by legal brief.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

El Mahdi said:


> Danny covered this quite well.  The idea of having children here to "anchor" citizenship is simply not a major factor in illegal immigrants coming to the US or for having children here.  They are coming for jobs.  Having children is merely a part of living their lives - no ulterior motives other than to have a family.  It's essentially a manufactured issue.  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../illegal-immigrants-anchor-babies-birthright/
> 
> Not to mention that children of illegal immigrants are not automatically considered American Citizens.  I suggest reading up on the 14th Amendment.
> 
> "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
> 
> That highlighted part has been taken as precedent that there is no valid basis for granting citizenship to children of *illegal* immigrants.  _Subject to the jurisdiction_ requires living _legally_ within the United States.
> 
> There is no court that has said otherwise, including the Supreme Court.  The only way it works is if the parents are here legally.
> 
> 
> You make the claim that these children help "anchor" families here, while providing no evidence to back it up.  Where are the numbers?  What source has informed your opinion that this is happening, or that the issue even exists in the first place?  What questioning of or research into this "source" have you done?
> 
> Show us the evidence and data, not just opinions...



Really? Has that highlighted part been taken as precedent? Could you site the case in which that occurred. It should make for interesting reading.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Ovinomancer said:


> I don't know about the rest of the veterans around here, but I didn't serve so that Americans can have their rights revoked by legal brief.



Of course not. You probably served so some politician's kid didn't have to risk being shot in the head or have his legs blown off in some third world mud hole.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

The various categories of natural citizens are listed in 8 USC § 1401:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401


----------



## El Mahdi

Ovinomancer said:


> Fundamentally different things.  The military agrees to additional restrictions on their rights, and does so voluntarily, but that doesn't mean they lack due process.




Neither I nor Danny said _"lack due process"_; we said _different_.

And Danny refuted your statement that _"You don't get less due process because of another law."_  The UCMJ - something considered _"another law"_ - limits due process in many ways; some subtle, some more prominent.  It does this most notably during periods of Declared War and other conflicts.

_Limits_ equal _Less_.




Ovinomancer said:


> Trying to compare the voluntary agreement to the UCMJ when you join the military to the denial of a US citizen's rights by executive decree is both ludicrous and deeply insulting to anyone who's served.




Well, Danny did make that comparison - and I served - and I'm not insulted.  You don't speak for all of us.  If you are personally insulted, then say so.  In the future though, you may want to leave the rest of us out of your personal opinions.

Of course though, Danny made that comparison to highlight that it's not so black-and-white, and not as an insult.  He was pointing out a similar legal aspect, as lawyers are wont to do; and Danny is a lawyer.

Danny didn't say anything insulting.  There's only insult in his comments if one wants to see insult there, or one is trying to bring in a sense of faux moral outrage in an attempt to counter an argument of legitimate logic.




Ovinomancer said:


> I don't know about the rest of the veterans around here, but I didn't serve so that Americans can have their rights revoked by legal brief.




Neither did I.  I'm also pretty certain that Danny wasn't advocating for that either.

However, you know as well as I that war is not so black-and-white anymore.  

When was the last time there was a declared war?  Yet we have been "at war" for 14 years.  
How does the definition of _combatant_ apply in a conflict with an enemy that doesn't acknowledge the Geneva Convention, follow its tenants, or fight in a manner even remotely reflective of the spirit of it?  
When an American takes up arms against the United States, when does he cease being a citizen and become an enemy combatant?  
Aren't his actions a clear renunciation of citizenship?  A clear expression of intent?

It's not so black-and-white anymore...


----------



## El Mahdi

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Really? Has that highlighted part been taken as precedent? Could you site the case in which that occurred. It should make for interesting reading.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby#Immigration_status

The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the United States, provided that their parents are foreign citizens, have *permanent domicile status* in the United States, and are engaging in business in the United States except performing in a diplomatic or official capacity of a foreign power.

In law, domicile is the status or attribution of being a *lawful* permanent resident in a particular jurisdiction.

This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Illegal immigrants are by definition, not lawful residents - therefore domicile does not apply - therefore the 14th Amendment does not cover them.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> What a ridiculous statement.  Due process is clearly defined under the Constitution and related laws.  You don't get less due process because of another law.




You seem to be missing a major point.  You get a different process because *you are at war with the US*.  That's what "enemy combatant" means.  Moreover, in many contexts these days it also (confusingly) means "unlawful combatant" - one who has broken the laws of war such that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to them.

Given that determination, what followed was an act of war, not an act of civil justice.  Soldiers do not wait to be handed sentences from courts before they shoot at the enemy.  They just shoot at the enemy.  



> No.  We ALL get standard process.




Most of the time, yes.  But not if we take up arms against the country.  I think the Civil War pretty much established that fact.  A whole lot of people who were otherwise citizens got shot dead.  I don't hear you complaining about them.

Now, you may disagree with classifying him as such.  But that's really a separate question.  Once he's considered an enemy in the field, just killing him is an option.


----------



## El Mahdi

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Of course not. You probably served so some politician's kid didn't have to risk being shot in the head or have his legs blown off in some third world mud hole.




I served, quite simply, to defend the Freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.  That may sound trite, but it's the truth.  And one of those freedoms I defended was Freedom of Speech - regardless of the insulting use it's put to.


----------



## MechaPilot

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'll address more stuff later, but:
> 
> 
> Tell that to people subject to the UCMJ, and you'll get laughed at.  Due process under the UCMJ looks VERY different from what you'd see in a civilian criminal court.  Your rights to free speech are more restricted under the UCMJ.  Your rights to freedom of movement are more restricted under the UCMJ.
> 
> Long story short, what rights you have can be and are modified by subsequent legislation or judicial decisions.  Happens all the time.
> 
> Besides, most of your Constitutional rights apply only within the USA and its territories.  If you commit a crime and are extradited to the USA, those rights will probably- but not necessarily- attach.




Here's another example of what you're talking about.

Everyone who has watched a court drama is familiar with the concept of "rules of evidence" even if they don't know all the specifics.  However, they don't always apply.  I am a tax accountant.  According to Circular 230 section 10.73(a), promulgated by the Department of the Treasury, "The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity are not controlling in hearings or proceedings under this part."


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

El Mahdi said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby#Immigration_status
> 
> The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the United States, provided that their parents are foreign citizens, have *permanent domicile status* in the United States, and are engaging in business in the United States except performing in a diplomatic or official capacity of a foreign power.
> 
> In law, domicile is the status or attribution of being a *lawful* permanent resident in a particular jurisdiction.
> 
> This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
> 
> Illegal immigrants are by definition, not lawful residents - therefore domicile does not apply - therefore the 14th Amendment does not cover them.




Just curious, but did you read the portion where they go over the opinion of the court in the first link you provided?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

El Mahdi said:


> I served, quite simply, to defend the Freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.  That may sound trite, but it's the truth.  And one of those freedoms I defended was Freedom of Speech - regardless of the insulting use it's put to.



So you decided to serve because you had this overwhelming sense of patriotism, and you decided you wanted to protect the rights afforded by the Constitution for your fellow Americans? Was that the only reason you decided to join the military?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ovinomancer said:


> No.  We ALL get standard process.  The military agrees to be held to a second set of laws, with a second set of rights assigned under those laws, but they agree to those up front and clearly -- it's briefed and understood that you are agreeing to a new paradigm.  Further, that paradigm isn't very much removed from "standard" as far as due process goes -- you still have a right to a jury trial, you still have right to representation, you still have the right to face your accuser, etc.




No, you don't have a right to a jury trial in all cases under the UCMJ, and for those cases in which a "jury" is appointed, its composition, restrictions and powers vary greatly from a standard criminal trial.  Essentially, your "jury" is also a panel of judges, and the verdict need not be unanimous.  Said "jury" is also chosen by the convening authority: the defendant has no right to challenge who is sitting in judgment as long as they are of the proper rank.



> Your due process is handled by a different system, but is still there.  And, to top it off, if you commit a civilian crime while enlisted, you're prosecuted by the civilian authorities and get your full set of due process there.  So the military has a second set of laws, they don't obviate the "standard" set.




This is simply incorrect.

Most military bases have concurrent police authority with the city & state in which they are located.  That means you can face charges from 2 separate sovereign authorities.  Since both the state and the Federal government have jurisdiction, someone committing a crime on a base can be charged twice, once by the base and once by the locals.  Usually, the military will defer jurisdiction over civilian crimes to the civilian authorities, but they don't have to.  

If you're military, and the crime happens on base, they simply won't.  You WILL be tried by the military.  You might also face charges in state court.

However, some military bases- like Andrews AFB- are exclusively under  federal jurisdiction.  That means that if you commit a crime on Andrews AFB (or a similar facility) you will only face prosecution from the military.

http://www.andrews.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123233859

IOW, a civilian or a soldier committing a crime on Andrews AFB is going to wind up in Federal court, not state.



> Enemy combatants are not US citizens nor are they on US soil.  (Edit)  Even if you accept the concept that you can name a US citizen as an enemy combatant for whatever reasons, that naming doesn't remove his citizenship and _the due process that goes along with it_.




We know one thing for sure, Americans can be declared "enemy combatants": 


> ...Supreme Court (edit) in the case of Yasser Hamdi. The justices said an American detained on the battlefield in Afghanistan could be declared an enemy combatant, as long as he had an opportunity to challenge his detention.




http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6167856


> It is not a legal process.




It is 100% a legal process.  You may not like it, but those are the rules as defined in law...and they were followed.  The term "due process" does not define a certain set of rights, only that when procedures are set up, they are followed.  In an example regarding students in Ohio:



> Thus, the due process clause doesn't govern how Ohio sets the rules for student discipline in its high schools; but it does govern how Ohio applies those rules to individual students who are thought to have violated them — even if in some cases (say, cheating on a state-wide examination) a large number of students were allegedly involved.




https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process



> There was no legal process followed here.  The Administration dubbed Alwaki and enemy combatant and solicited a legal opinion from Justice as to whether or not they could kill him.  Justice said, 'Yup, we think so,' and so they did.  At no point did this ever become a legal process.




There is a process, and- truncated & secret though it is- all publicly available evidence shows that it has been followed.  Now, the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights have filed several cases challenging the nature of those procedures.  So far, I believe they have lost each case: the last I know of were _Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta_- dismissed and not appealed in 2014- and _ACLU et al. v. CIA et al.,_ currently awaiting an appeal of dismissal.

So, right now, the judiciary is not buying the assertion that due process is being violated.



> So, your contention is that if something is left somewhere, which is not illegal but maybe foolish, and someone else does something horrible, then blame needs to be apportioned between the person that, without coercion, did something horrible, and the person that did something foolish?  Mmkay.  I suppose, then, that you apportion blame to Obama for people that use the ACA to commit fraud?  He left it there, right?






> Any argument that apportions blame based on another party's actions is a straight up fail.  Bush didn't do anything right with the Patriot Act, and he did plenty more wrong under it and other things, but none of that, _none of that_, in any way makes him responsible in the least for Obama deciding, on his own, to pursue a new understanding of the law that allowed him to assassinate a US citizen without trial.







> Umbran is wrong, and you should know it.



I have stated that you are incorrect, and I stand by that.



> Where was Alwaki's US citizenship revoked?  Under what circumstances can _your _due process be diminished?








> He was a US citizen, and had the full suite of those protections.  He was also an enemy combatant, with many fewer protections.  Under due process, he's entitled to ALL of the legal rights and protections he can have.  So he got the ones under enemy combatant, and conveniently was bureaucratically denied those under his US citizenship.






> NOTHING revoked Alwaki's citizenship.  He died a (scumbag adherent of a vile ideology) US citizen.  One denied his due process.







> Yes, they do.  No warrant to search or seize Alwaki was issued.  You misunderstand what the FISA courts had jurisdiction over.







> No, you are correct.  Grand juries can be used to indict ham sandwiches.  We appear to be in full agreement that Alwaki has not yet had his due process.



As defined in law, that IS due process.  You may not like it, but the isn't a court in this land that will say otherwise about a Grand Jury style proceeding.





> Your source says nothing about courts, and Alwaki's "case" didn't go through any court.  I scare quoted "case" because there wasn't anything like a case.






> Your source does, however, vet my explanation of events.  Obama sought a legal opinion from Justice on whether or not he had the legal fig leaf to assassinate a US citizen abroad.  He then made the call.









> Firstly, the only law Obama used to assassinate Alwaki was the AUMF.  The Patriot Act, grand pile of steaming mess that it was, really has no bearing here.







> God forbid you ever hand your neighbor a screwdriver and he kills someone with it, because you'd have blame.  Right?




Well, if you know he was planning on stabbing someone, yes.  But otherwise, your analogy fails.

In this case, the tool left to Obama was a system of secret courts, etc., designed to let the Executive branch carry out certain kinds of covert operations with minimal oversight.

As Umbran correctly noted, this is like handing someone a loaded gun or leaving one where it may be found.  The purpose of a screwdriver is to insert or remove screws; guns are designed to kill at range.  As such, the ethical & legal standard of responsibility is very different.

This policy was created to let the Executive branch kill at range.  It is being used for its intended purpose.  The responsibility for its use is as much on those who crafted the policy as those who subsequently use it.



> No, I disagree with the notion that we had the right to assassinate Alwaki the way we did. Why on Earth would you think that I would like a splashier method of assassination?



I don't.  

I'm just trying to ascertain the scope of what tactics you consider valid in the fight against terrorism.



> Again, what?  If I manage to parse that properly, you're asking what the fallout would be for repealing the laws authorizing generic drone strikes?  I dunno, no one tried.  I've not be happy with the drone program for quite some time.  When used in direct support of US troops, I like drones.  When used as roving assassination tools, I hate them.  I'd have been fine with they're authorization revoked.
> 
> But that aside, the issue here isn't that Obama could either decide to reinterpret the AUMF to authorize drone strikes anywhere in the world (he did this) AND that they allowed the assassination of US citizen OR he could advocate for their repeal.  Obama did not have to use the tools left him.  Further, he didn't have to expand them in scope.  Even further, he didn't have to seek a new legal opinion about the legality of assassinating US citizens.  This isn't a serious case of 'he had to do it that way or he had to risk the political fallout of seeking the repeal of the laws that formed the basis of the drone program.'
> 
> I had thought you were wanting to be 100% honest, but it seems you'd rather just frame the conversation in stilted and illogical ways so that you can reach your desired outcome: Obama had no choice.




Friend, when given a choice between voting for McCain and Obama, I chose independent candidate Bob Barr.  Why?  Because Bob Barr left the GOP over one issue: he had been lobbied by fellow Republicans to help pass the Patriot Act.  He asked them key questions about whether the law was eventually going to be used to justify certain expansions of Federal power in the Executive branch and narrow the scope certain civil rights.  They promised him it wouldn't...and then did so after it passed.

Did Obama have a choice?  Certainly, in a moral, legal, ethical sense he did, just like any sitting President has over the tools at his disposal.  And ethically, the drone program is no different than any other military weapon: you have to decide what it does in the context of what the externalities of its use will be, and if you (as commander in chief) are willing to make that decision to use them.

Personally, I see drones in much the same way as the Executive branch saw the nuclear bomb in WW2.  The a-bombs achieve a desired military goal with minimal risk to our soldiers, and with comparable number of civilian deaths to the Allied bombing of Dresden.  It ended the conflict with Japan with hundreds of thousands of fewer casualties than standard military tactics were expected to result in.

Drone strikes drop thousands of inadvertent civilian casualties to single or double digits.  Regrettable, yes, but far better than past tactics.

Likewise, they drop hundreds of foreseeable military casualties to single or double digits.  That's an unvarnished good thing in my book.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Originally Posted by Ovinomancer
> Trying to compare the voluntary agreement to the UCMJ when you join the military to the denial of a US citizen's rights by executive decree is both ludicrous and deeply insulting to anyone who's served.




As noted, you don't speak for all US soldiers.  They are not monolith in opinion or in taking umbrage.

(FWIW, I have many friends & family who have served or are in the armed forces right now.  Some serve on ships in or near the Persian gulf.  Others are in other Arabic lands.  A couple are in or near the Korean border.  My Dad is a Vietnam & Desert Storm vet.  2 of my Mom's cousins are also Vietnam vets.  The only branch in which none of my friends or families have served is the Coast Guard.)


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Pardon me, but apparently you have a misunderstanding of "due process": all that that means is that a person is entitled to the legal proceedings the government has set forth in its judicial/legal frameworks.
> 
> In the case of the American targeted by the drone strike, _he got due process under current US law_.  As noted upthread, all 4 drone strikes were authorized by the secret courts set up during the Bush admin- by the laws passed in our Legislative branch- for handling the targeting terrorists, either for certain kinds of surveillance, capture, or termination.




Yeah.  I didn't use the right term.  It's wrong for courts, especially secret ones, to authorize the murder of Americans.  I also fail to see what Bush has to do with things.  You keep bringing up how Bush started something as if it absolves Obama.  It doesn't.  It was wrong of Bush.  It is wrong of Obama who has done it more times than Bush.


----------



## MechaPilot

Maxperson said:


> Yeah.  I didn't use the right term.  It's wrong for courts, especially secret ones, to authorize the murder of Americans.  I also fail to see what Bush has to do with things.  You keep bringing up how Bush started something as if it absolves Obama.  It doesn't.  It was wrong of Bush.  It is wrong of Obama who has done it more times than Bush.




From what I've read, his point is not that Obama isn't wrong.  His point is that Obama would not be legally capable of performing those ethically/morally wrong actions without using powers voted for by congress (who were trying to appease constituents who blindly wanted something done thanks to climate of fear that was whipped up at the time), and singed into law by Bush.  The people who make morally/ethically wrong actions legal do bear a lasting blame for what they've done.  That doesn't absolve those who then legally perform those morally/ethically wrong actions, but the future bad actors don't absolve the enablers of their lasting blame either.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> Yeah.  I didn't use the right term.  It's wrong for courts, especially secret ones, to authorize the murder of Americans.  I also fail to see what Bush has to do with things.  You keep bringing up how Bush started something as if it absolves Obama.  It doesn't.  It was wrong of Bush.  It is wrong of Obama who has done it more times than Bush.




I never said it absolves Obama.  I actually said there is blame enough to go around between the last 2 presidents and our legislators.  Some have asserted that the judiciary's deference to the executive branch's legal positions regarding national security needs make hem culpable as well.

However, unless & until the ACLU or someone else successfully pierces that particular veil, _we have no way to accurately gauge_ which (if any) drone strikes were justified and which were not; which (if any) drone strikes followed proper procedures as set forth in law and which have not.

Until then, my position is that the burden of proof that the gov't has violated the procedures in place has not been met, and as such, throwing around charged prose like "murdered" and "assassinated" is not helpful to civil discussion of the issue.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> How many?  That's the question.  Anecdotal evidence isn't enough.




I don't know how many, but the fact that they exist is evidence enough that you can't just toss the whole number of illegals into a neat category.



> You keep on asserting these things, but give no evidence.  You are not an accepted authority.  And *how many* get paid more is extremely relevant to your point.
> 
> My point was that the minimum wage law is not enforced for these people - it isn't like they can file a grievance about it.  So, why would we expect a significant number of them to be paid above minimum wage?




How many get paid more would be better, yes, but it's a fact that there are numbers that do get paid more.  People don't pay them $5 an hour to clean the pool or do the lawn.  

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Sources, Links/illegal_immigration.htm

"Juan and María (not their real names) follow a simple strategy — staying out of trouble and undercutting competitors. Juan does landscaping, charging about $600 for major yard work — about $400 less than the typical legal contractor. María cleans houses for $70; house-cleaning services normally charge $85 or more."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129028587

"Annette's painter is not authorized to work in the U.S. In fact, he's not authorized to live here, either. His name is Raphael, and he's cheap. Annette says an American painter quoted her $1,200 for the job. Raphael charges $500.

Annette believes American prices are inflated, so paying Raphael the lower wage is justified.

"If Raphael didn't come, he would work in a maquiladora in Juarez, and he would make $1 an hour or $2 an hour, whereas here he can make *$500 in a matter of five hours,*" Annette says. "So I have no problem giving him the keys to this condo, because I know he'll do a good job."

"He and his wife, Patricia Butler, pay Spanish-speaking men who roam their neighborhood seeking work about $30 a piece to trim about a half-dozen palm trees that tower above their pool."

They get paid less for the same job, but they are doing jobs that make more than minimum wage, so even making less, they're still getting minimum wage or better.



> And *WHAT IS THE HUGE NUMBER*?  You wave your hands around making claims, and you don't back them up.  Why should anyone listen to you if you don't back up your assertions?
> 
> I did a quick search for how many people make under $10/hour, and the number I found was about 15 million.  Took me about 30 seconds to find a CNN article.  You're welcome.
> 
> When I went looking for the number of unauthorized immigrants in the workforce, the number I got was about 8 million.  At least twice as many as you assert.  You seem to have estimated that about a third of illegals were working, when the numbers say more like 70% or more of them are working.
> 
> Now, 8 is less than 15.  But, it means that illegals make up about a third of this low-wage pool, and therefore their impact can't be ignored.




I'm not saying that there won't be an impact.  That impact, however, could be absorbed by out of work Americans, albeit at higher wages.  There would be an increase in the cost of produce and such, but not a significant one.  I'm willing to pay it.


----------



## MechaPilot

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Some have asserted that the judiciary's deference to the executive branch's legal positions regarding national security needs make hem culpable as well.




I think that might be an accurate assertion myself.  However, the judiciary doesn't have a great track record of going against presidential power.  Certainly, one example of this is the Supreme Court's decision that forcibly resettling Native Americans was against the law.  To which, it is said, President Jefferson said of the chief justice of the Court "He has made his decision, now let's see him enforce it."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Certainly the US judiciary has a spotty track record.  Some have even said the SCOTUS has gotten it wrong more often than it gets it right.


----------



## Maxperson

El Mahdi said:


> Danny covered this quite well.  The idea of having children here to "anchor" citizenship is simply not a major factor in illegal immigrants coming to the US or for having children here.  They are coming for jobs.  Having children is merely a part of living their lives - no ulterior motives other than to have a family.  It's essentially a manufactured issue.  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../illegal-immigrants-anchor-babies-birthright/
> 
> Not to mention that children of illegal immigrants are not automatically considered American Citizens.  I suggest reading up on the 14th Amendment.
> 
> "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
> 
> That highlighted part has been taken as precedent that there is no valid basis for granting citizenship to children of *illegal* immigrants.  _Subject to the jurisdiction_ requires living _legally_ within the United States.
> 
> There is no court that has said otherwise, including the Supreme Court.  The only way it works is if the parents are here legally.




Except that you're wrong and so are your biased websites.  These children are granted citizenship.  Each and every one of them.  Since the rest of your arguments rely on the incorrect statements of your bad websites, I'm going to ignore them.



> Nearly 100 years later, in 1982, the Supreme Court used language that seemed to indicate the protection applied to children of illegal immigrants as well.
> 
> In ruling that Texas must provide a free public education to undocumented children, the court said in a footnote that *"no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.*"






> On a personal note, I can't help but notice that this is the only post of mine to which you've replied.  Reading through these most recent pages, I've noticed a trend where you remain silent on posts that provide solid references and data against a claim or statement you've made.  You don't acknowledge the posts even exist, let alone state whether you agree, disagree, or acknowledge a claim or statement you've made is incorrect.




I often ignore posts where I've already answered the issues in another post.  A lot of the time I'm not going to respond 3 times to the same thing.



> Has anything that anybody has posted informed or changed your opinions?
> 
> If so, what?




Danny and his statement about due process.  He's right.  I used it incorrectly.



> I'm especially interested in your thoughts on what I posted about the First Red Scare.  Do you find it interesting or ironic that if Americans between 1917 and the early 1920's had given in to the desire to do the same thing you want to do now (ban ethnic groups from immigration based on fear of who might come with them), that you quite possibly might not have grown up American...?




That was different than what is going on now.  Now we have very real groups that have been proven to try to sneak into our country and blow us up.  It's not just imagines hysteria.


----------



## Maxperson

MechaPilot said:


> From what I've read, his point is not that Obama isn't wrong.  His point is that Obama would not be legally capable of performing those ethically/morally wrong actions without using powers voted for by congress (who were trying to appease constituents who blindly wanted something done thanks to climate of fear that was whipped up at the time), and singed into law by Bush.  The people who make morally/ethically wrong actions legal do bear a lasting blame for what they've done.  That doesn't absolve those who then legally perform those morally/ethically wrong actions, but the future bad actors don't absolve the enablers of their lasting blame either.




I agree.  Congress was wrong, too.  The Patriot Act was one of the worst pieces of legislation to be enacted that I can think of.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I never said it absolves Obama.  I actually said there is blame enough to go around between the last 2 presidents and our legislators.  Some have asserted that the judiciary's deference to the executive branch's legal positions regarding national security needs make hem culpable as well.
> 
> However, unless & until the ACLU or someone else successfully pierces that particular veil, _we have no way to accurately gauge_ which (if any) drone strikes were justified and which were not; which (if any) drone strikes followed proper procedures as set forth in law and which have not.
> 
> Until then, my position is that the burden of proof that the gov't has violated the procedures in place has not been met, and as such, throwing around charged prose like "murdered" and "assassinated" is not helpful to civil discussion of the issue.




My position is that there is no justification for the U.S. to be targeting Americans with drone strikes.  If there is a law that allows it, then that law be damned.  It's murder.


----------



## Umbran

El Mahdi said:


> Illegal immigrants are by definition, not lawful residents - therefore domicile does not apply - therefore the 14th Amendment does not cover them.




I think you're reading that wrong.  Specifically, you're reading a case that granted inclusion to be a case that grants exclusion.  United States v. Wong Kim Ark is about a person who's parents were in the country legally when he was born.  Then, they were denied re-entry to the US when a law on Chinese immigration changed.  He sued to be allowed entry, due to his being a citizen.  He won.

A statement of, "We grant persons of type A citizenship," does *NOT* then also automatically mean, "We exclude people other than type A from citizenship."  My understanding is that this is how the courts prefer to work - they draw lines of explicit inclusion when necessary, but avoid drawing lines of explicit exclusion when possible.

This case *does not speak* to the case of an illegal immigrant, as there were no illegal immigrants involved.  The wikipedia article you link to, and the article on the specific court case, specifically notes that the Supreme Court has _never heard a case_ questioning the citizenship of a child of illegal immigrants.


----------



## Sadras

MechaPilot said:


> From what I've read, his point is not that Obama isn't wrong.  His point is that Obama would not be legally capable of performing those ethically/morally wrong actions without using powers voted for by congress (who were trying to appease constituents who blindly wanted something done thanks to climate of fear that was whipped up at the time), and singed into law by Bush




Trying to appease constituents? Is that how you see Congress really, that they're the good guys and so congress had no choice because of all that damn pressure the constituents were putting on them?


----------



## Umbran

Sadras said:


> Trying to appease constituents? Is that how you see Congress really, that they're the good guys and so congress had no choice because of all that damn pressure the constituents were putting on them?




"Trying to appease" sounds less like "giving in to pressure" to me, and sounds more like "pandering to get votes in the future".

Congress is highly swayed by what their constituents will think of them.  If everyone is scared and feeling that Something Must Be Done, Congress probably lacks the will or ability to tell the public to calm down and *think* about what they're asking for.  

The President occasionally has the will - "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." - but not always.

This is part of the reason hwy we have the SCOTUS, which has a degree of separation from the short term voting cycles of the elected officials.  In theory, they give us the ability to correct some stupid pandering blunders. Sometimes.


----------



## Sadras

Umbran said:


> "Trying to appease" sounds less like "giving in to pressure" to me, and sounds more like "pandering to get votes in the future".




Ah! That didn't even cross my radar.



> Congress is highly swayed by what their constituents will think of them.  If everyone is scared and feeling that Something Must Be Done, Congress probably lacks the will or ability to tell the public to calm down and *think* about what they're asking for.
> 
> The President occasionally has the will - "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." - but not always.




Guess perhaps I'm a little jaded, my line of thinking falls with Mark Twain's "If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it." There have been variations of that quote since. 



> This is part of the reason hwy we have the SCOTUS, which has a degree of separation from the short term voting cycles of the elected officials.  In theory, they give us the ability to correct some stupid pandering blunders. Sometimes.




I see the system is there, just perhaps poorly executed. Apologies if this may sound like a silly question, but can SCOTUS overrule something like the Patriot Act? Do they have that power?


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> My position is that there is no justification for the U.S. to be targeting Americans with drone strikes.  If there is a law that allows it, then that law be damned.  It's murder.




If you stated is as, "there is no *moral* justification for the US to be targeting Americans with drone strikes," we probably would note that morals are not universal, but otherwise not argue with you much.  Ultimately, that would be a personal opinion.

So long as you leave it as possibly concerning *legal* justification, well, then there's grounds for debate.

I am not sure where you get the idea that the key differentiator is citizenship, though.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

They do have the power to declare a law like the Patriot Act unconstitutional, but cannot do so by themselves.  They have to wait for a case to be brought that is properly plead to do so.  IOW, they have to wait for:

1) an actual plaintiff who can allege a harm
2) that the SCOTUS can correct or compensate for
3) that actually alleges- with specificity- the harm occurred because some aspect of the law is unconstitutional
4) n a case where the SCOTUS actually has jurisdiction


----------



## billd91

Dannyalcatraz said:


> They do have the power to declare a law like the Patriot Act unconstitutional, but cannot do so by themselves.  They have to wait for a case to be brought that is properly plead to do so.  IOW, they have to wait for:
> 
> 1) an actual plaintiff who can allege a harm
> 2) that the SCOTUS can correct or compensate for
> 3) that actually alleges- with specificity- the harm occurred because some aspect of the law is unconstitutional
> 4) and the SCOTUS actually has jurisdiction




And with the secrecy inherent in many of these laws, particularly the USA PATRIOT Act (it is actually a tortuous acronym), being able to be allege a specific harm is *very* difficult.


----------



## Umbran

Sadras said:


> Apologies if this may sound like a silly question, but can SCOTUS overrule something like the Patriot Act? Do they have that power?




In a word: Yes.

In more words: The Patriot Act is just a law.  It bears no more weight than any other law.  If it can be seen as in violation of the Constitution, the SCOTUS can in theory strike it down - this goes to any Federal, State, or local law, regulation, or ordinance.  Note, the Patriot Act has many parts, and the SCOTUS has a tradition of striking down sections of a law, without striking down the whole thing.  

It also requires somebody actually bring a case to the court.  The Court cannot proactively look at a law and say, "Sorry, this must go."  It is, in fact, entirely possible for a *lower* Federal court to kill some or all of the Patriot Act.  We would probably expect the government to appeal such, until it reached the highest court around, or until all levels of appeal have said, "Nope, the lower court decision stands."


----------



## Umbran

billd91 said:


> And with the secrecy inherent in many of these laws, particularly the USA PATRIOT Act (it is actually a tortuous acronym), being able to be allege a specific harm is *very* difficult.




Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Let us look at two cases:

1) NSA mass data collections - this was a secret program, and it tool Edward Snowden to make us aware of it.  Once it was made public, the ACLU was all over it, taking it to court.  But, very difficult to allege harm if you don't know it is happening, yes.  

2) Our drone-killed American citizen terrorist - alleging specific harm here is pretty obvious, as a man is dead.  That's pretty specific and harmful.  The real problem is less alleging harm as it is identifying which piece of law is actually broken here.  Is it the Foreign Intelligence Services Act (of 1978, that created the classified FISA court that we suspect might have presided over the surveillance that yielded the information that led to his being called an "enemy combatant")?  Is it the Patriot Act (which extended some powers of the FISA court)?  Or, is it something else entirely?  You have to be able to point at the law that's problematic.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Well, any good litigator- like most of the ones in the ACLU- taking a case like that is going to spam his options: he'll claim all or most of those as being a key part of the problem.  Discovery will let him refine or expand.

However, even though the ACLU has done just that, discovery has been less fruitful than expected because the judges believe the executive branch's claims for withholding evidence in the name of "national security".


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> However, even though the ACLU has done just that, discovery has been less fruitful than expected because the judges believe the executive branch's claims for withholding evidence in the name of "national security".




For the bulk data collection program the point is largely moot.  Congress, recognizing it had a turkey on its hands, decided to (metaphorically) butcher it.  The program is set to end in December anyway.

But, specifically, just this month:

"Judge Leon specifically ordered the N.S.A. to stop collecting phone records for one customer of Verizon: a lawyer in California and his law firm. But he did so, he wrote, knowing that the Justice Department had said that blocking the collection of just one person’s records might require shutting down the entire program because it would be technically difficult to screen him out."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/u...w-to-nsa-phone-surveillance-program.html?_r=0


----------



## Sadras

Thanks all.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> However, even though the ACLU has done just that, discovery has been less fruitful than expected because the judges believe the executive branch's claims for withholding evidence in the name of "national security".




And this is where the case breaks down. Much can be hidden with this alleged "in the interest of national security" line.
I recall seeing this in the short-lived series _The Firm _and _Boston Legal_.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Sadras said:


> And this is where the case breaks down. Much can be hidden with this alleged "in the interest of national security" line.
> I recall seeing this in the short-lived series _The Firm _and _Boston Legal_.



Well...yes and no.

Yes, it does shut down a case pretty quickly.  However, a (competent) judge isn't going to just take the Feds' word for it.  Instead, there will be an "in camera" review of proof supporting the claim of national security.

Of course, the Feds might refuse, but that just turbocharges the appeals process.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> For the bulk data collection program the point is largely moot.  Congress, recognizing it had a turkey on its hands, decided to (metaphorically) butcher it.  The program is set to end in December anyway.
> 
> But, specifically, just this month:
> 
> "Judge Leon specifically ordered the N.S.A. to stop collecting phone records for one customer of Verizon: a lawyer in California and his law firm. But he did so, he wrote, knowing that the Justice Department had said that blocking the collection of just one person’s records might require shutting down the entire program because it would be technically difficult to screen him out."
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/u...w-to-nsa-phone-surveillance-program.html?_r=0



That is some fine legal judo right there.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That is some fine legal judo right there.




I thought you might like it


----------



## Ovinomancer

I has started a long reply, where I rebutted your points with citations, but when I got here, I realized that I didn't need to keep going -- you lost your own argument.



> There is a process, and- truncated & secret though it is- all publicly available evidence shows that it has been followed.  Now, the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights have filed several cases challenging the nature of those procedures.  So far, I believe they have lost each case: the last I know of were _Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta_- dismissed and not appealed in 2014- and _ACLU et al. v. CIA et al.,_ currently awaiting an appeal of dismissal.



You mean the case where it was determined likely by the judge that the US had violated Alwaki's 5th Amendment rights, but had to dismiss the case because there's "no available remedy under U.S. law for this claim" and because the government managed to stonewall long enough that the court didn't have enough evidence to continue?  (the second case is about a FOIA request for the details of the drone targeting program -- specifically how US and international laws are being followed in the use of the assassination program -- and it's still very much alive and ongoing with the ACLU winning a major battle last year and having to again appeal on the same grounds they won on before.)

Yeah, I'll just wait here for the apology.

I skipped the rest because your own cite was a slam dunk for my point.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Yep- keep waiting.


A summary of the dismissal of the 5th amendment concerns can be found here:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/summary-fridays-decision-al-aulaqi-v-panetta



> Judge Collyer similarly dismisses the defendants’ Fifth Amendment due process claims on behalf of Adulrahman al-Aulaqi and Khan because “[m]ere negligence does not give rise to a constitutional deprivation” of due process, and Abdulrahman and Khan “were not targeted and their deaths were unanticipated.” However, because plaintiffs allege that Anwar al-Aulaqi was intentionally targeted and killed by defendants, the court finds that the plaintiffs’ complaint “states a ‘plausible’ procedural and substantive due process claim on behalf of Anwar al-Aulaqi.”
> 
> A plausible claim is not enough to save the plaintiffs’ case, however. Judge Collyer finds that even if the government violated Anwar al-Aulaqi’s due process rights, there is “no available remedy under U.S. law for this claim.” No court has found, nor even discussed, whether _Bivens_ remedies are available for deprivation of life without due process based on the overseas killing by U.S. officials of a U.S. citizen considered to be an enemy combatant. In analogous due process-based _Bivens_ actions for military detention and alleged abuse of U.S. citizens, the court points out that circuit courts, including the D.C. Circuit in Doe v. Rumsfeld, “have decided that special factors—including separation of powers, national security, and the risk of interfering with military decisions—preclude the extension of a Bivens remedy to such cases.” Because Congress in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force granted the president the power to “use necessary and appropriate military force against al-Qa’ida and affiliated forces,” the court “hesitate before implying a Bivens claim” challenging the executive branch’s exercise of that authority. The U.S. government has determined that Anwar al-Aulaqi was a member of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and a threat to U.S. national security and the court will not challenge that assessment.





She also stated:



> ...she would have denied the motion to dismiss “[w]ere the Court not able to cobble together enough judicially-noticeable facts from various records.”




To clarify:

1) likely =/= plausible.  It also doesn't mean "highly probable" or "proven".
2) the judge was unwilling to even consider applying an analogous remedy because of certain laws
3) the judge found other reasons to dismiss the claim

If the judge HAD found that a violation was "highly probable" or "proven"- AND not found other grounds for dismissal- it is possible that the court would have applied a _Bivens_ standard and let the case proceed up the appellate channels.

As for the other case, an appeals of dismissal _is not _ a victory, but an attempt to overturn a loss, so my statement stands.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> If you stated is as, "there is no *moral* justification for the US to be targeting Americans with drone strikes," we probably would note that morals are not universal, but otherwise not argue with you much.  Ultimately, that would be a personal opinion.
> 
> So long as you leave it as possibly concerning *legal* justification, well, then there's grounds for debate.
> 
> I am not sure where you get the idea that the key differentiator is citizenship, though.




It was intentional, though.  I don't see bad laws as a justification for that sort of thing, so in my view there is just plain no justification for the murder of Americans by the government.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
> 
> Let us look at two cases:
> 
> 1) NSA mass data collections - this was a secret program, and it tool Edward Snowden to make us aware of it.  Once it was made public, the ACLU was all over it, taking it to court.  But, very difficult to allege harm if you don't know it is happening, yes.
> 
> 2) Our drone-killed American citizen terrorist - alleging specific harm here is pretty obvious, as a man is dead.  That's pretty specific and harmful.  The real problem is less alleging harm as it is identifying which piece of law is actually broken here.  Is it the Foreign Intelligence Services Act (of 1978, that created the classified FISA court that we suspect might have presided over the surveillance that yielded the information that led to his being called an "enemy combatant")?  Is it the Patriot Act (which extended some powers of the FISA court)?  Or, is it something else entirely?  You have to be able to point at the law that's problematic.




You also have to have legal standing.  What harm was done to me by the drone strike against him?


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> You also have to have legal standing.  What harm was done to me by the drone strike against him?




Quite true.  You and I were not materially harmed, so we could not bring the case in our own names.  But clearly *someone* was harmed - a person was harmed enough to have died.  

The case can be brought in the name of his estate.  Or, relatives that could consider his death a loss could bring it in their own names.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> It was intentional, though.  I don't see bad laws as a justification for that sort of thing, so in my view there is just plain no justification for the murder of Americans by the government.




Ah, well, we are a nation of the rule of law, not the rule of what Maxperson thinks is right.

More to the point, though - your statement assumes a conclusion.  There is no justification for the "murder" of Americans... "Murder" is something legally defined.  As soon as you phrase it that way, you're including law.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> Quite true.  You and I were not materially harmed, so we could not bring the case in our own names.  But clearly *someone* was harmed - a person was harmed enough to have died.
> 
> The case can be brought in the name of his estate.  Or, relatives that could consider his death a loss could bring it in their own names.




Yeah, for sure.  I was just adding that to the list of things needed.  I think it's a flaw in the system that I need to be related to him in order to bring an unconstitutional law to the courts.  Almost the entirety of the U.S. wasn't "harmed" by that drone, and his family is unlikely to sue.  They'd probably be arrested if they came to America and tried.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> Ah, well, we are a nation of the rule of law, not the rule of what Maxperson thinks is right.




There'd be less evil 



> More to the point, though - your statement assumes a conclusion.  There is no justification for the "murder" of Americans... "Murder" is something legally defined.  As soon as you phrase it that way, you're including law.




The legal definition simply defines a concept that was around before law.  Murder is not dependent on the legal definition.  It just has to be a killing that is not justified.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> The legal definition simply defines a concept that was around before law.




Depends on the law in question.  Some laws (and the definitions tut attend them) introduce entirely new concepts upon the world.  Others refine or expand extant confers in new ways.



> It just has to be a killing that is not justified.




...and it is _laws_ that define what is considered justified or not within a given society.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Depends on the law in question.  Some laws (and the definitions tut attend them) introduce entirely new concepts upon the world.  Others refine or expand extant confers in new ways.




I was talking only about the concept of murder, not all concepts in general.



> ...and it is _laws_ that define what is considered justified or not within a given society.




No, not really.  If the U.S. passed a law tomorrow allowing children to be killed by their parents on Tuesdays, it still would not be a justified act to kill your child on Tuesday.  Most laws mean well, but some are just borked.  For the most part, laws are written to recognize pre-existing justifications.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> No, not really. If the U.S. passed a law tomorrow allowing children to be killed by their parents on Tuesdays, it still would not be a justified act to kill your child on Tuesday. Most laws mean well, but some are just borked. For the most part, laws are written to recognize pre-existing justifications.




Well, now you're raising different issues: you meant morally, while I was talking legally.

However, it should be noted that not all moral codes are identical.  Individualistic societies place different values on human lives than collectivist societies.  Cultures differ in how they value the lives of children.

So, when you say "If the U.S. passed a law tomorrow allowing children to be killed by their parents on Tuesdays, it still would not be a justified act to kill your child on Tuesday," it really depends on whose definition of "justified" you mean.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> There'd be less evil




I am not at all sure that's correct.  To first approximation, there's less of what you consider evil - until you get to the unintended consequences of your positions, which may increase the amount of evil in the world.

To first approximation, I am not convinced there'd be less of what anyone else considers evil, and I am even less convinced once we consider consequences.  This is part of why we have laws and representation - what we get will not agree 100% with anyone, but it has a better chance of hitting some acceptable compromise than taking a single person's choices.



> Murder is not dependent on the legal definition.  It just has to be a killing that is not justified.




"Justified" is not a universal objective thing, though.  Again, this is why we have laws.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> If the U.S. passed a law tomorrow allowing children to be killed by their parents on Tuesdays, it still would not be a justified act to kill your child on Tuesday.  Most laws mean well, but some are just borked.  For the most part, laws are written to recognize pre-existing justifications.




That's a nonsense hypothetical, though.  Our culture as it now is would not pass such a law.  The hypothetical "if it did" is meaningless, because no Congresscritter looking for re-election wold vote for it, and no President would sign the thing.  

This practical point matters in Danny's statement that the laws define what we consider justified.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> Dannyalcatraz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maxperson said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the U.S. passed a law tomorrow allowing children to be killed by their parents on Tuesdaysi, it still would not be a justified act to kill your child on Tuesday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, it should be noted that not all moral codes are identical.  Individualistic societies place different values on human lives than collectivist societies.  Cultures differ in how they value the lives of children.
> 
> So, when you say "If the U.S. passed a law tomorrow allowing children to be killed by their parents on Tuesdays, it still would not be a justified act to kill your child on Tuesday," it really depends on whose definition of "justified" you mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Justified" is not a universal objective thing, though.  Again, this is why we have laws.
Click to expand...



...and here's a perfect example, from the 12 Tables of Rome:


> TABLE IV. concerning the rights of a father, and of marriage.
> 
> Law I.
> 
> A father shall have the right of life and death over his son born in lawful marriage, and shall also have the power to render him independent, after he has been sold three times.




Under Roman law- the law of most of the known world for @1400 years- had the right to kill his lawfully born son at any time, for any reason, at any age unless and until he was emancipated.  Such a killing would be deemed "not murder"...even after Christianity became the official state religion under Constantine.

And in the Old Testament, we have this:


> Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (NIV)
> 
> A Rebellious Son
> 18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.




So, killing a rebellious son was again, not murder, but justifiable homicide.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...and here's a perfect example, from the 12 Tables of Rome:
> 
> 
> Under Roman law- the law of most of the known world for @1400 years- had the right to kill his lawfully born son at any time, for any reason, at any age unless and until he was emancipated.  Such a killing would be deemed "not murder"...even after Christianity became the official state religion under Constantine.
> 
> And in the Old Testament, we have this:
> 
> 
> So, killing a rebellious son was again, not murder, but justifiable homicide.




Just because a society said something was moral or okay, doesn't mean that it was, or that it was justified.  The Roman killing his son was still committing murder, even if the law doesn't define it as such.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Those are not murder by the predominant moral, religious & legal codes of the day, but rather justifiable homicides.

It is one of the traps of the passage of time and cultural absolutism.  What humans define as "murder", "marriage", "property", etc. change over time.  Just because WE consider something good or evil, doesn't mean our ancestors- or descendants- agree.

The objectivity of how people judge actions is the source of some of the deeper philosophical/moral/ethical questions.

Remember, your stated position re:murder was:


> The legal definition simply defines a concept that was around before law.




But, as I illustrated, this position is factually incorrect from what we know of human history.  The concept codified into law was that killing your offspring for a variety of reasons- including "just because" was OK in nearly every culture in the world at one point.  Besides the Jews & Romans, look at India, Hellenistic Greece, Japan, Meso-American cultures.

At some point, the global consensus changed, yes, but only in the past few hundred years.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> Just because a society said something was moral or okay, doesn't mean that it was, or that it was justified. The Roman killing his son was still committing murder, even if the law doesn't define it as such.




And upon what do you base the idea that you are right and they were wrong?


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> And upon what do you base the idea that you are right and they were wrong?




Upon the idea that the murder of children is evil and heinous.  Look, if you and Danny are right, then Assad gassing his people and ISIS beheading Americans are both moral and justified.  Both Assad and ISIS are states or heads of states and they make the laws and that is their morality.  Since their laws and morals say it's okay to do what they do, those things must be both moral and justified, right?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

No.

What is "legal" and what is "moral" are often two different things.  Some laws have zero grounding in morality.  Some are arguably against the society's prevailing moral beliefs.

Personally, I am Roman Catholic, and part of that is a belief that there is an objective moral position, and that it is of divine origin.  

The thing I have to admit is that there are tens of thousands of other belief systems that have the exact same belief, but whose particulars of morality differ from mine.

...and that is before we even address those who don't believe in objective morality.

But to conflate that with a belief that I think Assad is morally justified is incorrect.  I don't.  

What I am telling you is that your position that laws merely codify morality is demonstrably false.  What you call "murder"- the killing of your own children- has only been defined as such by a majority of human cultures for about 1% of human history.

If laws are _only_ a codification of morality, then why did that change occur?  And how? If morality is objective, it couldn't.


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No.
> 
> What is "legal" and what is "moral" are often two different things.  Some laws have zero grounding in morality.  Some are arguably against the society's prevailing moral beliefs.
> 
> Personally, I am Roman Catholic, and part of that is a belief that there is an objective moral position, and that it is of divine origin.
> 
> The thing I have to admit is that there are tens of thousands of other belief systems that have the exact same belief, but whose particulars of morality differ from mine.
> 
> ...and that is before we even address those who don't believe in objective morality.
> 
> But to conflate that with a belief that I think Assad is morally justified is incorrect.  I don't.
> 
> What I am telling you is that your position that laws merely codify morality is demonstrably false.  What you call "murder"- the killing of your own children- has only been defined as such by a majority of human cultures for about 1% of human history.
> 
> If laws are _only_ a codification of morality, then why did that change occur?  And how? If morality is objective, it couldn't.




Some laws are even specifically codified to stop one group's idea of morality from being enforced over and above another group's idea of morality. I would say that the reason why Freedom of Religion is also frequently seen as Freedom FROM Religion, from a governmental standpoint, is specifically so issues of subjective morality aren't imposed upon those who have different views, when there is no greater societal reason for such enforcement. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" (or, as more properly translated from the original source, "Thou Shalt Not Murder") carries obvious benefits to society as a whole. "Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me" carries no such societal benefit and, if proponents of the United States as a "Christian Nation" would admit, is the very sort of thing they object to when they decry the concept of Sharia Law.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No.
> 
> What is "legal" and what is "moral" are often two different things.  Some laws have zero grounding in morality.  Some are arguably against the society's prevailing moral beliefs.




You just said..

"Those are not murder by the predominant *moral*, religious & legal codes of the day, but rather justifiable homicides."

So morals depend on what the society says is moral.  ISIS is a society.  It creates laws.  It governs.  I maintains and builds infrastructure.  Therefore, according to what you just said, those beheadings are moral.



> Personally, I am Roman Catholic, and part of that is a belief that there is an objective moral position, and that it is of divine origin.
> 
> The thing I have to admit is that there are tens of thousands of other belief systems that have the exact same belief, but whose particulars of morality differ from mine.
> 
> ...and that is before we even address those who don't believe in objective morality.




The major faiths are very similar at the core, but differ around the edges.  I understand that.



> But to conflate that with a belief that I think Assad is morally justified is incorrect.  I don't.




I didn't say you believed it.  I said if your statement above is correct then he is morally justified.  He has a society that also believes as he does or the gassing would not have happened. 



> What I am telling you is that your position that laws merely codify morality is demonstrably false.  What you call "murder"- the killing of your own children- has only been defined as such by a majority of human cultures for about 1% of human history.




You didn't show that, though.  The Romans thought it moral to murder children and then the codified it into law.  People don't say, "Hey, let's make a law that says X and then we can think it's moral."  Rather, they say, "X is moral, so let's make a law that says so in order for there to be no misunderstanding."



> If laws are _only_ a codification of morality, then why did that change occur?  And how? If morality is objective, it couldn't.




The change occurred because the perception of what was moral changed and then they codified new laws to represent that.  As for how, even if there is an objective morality, people are inherently flawed and won't always see it.  So people can view things as moral when they aren't.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> ISIS is a society.



Er... No. 



> It creates laws.  It governs.  I maintains and builds infrastructure.



As these point out, it is more like a governing body. But a society it is not. 

Althought it does present itself as a moral authority as well, so your point has some legs.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> Er... No.
> 
> As these point out, it is more like a governing body. But a society it is not.
> 
> Althought it does present itself as a moral authority as well, so your point has some legs.




so·ci·e·ty
səˈsīədē/
noun
1.
the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.

2.
an organization or club formed for a particular purpose or activity.

ISIS meets both of those definitions.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> Look, if you and Danny are right, then Assad gassing his people




Nope.  Syria acceded to the Geneva Protocol, including the Chemical Weapons Convention.  These allow for the creation and stockpiling of chemical weapons, but not their use on civilian populations.  Assad was breaking international law.



> ISIS beheading Americans are both moral and justified.  Both Assad and ISIS are states or heads of states




Assad was a head of state, and he broke international law - no haven for him on justification there.  ISIS calls itself a state, but that has yet to be recognized by the world community, and it has broken international law and recognized laws of war in several (probably many) instances.  Their grip on the title of "state" is therefore highly questionable.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> Nope.  Syria acceded to the Geneva Protocol, including the Chemical Weapons Convention.  These allow for the creation and stockpiling of chemical weapons, but not their use on civilian populations.  Assad was breaking international law.




If it can sign up for it, it can leave it.  Syria is a sovereign state and can decide what it does or does not follow.  Other countries may decide that he isn't following THEIR morality, but that doesn't mean that he isn't following the morality of his society.



> Assad was a head of state, and he broke international law - no haven for him on justification there.  ISIS calls itself a state, but that has yet to be recognized by the world community, and it has broken international law and recognized laws of war in several (probably many) instances.  Their grip on the title of "state" is therefore highly questionable.




Recognition by the rest of the world doesn't matter.  If the world decided not to recognize water as being wet, it would still be wet.  The same goes for a state.  Lack of recognition doesn't stop it from being a state.  The world has no real right to impose it's laws on sovereign states.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> so·ci·e·ty
> səˈsīədē/
> noun
> 1.
> the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
> 
> 2.
> an organization or club formed for a particular purpose or activity.
> 
> ISIS meets both of those definitions.




The second one, but not the first. There is an aggregate of people living under ISIS's rule. 

But whatever, focus trying to prove that ISIS is a society. What do I care.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> The second one, but not the first. There is an aggregate of people living under ISIS's rule.
> 
> But whatever, focus trying to prove that ISIS is a society. What do I care.




That's still them living together in a more or less ordered community.  Together =/= equal.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> You just said..
> 
> "Those are not murder by the predominant *moral*, religious & legal codes of the day, but rather justifiable homicides."
> 
> So morals depend on what the society says is moral.  ISIS is a society.  It creates laws.  It governs.  I maintains and builds infrastructure.  Therefore, according to what you just said, those beheadings are moral.




How about you read the whole sentence in its context, not just throat you think proves me a liar.

"Those are not murder by the predominant *moral*, religious & legal codes *of the day*, but rather justifiable homicides."

The bolded section _clearly_ means I am discussing the 12 Tables of Rome, Deuteronomy, and the other ancient legal directives, not the modern world.  Laws like that were the global norm, not the exception.  I then _explicitly_ point out that morality has changed on this issue in the last few hundred years.

Such laws would be aberrations in modern societies, not the norm, which has change and views such killings as wrong.

Likewise, jumping over to ISIS and Assad, this brutal policies they use are at odds with the prevailing moral theorems of the day, so would also be seen as invalid.



> I didn't say you believed it.  I said if your statement above is correct then he is morally justified.  He has a society that also believes as he does or the gassing would not have happened.




As noted above, no society exists in a vacuum.  As I stated, at one point in human history, the global consensus would likely not have been concerned with the brutality ISIS or Assad.  But we don't live at that point in time, and the modern world is perfectly justified in condemning them and acting accordingly to stop them. 



> You didn't show that, though.  The Romans thought it moral to murder children and then the codified it into law.  People don't say, "Hey, let's make a law that says X and then we can think it's moral."  Rather, they say, "X is moral, so let's make a law that says so in order for there to be no misunderstanding."



Maxperson, you cannot claim both a moral relativist stance and say that ^ when in the context of this discussion, you have revealed yourself to be supporting a moral objectivist viewpoint by posting:



Maxperson said:


> Just because a society said something was moral or okay, doesn't mean that it was, or that it was justified.  The Roman killing his son was still committing murder, even if the law doesn't define it as such.




Pick a position and stick with it.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> How about you read the whole sentence in its context, not just throat you think proves me a liar.
> 
> "Those are not murder by the predominant *moral*, religious & legal codes *of the day*, but rather justifiable homicides."




I didn't ignore it.  It just didn't make a difference.  That they have those morals now makes them morals "of the day."  It doesn't have the world wide in order to be a moral "of the day."  



> The bolded section _clearly_ means I am discussing the 12 Tables of Rome, Deuteronomy, and the other ancient legal directives, not the modern world.  Laws like that were the global norm, not the exception.  I then _explicitly_ point out that morality has changed on this issue in the last few hundred years.




Right, but it extends to now.  If the Roman morals "of the day" allow the murder of children to be moral, then the ISIS morals "of the day" allow the beheadings of Americans to be moral.  You don't get to pick one of those situations to be moral and the other not to be.  Both are or both aren't.  I'm on the side that says both aren't.



> Such laws would be aberrations in modern societies, not the norm, which has change and views such killings as wrong.




Not even.  There are dozens of countries where governmental murder and atrocities are commonplace and lawful.  All over Africa, places in Asia, Russia, China (though Russia tries to pretend it doesn't), and so on.  It is very non-aberrational in these times.  It just isn't western.



> Likewise, jumping over to ISIS and Assad, this brutal policies they use are at odds with the prevailing moral theorems of the day, so would also be seen as invalid.




No.  First, they aren't prevailing.  They're western.  Lost of other places, enough to make the ideals not prevailing, exist.  Second, we don't have the right to declare our morals prevailing and right, and then impose them on others.



> As noted above, no society exists in a vacuum.  As I stated, at one point in human history, the global consensus would likely not have been concerned with the brutality ISIS or Assad.  But we don't live at that point in time, and the modern world is perfectly justified in condemning them and acting accordingly to stop them.




It's not a global consensus.  Several countries engage in that sort of brutality, and others like China and Russia actively support regimes like Syria, with Russia supporting Assad and Syria.



> Maxperson, you cannot claim both a moral relativist stance and say that ^ when in the context of this discussion, you have revealed yourself to be supporting a moral objectivist viewpoint by posting:
> 
> Pick a position and stick with it.




I can't.  My position is a blend.  Some things like rape and murder are always going to be wrong and evil, but lesser things like theft might or might not be evil depending on outlook and circumstances.  As long as I'm consistent, I have a position and I'm sticking with it.  You are presenting a False Dichotomy where it's all one or the other and I don't have to go with your false choice.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Umbran said:


> That's a nonsense hypothetical, though.  Our culture as it now is would not pass such a law.  The hypothetical "if it did" is meaningless, because no Congresscritter looking for re-election wold vote for it, and no President would sign the thing.
> 
> This practical point matters in Danny's statement that the laws define what we consider justified.




That is an extreme example. I can think of laws that we might pass though that would be morally questionable and them simply being laws wouldn't make them just or good in my mind. For example if we pass laws preventing Muslims from immigrating to the US (which seems a lot more plausible than a law allowing children to be killed by their parents) I would call that an unjust law.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Recognition by the rest of the world doesn't matter.  If the world decided not to recognize water as being wet, it would still be wet.  The same goes for a state.  Lack of recognition doesn't stop it from being a state.  The world has no real right to impose it's laws on sovereign states.




Recognition by others matters a lot when it comes to calling something a state. If they are not recognized by other countries as a state, it brings legitimacy into question. Right now the people who consider ISIS legitimate would mostly be those on the extreme end of the Salafi movement who are also sympathetic to ISIS. ISIS is definitely gaining legitimacy the longer it holds onto territory though. 

Within ISIS territory it is pretty unclear to me how much ISIS reflects the population it controls. I'd be interested if anyone has a link to a real demographic breakdown among Sunni's living in that area. I would imagine that extreme Salafis or Wahhabis within the territories feel their interests are represented by ISIS. They seem to be controlling an area that is primarily Sunni, but I honestly don't know what the breakdown is in that region among sunnis when you start looking at things like what schools of jurisprudence people subscribe to. That would tell you a lot more about what kind of 'society' ISIS has going and how much legitimacy they might have among the population. I am guessing the overall picture may be quite complicated. For example there could be Sunnis there who object to some of ISIS specific beliefs but are glad to have a fighting force who are pro-Sunni.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Recognition by others matters a lot when it comes to calling something a state. If they are not recognized by other countries as a state, it brings legitimacy into question. Right now the people who consider ISIS legitimate would mostly be those on the extreme end of the Salafi movement who are also sympathetic to ISIS. ISIS is definitely gaining legitimacy the longer it holds onto territory though.




What the rest of the world thinks is irrelevant when it comes to whether a place is a state or not.  If the world suddenly changed its mind about Egypt, Egypt would still be a state regardless.  What the rest of the world thinks only matters for political maneuvering and nothing more.



> Within ISIS territory it is pretty unclear to me how much ISIS reflects the population it controls. I'd be interested if anyone has a link to a real demographic breakdown among Sunni's living in that area. I would imagine that extreme Salafis or Wahhabis within the territories feel their interests are represented by ISIS. They seem to be controlling an area that is primarily Sunni, but I honestly don't know what the breakdown is in that region among sunnis when you start looking at things like what schools of jurisprudence people subscribe to. That would tell you a lot more about what kind of 'society' ISIS has going and how much legitimacy they might have among the population. I am guessing the overall picture may be quite complicated. For example there could be Sunnis there who object to some of ISIS specific beliefs but are glad to have a fighting force who are pro-Sunni.




This is all true.  No state reflects all of what the people desire, though.  Just look at the U.S.  The approval rate of Congress and the President is almost always very low.  Obama has averaged 47%.


----------



## Ryujin

Bedrockgames said:


> Recognition by others matters a lot when it comes to calling something a state. If they are not recognized by other countries as a state, it brings legitimacy into question. Right now the people who consider ISIS legitimate would mostly be those on the extreme end of the Salafi movement who are also sympathetic to ISIS. ISIS is definitely gaining legitimacy the longer it holds onto territory though.
> 
> Within ISIS territory it is pretty unclear to me how much ISIS reflects the population it controls. I'd be interested if anyone has a link to a real demographic breakdown among Sunni's living in that area. I would imagine that extreme Salafis or Wahhabis within the territories feel their interests are represented by ISIS. They seem to be controlling an area that is primarily Sunni, but I honestly don't know what the breakdown is in that region among sunnis when you start looking at things like what schools of jurisprudence people subscribe to. That would tell you a lot more about what kind of 'society' ISIS has going and how much legitimacy they might have among the population. I am guessing the overall picture may be quite complicated. For example there could be Sunnis there who object to some of ISIS specific beliefs but are glad to have a fighting force who are pro-Sunni.




It would be rather hard to get a true demographic read considering the marching orders appear to be you're either with us and fighting, or for the (literal) chop.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> I didn't ignore it.  It just didn't make a difference.  That they have those morals now makes them morals "of the day."  It doesn't have the world wide in order to be a moral "of the day."



Ack- in my efforts to clarify, I forgot to also bold "predominant" which is key.  And it does make a difference.



> Right, but it extends to now.  If the Roman morals "of the day" allow the murder of children to be moral, then the ISIS morals "of the day" allow the beheadings of Americans to be moral.  You don't get to pick one of those situations to be moral and the other not to be.  Both are or both aren't.  I'm on the side that says both aren't.



The Romans' moral compass was largely in accord with the other cultures of the world.  ISIS' is not.



> Not even .  There are dozens of countries where governmental murder and atrocities are commonplace and lawful.  All over Africa, places in Asia, Russia, China (though Russia tries to pretend it doesn't), and so on.  It is very non-aberrational in these times.  It just isn't western.




You might recall upthread that I mentioned that some laws are passed that are opposed to theories of morality.  As the world stands today, facism is generally regarded as morally unacceptable in nearly every philosophy or theocratic system of ethics.  

IOW, those dictatorships, and other oppressive regimes are acting in opposition to the prevailing moral theories of the day.





> No.  First, they aren't prevailing.  They're western.  Lost of other places, enough to make the ideals not prevailing, exist.



You are conflating the actions of governments with the moral compass of the populace.  If you look at the ethics of the populace, you very often see something quite different.



> Second, we don't have the right to declare our morals prevailing and right, and then impose them on others.



Then how do you justify judging ancient Romans, Jews, Greeks, etc. for their views on how to treat their children?




> It's not a global consensus.  Several countries engage in that sort of brutality, and others like China and Russia actively support regimes like Syria, with Russia supporting Assad and Syria.



The most common definitions & usage of the word "consensus" is NOT as a synonym for "unanimity", but rather as "an agreement of a majority ."
So my comment stands.


> I can't.  My position is a blend.  Some things like rape and murder are always going to be wrong and evil, but lesser things like theft might or might not be evil depending on outlook and circumstances.  As long as I'm consistent, I have a position and I'm sticking with it.  You are presenting a False Dichotomy where it's all one or the other and I don't have to go with your false choice.



There is no false dichotomy between choosing moral objectivist and moral subjectivist.  A moral objectivist viewpoint is an absolutist perspective, so it is mutually incompatible with subjective morality.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Ack- in my efforts to clarify, I forgot to also bold "predominant" which is key.  And it does make a difference.




I didn't miss it.  Again, it's just doesn't matter.  There is a huge chunk of the world that views things differently.  A simple majority doesn't get to make their morals apply to the entire world.



> The Romans' moral compass was largely in accord with the other cultures of the world.  ISIS' is not.




ISIS is in accord with a huge chunk of the world.  A majority of the population once you include China, India and Pakistan.



> You might recall upthread that I mentioned that some laws are passed that are opposed to theories of morality.  As the world stands today, facism is generally regarded as morally unacceptable in nearly every philosophy or theocratic system of ethics.
> 
> IOW, those dictatorships, and other oppressive regimes are acting in opposition to the prevailing moral theories of the day.




Prevailing?  If a majority of the world's population is not western with morals and is okay with things like killing women for being raped and other things that the western world find morally wrong, then why do you think the western version is the prevailing one?



> You are conflating the actions of governments with the moral compass of the populace.  If you look at the ethics of the populace, you very often see something quite different.
> 
> 
> Then how do you justify judging ancient Romans, Jews, Greeks, etc. for their views on how to treat their children?




The "and then impose them on others." is rather critical.  We can judge our morals the best all we want if that's as far as it goes.



> There is no false dichotomy between choosing moral objectivist and moral subjectivist.  A moral objectivist viewpoint is an absolutist perspective, so it is mutually incompatible with subjective morality.




The False Dichotomy was in you trying to pigeon hole me into those two options as if they were the only two I am allowed.  You presented those two options and declared that I had to stick with one.  I have a third view.


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> Recognition by the rest of the world doesn't matter.  If the world decided not to recognize water as being wet, it would still be wet.  The same goes for a state.  Lack of recognition doesn't stop it from being a state.  The world has no real right to impose it's laws on sovereign states.




Recognition by other states is critical for legitimacy - that's why you can't just declare your property and family a sovereign state separate from whatever country you're in (despite some extremist radicals' wishes).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> I didn't miss it.  Again, it's just doesn't matter.  There is a huge chunk of the world that views things differently.  A simple majority doesn't get to make their morals apply to the entire world.




We aren't talking simple majorities.  In the ancient world, we were talking nearly every culture & faith on the planet.

And in the modern world, we're talking about the vast majority of all religious and philosophical ethical and moral systems you can point to.



> ISIS is in accord with a huge chunk of the world.  A majority of the population once you include China, India and Pakistan.




No, they're not.  

The Chinese government has enacted many laws that are not in accord with the moral compass of their citizens.  If you're talking about "honor killings" in India, that is a view that is 1) against Hinduism, and 2) only practiced by a fraction of their populace.  

The main thing Pakistan and ISIS (Sunni) have in common is Islam, and ISIS' version is definitely not what is practiced there.



> Prevailing?  If a majority of the world's population is not western with morals and is okay with things like killing women for being raped and other things that the western world find morally wrong, then why do you think the western version is the prevailing one?




Just for starters, if you look at the doctrines & practices of modern mainstream Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, Confucianism, American paganism, etc., you will find some version of The Golden Rule codified into the major tenets of each.

Those sects of the above that do not follow such usually are closely tied to either fascist political movements or are grounded in the pre-faith cultural traditions of their regions.



> The False Dichotomy was in you trying to pigeon hole  me into those two options as if they were the only two I am allowed.  You presented those two options and declared that I had to stick with one.  I have a third view.



The dichotomy is NOT false.

By definition, an objectivist moral position is absolute: there is a set of unvarying moral standards by which all actions are judged.

Any attempt to "hybridize" it with a subjectivist moral position only creates a different point on the array of all subjectivist positions.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> We aren't talking simple majorities.  In the ancient world, we were talking nearly every culture & faith on the planet.
> 
> And in the modern world, we're talking about the vast majority of all religious and philosophical ethical and moral systems you can point to.




Not every culture in the world during those times allowed fathers to murder their children.  You're off base with that one.



> The Chinese government has enacted many laws that are not in accord with the moral compass of their citizens.  If you're talking about "honor killings" in India, that is a view that is 1) against Hinduism, and 2) only practiced by a fraction of their populace.




The populace accepts honor killings, even if they don't practice them.  Same as with the Romans you mentioned.  Being allowed and accepted isn't the same as being practiced by the populace.



> The main thing Pakistan and ISIS (Sunni) have in common is Islam, and ISIS' version is definitely not what is practiced there.




And the murder of innocents.  Honor killings of innocents in Pakistan alone are several times higher than the number beheadings of westerners by ISIS. 



> Just for starters, if you look at the doctrines & practices of modern mainstream Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, Confucianism, American paganism, etc., you will find some version of The Golden Rule codified into the major tenets of each.




Why do you think that morals are dependent on religion?  I don't.



> The dichotomy is NOT false.
> 
> By definition, an objectivist moral position is absolute: there is a set of unvarying moral standards by which all actions are judged.




It must be false because it cannot be true.  There are more than those two positions.  This is proven absolutely by the fact that I hold a third position.



> Any attempt to "hybridize" it with a subjectivist moral position only creates a different point on the array of all subjectivist positions.




Nawp.  Some things are objectively immoral.  That's not a position that someone in the pure subjectivist camp believes.


----------



## Maxperson

Cor Azer said:


> Recognition by other states is critical for legitimacy - that's why you can't just declare your property and family a sovereign state separate from whatever country you're in (despite some extremist radicals' wishes).




No it isn't.  Any state that depends on other states for legitimacy is not a state.  It's a territory.  

There is only one reason I cannot declare my property a sovereign state and that's that I lack the resources to keep it when America comes wanting it back.  If I could hold my property militarily and successfully trade with other states, then nobody in the world could keep me from being a separate state.


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> No it isn't.  Any state that depends on other states for legitimacy is not a state.  It's a territory.
> 
> There is only one reason I cannot declare my property a sovereign state and that's that I lack the resources to keep it when America comes wanting it back.  If I could hold my property militarily and successfully trade with other states, then nobody in the world could keep me from being a separate state.




Ding! Ding! Ding!

Thank you for *exactly* agreeing. If only other states would accept your borders and trade with you (ie: recognize you as a sovereign state and lend you legitimacy), you too could be a state.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> Not every culture in the world during those times allowed fathers to murder their children.  You're off base with that one.




I didn't say"every", but "nearly every".  The ancient Egyptians were noted by their contemporaries for a cultural impulse that every child born must be raised.

But I have already pointed out the laws of Rome and the Old Testament.  The Hellenistic tradition of abandoning the disfigured is well known.

The rationales & conditions of why, when and at what ages a child could be killed differed, but similar practices can be found among the Incas, Syrians, Carthaginians, Canaanites, Moabites, Sepharvites, Teutonic tribes, pre-Christian Icelandic (and, for a time, post-Christian Icelandic) culture.



> The populace accepts honor killings, even if they don't practice them.  Same as with the Romans you mentioned.  Being allowed and accepted isn't the same as being practiced by the populace.



Actually, over the years, there have been many outspoken critics of honor killings, and the majority doesn't really accept them.  About 90% of all honor killings in India are confined to Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh.

In fact, while the Indian legal system is pretty stacked against women, there have been several cases in which participants in honor killings have been given the death penalty, which is part of why they have been in decline.



> And the murder of innocents.  Honor killings of innocents in Pakistan alone are several times higher than the number beheadings of westerners by ISIS.




Fair point.



> Why do you think that morals are dependent on religion?  I don't.



Wasn't my point.  Most major non-theist moral systems enshrine The Golden Rule as a key tenet as well.

(Fascists, not so much.)



> Nawp.  Some things are objectively immoral.  That's not a position that someone in the pure subjectivist camp believes.



Which is just another point on the subjectivist spectrum, as stated.


----------



## Maxperson

Cor Azer said:


> Ding! Ding! Ding!
> 
> Thank you for *exactly* agreeing. If only other states would accept your borders and trade with you (ie: recognize you as a sovereign state and lend you legitimacy), you too could be a state.




You are over looking two things.  First, that trade requirement only applies to me, not ISIS.  As a single house, I have no ability to manufacture all that I need, so I am dependent on trade.  A state that is the size of a country doesn't have those same limitations.  Second, ISIS does have people that it trades with.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I didn't say"every", but "nearly every".  The ancient Egyptians were noted by their contemporaries for a cultural impulse that every child born must be raised.




The Jews also, and the germanic tribes, same with Ukraine and Russia.  There were quite a few that practiced it, but not "nearly every."



> Actually, over the years, there have been many outspoken critics of honor killings, and the majority doesn't really accept them.  About 90% of all honor killings in India are confined to Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh.




If that were true, they wouldn't get away with it as often as they do.  All of them would be arrested and charged with murder, yet that rarely happens.



> In fact, while the Indian legal system is pretty stacked against women, there have been several cases in which participants in honor killings have been given the death penalty, which is part of why they have been in decline.




Several out of hundreds of honor killings a year.  Most get away with it because it is accepted.



> Wasn't my point.  Most major non-theist moral systems enshrine The Golden Rule as a key tenet as well.




Most in numbers, but not in population.



> Which is just another point on the subjectivist spectrum, as stated.




Subjectivists don't have any objectivist beliefs.  They believe that all of morality is subjective.  I don't.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Just for starters, if you look at the doctrines & practices of modern mainstream Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, Confucianism, American paganism, etc., you will find some version of The Golden Rule codified into the major tenets of each.




It is sometimes more formally referred to as the "Ethic of Reciprocity".

In case someone doesn't want to go looking:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Or, in more compact form, many relevant quotes from religious texts:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc2.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc3.htm


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> You are over looking two things.  First, that trade requirement only applies to me, not ISIS.  As a single house, I have no ability to manufacture all that I need, so I am dependent on trade.  A state that is the size of a country doesn't have those same limitations.  Second, ISIS does have people that it trades with.




I'm not overlooking anything. Your property-as-a-state still requires other states to acknowledge your borders to provide you legitimacy, regardless of whether you require trade or not. Many 'country-sized' states require trade to support their population, and many homesteads can support themselves just fine without it (albeit, perhaps not at the height of luxury). The need for trade or lack thereof is not in and of itself a criteria for statehood; it's just one way in determining if other states view you as a state.

Yes, Daesh has some trading partners, and many people rail against those partners because they are lending Daesh legitimacy. 

At the same time, most (I don't have sources to assert 'all') states don't acknowledge Daesh's claimed territory - it having been occupied from Syria and Iraq primarily. That's kind of the point of the war (idealogy aside) - Daesh is effectively saying 'This is ours', and everyone else is, 'Ummm... No.'

As an aside - matters of what constitutes recognition of a state is often discussed in regards to micronations, like the Principality of Sealand.


----------



## Maxperson

Cor Azer said:


> I'm not overlooking anything. Your property-as-a-state still requires other states to acknowledge your borders to provide you legitimacy, regardless of whether you require trade or not.




No it doesn't.  If my army can maintain my borders and I can produce what I need, your recognition is irrelevant.



> Many 'country-sized' states require trade to support their population, and many homesteads can support themselves just fine without it (albeit, perhaps not at the height of luxury). The need for trade or lack thereof is not in and of itself a criteria for statehood; it's just one way in determining if other states view you as a state.




You do realize that even states that aren't recognized trade, right?



> Yes, Daesh has some trading partners, and many people rail against those partners because they are lending Daesh legitimacy.




Countries like to think of themselves as the center of everything.  "If I don't recognize you, you must not be legitimate."  I just doesn't work that way in reality.  



> At the same time, most (I don't have sources to assert 'all') states don't acknowledge Daesh's claimed territory - it having been occupied from Syria and Iraq primarily. That's kind of the point of the war (idealogy aside) - Daesh is effectively saying 'This is ours', and everyone else is, 'Ummm... No.'




Right, and of ISIS wins, it's right and a state regardless of what everyone else thinks.  If it loses, it isn't.  The war will decide.

International law doesn't apply to any country that doesn't want it to and can hold itself sovereign against aggressors.


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> No it doesn't.  If my army can maintain my borders and I can produce what I need, your recognition is irrelevant.




If you don't want to be constantly at war with your neighbors, then yes, outside recognition is very relevant.

Such a war ends in one of two situations:
1. Your opponents defeat you, which means you never established yourself as a state
2. Your opponents stop attacking (be it through you defeating them, signing a treaty, or them simply lacking the will to continue), which means they explicitly or implicitly acknowledge your control over your territory, and thus, establishing yourself as a state



Maxperson said:


> You do realize that even states that aren't recognized trade, right?




Of course, I do. Hence why I wrote:



			
				Cor Azer; said:
			
		

> The need for trade or lack thereof is not in and of itself a criteria for statehood; it's just one way in determining if other states view you as a state.




Do you understand what you're reading?



Maxperson said:


> Countries like to think of themselves as the center of everything.  "If I don't recognize you, you must not be legitimate."  I just doesn't work that way in reality.




There is a finite amount of land in the world, and all (?) of it has been claimed (or at least, accounted for - ie: Antarctica). For a new state to rise up, it must take over land from someone else (barring somehow creating artificial islands in international waters). There must be a consideration of legitimacy when dealing with who owns a given territory so that there isn't constant war over every piece of land or resource on it.

People like to think of themselves as divorced from larger issues. "If it doesn't directly impact me, it must not be important." It just doesn't work that way in reality.



Maxperson said:


> Right, and of ISIS wins, it's right and a state regardless of what everyone else thinks.  If it loses, it isn't.  The war will decide.




Exactly. Daesh has not yet established themselves as a state. 



Maxperson said:


> International law doesn't apply to any country that doesn't want it to and can hold itself sovereign against aggressors.




While true, this is a non sequitur.


----------



## Maxperson

Cor Azer said:


> If you don't want to be constantly at war with your neighbors, then yes, outside recognition is very relevant.
> 
> Such a war ends in one of two situations:
> 1. Your opponents defeat you, which means you never established yourself as a state
> 2. Your opponents stop attacking (be it through you defeating them, signing a treaty, or them simply lacking the will to continue), which means they explicitly or implicitly acknowledge your control over your territory, and thus, establishing yourself as a state




Great.  That I can agree with.  Either way, you are a state until A) they beat you, or B) you beat them or they stop and they acknowledge you.  Your statehood is not dependent on recognition.



> There is a finite amount of land in the world, and all (?) of it has been claimed (or at least, accounted for - ie: Antarctica). For a new state to rise up, it must take over land from someone else (barring somehow creating artificial islands in international waters). There must be a consideration of legitimacy when dealing with who owns a given territory so that there isn't constant war over every piece of land or resource on it.




Conquest has been an accepted method of gaining territory or statehood for thousands of years.  The whole idea of legitimacy coming from other countries flies directly in the face of what sovereign means.  You can't possibly be sovereign if others determine if you are a state or not.  Statehood recognition is based on international law.  Law that doesn't apply to any country that does not want it to.  You can impose trade embargoes or complain a lot when a state refuses to follow international law, but short of invasion and conquest, there's nothing you can do to prevent them from being a state or force them to follow international law.



> Exactly. Daesh has not yet established themselves as a state.



Yes, ISIS has.  They just haven't proven themselves capable of keeping it yet.  It's being contested and unless the U.S. and its allies go in on the ground, they will win.

I don't want us to go in on the ground, but there's no other way to beat them.



> While true, this is a non sequitur.




Not at all.  Your whole argument is based on international law.  It's international law that requires states to have recognition in order to be states.  Since you agree with me that international law doesn't apply to any country that does not want it to, then the requirement that a state be recognized also does not apply to any country that does not want it to.


----------



## Umbran

Cor Azer said:


> There must be a consideration of legitimacy when dealing with who owns a given territory so that there isn't constant war over every piece of land or resource on it.




Moreover, when your potential state's long-term existence is dependent on selling those resources to others, legitimacy becomes exceptionally important.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> Moreover, when your potential state's long-term existence is dependent on selling those resources to others, legitimacy becomes exceptionally important.




Only kinda sorta.  Iran and North Korea still managed to sell goods through embargoes and sanction.  There are many countries that will yell and scream about you not being a legitimate state, then go under the table and trade with you in secret anyway.


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> Great.  That I can agree with.  Either way, you are a state until A) they beat you, or B) you beat them or they stop and they acknowledge you.  Your statehood is not dependent on recognition.




Yeah... no. You don't get to assert something as true and challenge others to prove you wrong. You have to prove the assertion is true.



Maxperson said:


> Conquest has been an accepted method of gaining territory or statehood for thousands of years.  The whole idea of legitimacy coming from other countries flies directly in the face of what sovereign means.  You can't possibly be sovereign if others determine if you are a state or not.  Statehood recognition is based on international law.  Law that doesn't apply to any country that does not want it to.  You can impose trade embargoes or complain a lot when a state refuses to follow international law, but short of invasion and conquest, there's nothing you can do to prevent them from being a state or force them to follow international law.




I never said conquest wasn't an accepted method to gain or expand a state. But the conquest isn't considered complete until other states acknowledge that you're now the legitimate authority in that territory and thus acknowledge you as a state.

Being sovereign is *completely* dependent on whether or not others determine if you're a state or not. Being sovereign all but literally means "everyone agrees that I'm the one in charge in this territory"; that _everyone_ means that it requires the explicit (via treaty or victory) or implicit (via a lack of will to challenge it) acknowledgement by other states.



Maxperson said:


> Yes, ISIS has.  They just haven't proven themselves capable of keeping it yet.  It's being contested and unless the U.S. and its allies go in on the ground, they will win.




Daesh needs to be capable of keeping their territory before they can be considered a state. For now, they're just an occupying force.



Maxperson said:


> I don't want us to go in on the ground, but there's no other way to beat them.




This, I'm afraid, is very likely true, barring any far worse alternatives.



Maxperson said:


> Not at all.  Your whole argument is based on international law.  It's international law that requires states to have recognition in order to be states.  Since you agree with me that international law doesn't apply to any country that does not want it to, then the requirement that a state be recognized also does not apply to any country that does not want it to.




It's a non sequitur because if international law doesn't apply, then the label of being a state is meaningless. Being a state requires there to be one government in control of a group of people and/or territory, but in the case of Daesh-occupied parts of Syria and Iraq, there are multiple governments asserting control (albeit, Daesh's occupation is making it difficult for those other governments of carrying out that control).


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> Only kinda sorta.  Iran and North Korea still managed to sell goods through embargoes and sanction.  There are many countries that will yell and scream about you not being a legitimate state, then go under the table and trade with you in secret anyway.




You seem to be conflating the idea that people can object to how a state is run (Iran, North Korea) with whether or not it is a legitimate state to begin with.


----------



## Ryujin

The modern concept of what constitutes a Sovereign Nation can be traced back to the "Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States" (1933).

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: 
a ) a permanent population; 
b ) a defined territory; 
c ) government; and 
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> Only kinda sorta.  Iran and North Korea still managed to sell goods through embargoes and sanction.  There are many countries that will yell and scream about you not being a legitimate state, then go under the table and trade with you in secret anyway.




They is beyond embargo and sanction.  This is having no legal relations whatsoever.  

And it isn't like you can move millions of barrels of oil around secretly.  "Sneak, sneak, sneak with my massive oil tanker!"  Not so much.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> The modern concept of what constitutes a Sovereign Nation can be traced back to the "Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States" (1933).
> 
> ARTICLE 1
> 
> The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
> a ) a permanent population;
> b ) a defined territory;
> c ) government; and
> d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.




But I want Sealand to be real! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> But I want Sealand to be real! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand




So does "The Pirate Bay."


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> So does "The Pirate Bay."




We need more pirates to fight global warming.


----------



## Maxperson

Cor Azer said:


> Yeah... no. You don't get to assert something as true and challenge others to prove you wrong. You have to prove the assertion is true.




I haven't.  It's plainly true that someone else cannot control whether you are a state or not without using force.



> Being sovereign is *completely* dependent on whether or not others determine if you're a state or not. Being sovereign all but literally means "everyone agrees that I'm the one in charge in this territory"; that _everyone_ means that it requires the explicit (via treaty or victory) or implicit (via a lack of will to challenge it) acknowledgement by other states.




sov·er·eign·ty
ˈsäv(ə)rən(t)ē/
noun
1. supreme power or authority.

2. the authority of a state to govern itself or another state.

3. a self-governing state.

I seem to have missed it.  Perhaps you can show me where in there the state is dependent on others for its sovereignty.  I'll wait.



> Daesh needs to be capable of keeping their territory before they can be considered a state. For now, they're just an occupying force.




ISIS is capable.  So far no one has been able to take it from them and air strikes won't succeed.



> It's a non sequitur because if international law doesn't apply, then the label of being a state is meaningless. Being a state requires there to be one government in control of a group of people and/or territory, but in the case of Daesh-occupied parts of Syria and Iraq, there are multiple governments asserting control (albeit, Daesh's occupation is making it difficult for those other governments of carrying out that control).




That's a load of tripe.  Being a state has the same meaning that it has always had.  International law didn't create statehood and can't strip it.  Further, there is only one group in control of ISIS controlled territory.  ISIS.  That ISIS' territory exists inside of other states that could not maintain control is irrelevant.  We're not talking about control of the former borders of Syria and Iraq, where there are multiple groups controlling different part of those borders.  We're talking about the borders of ISIS controlled territory where there are no longer any competing governments.


----------



## Maxperson

Cor Azer said:


> You seem to be conflating the idea that people can object to how a state is run (Iran, North Korea) with whether or not it is a legitimate state to begin with.




I'm not conflating anything. You just missed the point.  The point is that many countries only pay lip service to their proclamations like sanctions, embargoes and statehood, and then trade anyway.  ISIS currently has trading partners.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/isis-reward-money/

Palestine is also a state, regardless of the UN votes.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> But I want Sealand to be real! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand




Let's see.

A) ISIS has a permanent population.
B) We can define its territory, though that line is probably going to expand.
C) ISIS has set up a government.
D) ISIS has the capacity to enter into relations with other states.  

Yep.  Even under those definitions it's a state.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> Let's see.
> 
> A) ISIS has a permanent population.
> B) We can define its territory, though that line is probably going to expand.
> C) ISIS has set up a government.
> D) ISIS has the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
> 
> Yep.  Even under those definitions it's a state.




You're barking up the wrong tree. ISIS is definately trying to be a state. It is funding schools and hospitals, minting coins and issuing passports in an effort to fill the role of government. It isn't there yet, but if it can hold on it will get there.

Right now it is a revolutionary organisation that rejects a good part of the status quo in the region. This is in part why so many states oppose it. Not its ideology. Cause frankly, Saudi Arabia shares that ideology and acts just as badly. Heck, Saudi Arabia is arguably the ideological cradle of ISIS. 

ISIS is in the news because it is a new player that is trying to carve itself a seat at the table and a lot of people do not like that.


----------



## Orlax

Maxperson said:


> Let's see.
> 
> A) ISIS has a permanent population.
> B) We can define its territory, though that line is probably going to expand.
> C) ISIS has set up a government.
> D) ISIS has the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
> 
> Yep.  Even under those definitions it's a state.




Sovereignty is only possible with the acquiescence of those surrounding it.  If I claim my house as a sovereign state it is a defined territory with a permanent population with a dictatorial government that could enter into relations with another state.  Those facts are irrelevant because until the states surrounding me or at least a large number of super powers accept that I am a sovereign state I'm nothing but a nutter trying to claim a territory that is not actually mine in the eyes of the various world governments.  Sovereignty is only capable given the acknowledgment of other states and a number of them at that.


----------



## Maxperson

Orlax said:


> Sovereignty is only possible with the acquiescence of those surrounding it.  If I claim my house as a sovereign state it is a defined territory with a permanent population with a dictatorial government that could enter into relations with another state.  Those facts are irrelevant because until the states surrounding me or at least a large number of super powers accept that I am a sovereign state I'm nothing but a nutter trying to claim a territory that is not actually mine in the eyes of the various world governments.  Sovereignty is only capable given the acknowledgment of other states and a number of them at that.




This is only true if like you or I, we are surrounded by someone powerful enough to stop us, and if we are actually surrounded.  ISIS is neither.  It has water access and its neighbors aren't powerful enough to stop it.


----------



## Orlax

Maxperson said:


> This is only true if like you or I, we are surrounded by someone powerful enough to stop us, and if we are actually surrounded.  ISIS is neither.  It has water access and its neighbors aren't powerful enough to stop it.




Thus acquiescing to the sovereignty, and not all the countries around them are acquiescing, and as far as I know no super powers are actually treating them as a sovereign state.  They are treating them as an insurgent force within existing states.  No one's sending diplomats to isis, no one's talking about trying to get a peace treaty with them, everyone's pretty much agreed that we need to kill them, and they seemingly have no interest in anything resembling a diplomatic relationship with anyone.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> A) ISIS has a permanent population.




I am not sure that's really accurate, given how many people within their area of influence are attempting to flee.



> B) We can define its territory, though that line is probably going to expand.




This seems highly debatable, on several levels.  First, let us start with how they've declared their own statehood several different times, with different parameters, the most recent of which, technically, encompasses the entire planet.  Making aggrandized and nonsensical claims like that weakens their claim on statehood, as it interferes with their ability to enter into relations with other states.

Be that as it may, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) was declared a bit less than a year ago, and its borders have been in flux since that time, since they are actively at war, and battles that move their borders are on the order of 100 casualties (meaning, small).  It is new and ever changing - that doesn't sound like well-defined territorial boundaries to me.  



> C) ISIS has set up a government.




I question this as a requirement, insofar as it can be met by merely saying, "We have a government!"  Any definition that can be met by 5-year-olds in a tree house probably isn't a solid definition.



> D) ISIS has the capacity to enter into relations with other states.




Can it, really?  Name one other state with which is has formal relations - ambassadors and treaties.  I don't think being sent a several million dollars by the Saudis in ways that allow the Saudis plausible deniability count as "relations".  Nor do trade arrangements that would be called "smuggling" by the states through which goods pass - bribing border guards does not count as having "relations".


----------



## Maxperson

Orlax said:


> Thus acquiescing to the sovereignty, and not all the countries around them are acquiescing, and as far as I know no super powers are actually treating them as a sovereign state.  They are treating them as an insurgent force within existing states.  No one's sending diplomats to isis, no one's talking about trying to get a peace treaty with them, everyone's pretty much agreed that we need to kill them, and they seemingly have no interest in anything resembling a diplomatic relationship with anyone.




Seriously?  Your argument is that because they don't need their neighbors and their neighbors are too weak to stop it, that it isn't sovereign?  No.  As for not sending diplomats to other nations, that isn't required.  They only need to be capable of it, not decide to do it.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> I am not sure that's really accurate, given how many people within their area of influence are attempting to flee.




If that number isn't 100%, and it's far from that, then they have a permanent population.



> This seems highly debatable, on several levels.  First, let us start with how they've declared their own statehood several different times, with different parameters, the most recent of which, technically, encompasses the entire planet.  Making aggrandized and nonsensical claims like that weakens their claim on statehood, as it interferes with their ability to enter into relations with other states.




What they want doesn't matter.  What matters are the borders they control, which are measurable.



> Be that as it may, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) was declared a bit less than a year ago, and its borders have been in flux since that time, since they are actively at war, and battles that move their borders are on the order of 100 casualties (meaning, small).  It is new and ever changing - that doesn't sound like well-defined territorial boundaries to me.




War doesn't stop statehood.  If it did, then every time we had a house secede from the U.S., the U.S. would cease to be a state.



> I question this as a requirement, insofar as it can be met by merely saying, "We have a government!"  Any definition that can be met by 5-year-olds in a tree house probably isn't a solid definition.




ISIS is actually governing, building infrastructure and more.  That can't be said by the children you describe.  If ISIS isn't a government for doing what real governments do, then there are no governments in the world.



> Can it, really?  Name one other state with which is has formal relations - ambassadors and treaties.  I don't think being sent a several million dollars by the Saudis in ways that allow the Saudis plausible deniability count as "relations".  Nor do trade arrangements that would be called "smuggling" by the states through which goods pass - bribing border guards does not count as having "relations".




It doesn't matter if other states are receptive, or even if ISIS never attempts to form relations.  It is capable of it, and that's what matters.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Can I ask why you guys are arguing over whether ISIS is a state or not? I'm just curious what point this is in service to. Is there a larger argument this is part of?


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Can I ask why you guys are arguing over whether ISIS is a state or not? I'm just curious what point this is in service to. Is there a larger argument this is part of?




Morals of modern and ancient societies turned into whether ISIS counted as a society/state.  Soon morals got left behind, as they often do


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> What matters are the borders they control, which are measurable.
> 
> War doesn't stop statehood.  If it did, then every time we had a house secede from the U.S., the U.S. would cease to be a state.




I think the case of an existing state and war of state formation are different cases.

Our own Revolution makes a good example here - with the Declaration of Independence, the colonies claimed the right to be separate States, the right to wage war, and all that.  However, the authors of that document well knew that, should they lose the war, all that verbiage would be for naught, and they would hang as traitors, which implies that they didn't really have statehood.  Real statehood came *after* the war, not before.  And, within this, there is a major point - you keep dismissing the question of recognition and legitimization.  Our Founding Fathers didn't - they recognized the need for other countries to view what they were doing as legal and legitimate.

Similarly, ISIS has been in an open state of war since its inception - its statehood will not be settled until *after* that war ends, not before.



> ISIS is actually governing, building infrastructure and more.  That can't be said by the children you describe.




Yes, but it can be said for any civil engineering firm in the world.  The kids comment was about "have a government" - every bowling league has governance that arranges for the things the bowling leagues need.  Doesn't make them states.



> If ISIS isn't a government for doing what real governments do




Live in a state of perpetual war in which they kill their own nominal citizens more than they kill any enemies, you mean?  



> It doesn't matter if other states are receptive, or even if ISIS never attempts to form relations.  It is capable of it, and that's what matters.




Your personal assertion means little.  Proof is in the pudding, not in your words.  They are capable when they demonstrate the capability, not when some guy on the internet says they can.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> I think the case of an existing state and war of state formation are different cases.
> 
> Our own Revolution makes a good example here - with the Declaration of Independence, the colonies claimed the right to be separate States, the right to wage war, and all that.  However, the authors of that document well knew that, should they lose the war, all that verbiage would be for naught, and they would hang as traitors, which implies that they didn't really have statehood.  Real statehood came *after* the war, not before.  And, within this, there is a major point - you keep dismissing the question of recognition and legitimization.  Our Founding Fathers didn't - they recognized the need for other countries to view what they were doing as legal and legitimate.
> 
> Similarly, ISIS has been in an open state of war since its inception - its statehood will not be settled until *after* that war ends, not before.




I think that's a good point and I can definitely see that view.  My personal view, though, is that the founding fathers understood that the victor writes the history.  You win and history records you as a state from the moment the declaration was made.  You lose and it doesn't.  It's more retroactively undoing the statehood than not being a state in the first place.



> Yes, but it can be said for any civil engineering firm in the world.  The kids comment was about "have a government" - every bowling league has governance that arranges for the things the bowling leagues need.  Doesn't make them states.




Bowling leagues and engineering firms don't collect taxes, build building, build roads, engage in trade, establish laws, maintain army, and so on.



> Live in a state of perpetual war in which they kill their own nominal citizens more than they kill any enemies, you mean?




The U.S. has killed more than 600,000 Americans.  Not sure how many total enemies we've killed, but that's still a hefty number of our own killed by our own hands.



> Your personal assertion means little.  Proof is in the pudding, not in your words.  They are capable when they demonstrate the capability, not when some guy on the internet says they can.




Um, anyone can see that they are capable of calling someone an ambassador and sending that person to another country.  Asking me to prove that is like asking me to prove that the Earth has water.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Morals of modern and ancient societies turned into whether ISIS counted as a society/state.  Soon morals got left behind, as they often do




Why is morals of modern and ancient society being discussed?


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Why is morals of modern and ancient society being discussed?




Because we were discussing the murder of Americans by Obama drone.  If you want to know how that came about, you'll have to go look.  The discussion has taken many turns.


----------



## Orlax

Maxperson said:


> I think that's a good point and I can definitely see that view.  My personal view, though, is that the founding fathers understood that the victor writes the history.  You win and history records you as a state from the moment the declaration was made.  You lose and it doesn't.  It's more retroactively undoing the statehood than not being a state in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> Bowling leagues and engineering firms don't collect taxes, build building, build roads, engage in trade, establish laws, maintain army, and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. has killed more than 600,000 Americans.  Not sure how many total enemies we've killed, but that's still a hefty number of our own killed by our own hands.
> 
> 
> 
> Um, anyone can see that they are capable of calling someone an ambassador and sending that person to another country.  Asking me to prove that is like asking me to prove that the Earth has water.




Bowling leagues entirely collect taxes, engage in trade and establish laws.  Dues, jersey's, and bylaws, that's how being in a league works.  Engineering firms actually do a lot of the same things.  By your definitions large corporations are sovriegn states, which they currently are not.


----------



## Maxperson

Orlax said:


> Bowling leagues entirely collect taxes, engage in trade and establish laws.  Dues, jersey's, and bylaws, that's how being in a league works.  Engineering firms actually do a lot of the same things.  By your definitions large corporations are sovriegn states, which they currently are not.




They are forbidden by law and the Constitution to collect taxes and establish laws.  They can make rules.  Rules and bylaws are not laws, despite the name.  They can collect money.  Dues are not taxes.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Because we were discussing the murder of Americans by Obama drone.  If you want to know how that came about, you'll have to go look.  The discussion has taken many turns.




It is a  long thread. I am not going to be able to sift through that. I am just curious what the general thrust of each side is here. Are people saying that Obama killing Americans who are participating in Jihad in the middle east is equivalent to ISIS murdering people for people homosexual, getting drunk or being an apostate?


----------



## Bedrockgames

If you are going to compare states, it probably makes more sense to compare ISIS to states like Saudi Arabia and Syria. There are many similarities with S.A. that people should probably take note of and question why we are allies with them. I think it makes it very hard for us to act like any kind of moral voice in the region when folks can just point to our support of a Wahabist regime that beheads people for violating religious law.


----------



## Morrus

While the characteristics of a state include elements like being able to tax, declare war, sign treaties etc, in practical terms it pretty much means being recognised as such by other states. You can shout your qualifications to the wind, but if the international community doesn't recognise you, it doesn't recognise you.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> It is a  long thread. I am not going to be able to sift through that. I am just curious what the general thrust of each side is here. Are people saying that Obama killing Americans who are participating in Jihad in the middle east is equivalent to ISIS murdering people for people homosexual, getting drunk or being an apostate?




People here declared that Obama droning American citizens is both moral and justified due to laws and modern societal values.  I pointed out that by that criteria, ISIS being a modern society that passes laws, is engaging in justified and moral killing by beheading Americans.  They didn't like that very much, so they're trying very hard to show that ISIS isn't a state.


----------



## Maxperson

Morrus said:


> While the characteristics of a state include elements like being able to tax, declare war, sign treaties etc, in practical terms it pretty much means being recognised as such by other states. You can shout your qualifications to the wind, but if the international community doesn't recognise you, it doesn't recognise you.




Their recognition doesn't remove your statehood, though.  It just means that there are no overt diplomatic actions going on with them.  A state doesn't NEED ratification by others.  It will still go on being a solo state without them.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> People here declared that Obama droning American citizens is both moral and justified due to laws and modern societal values.  I pointed out that by that criteria, ISIS being a modern society that passes laws, is engaging in justified and moral killing by beheading Americans.  They didn't like that very much, so they're trying very hard to show that ISIS isn't a state.




Well, I don't think Obama drone striking US citizens is anywhere near the ballpark of what ISIS is doing. I wouldn't say I am 100% comfortable with drones or their use on american citizens. 

But whether or not ISIS is a state, really doesn't matter to me. I think the actions themselves need to be judged. I mean plenty of states have done horrific things. What ISIS is doing to people within the area it controls is bad; state or no. It is also bad when the same things occur in places like Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Morrus

Maxperson said:


> Their recognition doesn't remove your statehood, though.  It just means that there are no overt diplomatic actions going on with them.  A state doesn't NEED ratification by others.  It will still go on being a solo state without them.




Statehood doesn't exist. Is EN World a state? I can appoint you as an ambassador. I can charge dues. 

It's a fiction. The only statehood is one which is recognised. Otherwise it's a random word in the wind. It's an agreed fiction humans use; it doesn't actually exist.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Morrus said:


> Statehood doesn't exist. Is EN World a state? *I can appoint you as an ambassador*. I can charge dues.
> 
> It's a fiction. The only statehood is one which is recognised. Otherwise it's a random word in the wind. It's an agreed fiction humans use; it doesn't actually exist.



No one would ever take EN World serious after that.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Bedrockgames said:


> Well, I don't think Obama drone striking US citizens is anywhere near the ballpark of what ISIS is doing.



Of course it isn't, but it's Obama, so it is to Max and people with his political leanings. People get upset that the military is using drones to take out U.S. citizens who are fighting against the U.S. and killing U.S. citizens (military personnel), yet they have no problem with police killing far more U.S. citizens. In the end there is no real difference between a gun, a rifle, or a drone fired missile. The end result is that someone dies.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Well, I don't think Obama drone striking US citizens is anywhere near the ballpark of what ISIS is doing. I wouldn't say I am 100% comfortable with drones or their use on american citizens.
> 
> But whether or not ISIS is a state, really doesn't matter to me. I think the actions themselves need to be judged. I mean plenty of states have done horrific things. What ISIS is doing to people within the area it controls is bad; state or no. It is also bad when the same things occur in places like Saudi Arabia.




I agree.  My issue was with declaring Obama's murder of an American via drone justified because it was "legal".  However, as was noted, it wasn't even done "legally".  It was done via a memo, without any kind of court order.


----------



## Maxperson

Morrus said:


> Statehood doesn't exist. Is EN World a state? I can appoint you as an ambassador. I can charge dues.
> 
> It's a fiction. The only statehood is one which is recognised. Otherwise it's a random word in the wind. It's an agreed fiction humans use; it doesn't actually exist.




Statehood is just another way of saying country.  Nothing more.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> I agree.  My issue was with declaring Obama's murder of an American via drone justified because it was "legal".  However, as was noted, it wasn't even done "legally".  It was done via a memo, without any kind of court order.




I don't know. I wish all these people complaining about Obama overstepping presidential authority were saying something back when Bush suspended habeas corpus and law enforcement was given sweeping surveillance capabilities. I'm uncomfortable with some of the tactics we are using, but a lot of that stuff is really just a continuation of the policies that were begun under bush and had Obama reversed course, people would be screaming at him for that (and they have in cases where he wanted to do things like shut down Gitmo). If people really want to roll back all the excesses that came after 9/11 we need both sides to come together, agree that we shouldn't sacrifice so much liberty for increased security and then put together legislation to undo some of the damage we've done. But I think the things that have occurred in the last fifteen years are by and large what the population wanted. If people don't want that stuff, they need to elect reps who care more about liberty and are not just invoking it because its politically helpful to them.


----------



## Maxperson

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Of course it isn't, but it's Obama, so it is to Max and people with his political leanings. People get upset that the military is using drones to take out U.S. citizens who are fighting against the U.S. and killing U.S. citizens (military personnel), yet they have no problem with police killing far more U.S. citizens. In the end there is no real difference between a gun, a rifle, or a drone fired missile. The end result is that someone dies.




First, please don't put words in my mouth.  What ISIS does is worse.  What Obama did is still terrible.  Second, just as there is a big difference between ISSIS and Obama, there is a huge difference between the vast majority of police shootings and the intentional murder of a U.S. citizen by Obama.  You are comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't know. I wish all these people complaining about Obama overstepping presidential authority were saying something back when Bush suspended habeas corpus and law enforcement was given sweeping surveillance capabilities. I'm uncomfortable with some of the tactics we are using, but a lot of that stuff is really just a continuation of the policies that were begun under bush and had Obama reversed course, people would be screaming at him for that (and they have in cases where he wanted to do things like shut down Gitmo). If people really want to roll back all the excesses that came after 9/11 we need both sides to come together, agree that we shouldn't sacrifice so much liberty for increased security and then put together legislation to undo some of the damage we've done. But I think the things that have occurred in the last fifteen years are by and large what the population wanted. If people don't want that stuff, they need to elect reps who care more about liberty and are not just invoking it because its politically helpful to them.




I was (and am) very vocal against what Bush did, and what Obama continued after he took over from Bush.  I am entirely consistent


----------



## Morrus

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> No one would ever take EN World serious after that.




It's a TRPG website. Nobody should take it seriously.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> I was (and am) very vocal against what Bush did, and what Obama continued after he took over from Bush.  I am entirely consistent




You might be (I don't know you, so I can't say) but most people are not. Like I said, I'm uncomfortable with drone striking citizens, but I don't think it makes the guy a villain. I think it is one of those issues that is relatively complex and I believe he would have got more flak had he not done so. Yes, in an ideal world we wouldn't be using drones on our own citizens, but these are citizens accused of fighting against us and collaborating with terrorists. I'd say it is a tough call. Personally I'd prefer to err on the side of not assassinating citizens. I also question how much it really effects things. Is taking out the handful of Americans who've collaborated with terrorist groups really putting a dent in terrorism? It seems like a questionable precedent to set for unclear gain. But it isn't like Obama is targeting them because he just likes killing americans.


----------



## Morrus

Maxperson said:


> First, please don't put words in my mouth.




OK, this is becoming an issue. Multiple post reports; you've done it to me twice, and I've seen you do it to dozens of people when they did no such thing. I need you to reconsider the "words in my mouth" accusation as your automatic go-to debating tactic. It's irritating a lot of people. Consider this a warning.


----------



## Maxperson

Morrus said:


> OK, this is becoming an issue. Multiple post reports; you've done it to me twice, and I've seen you do it to dozens of people when they did no such thing. I need you to reconsider the "words in my mouth" accusation as your automatic go-to debating tactic. It's irritating a lot of people. Consider this a warning.




I'm confused.  When I've done it, I backed off.  Why am I getting a warning for having it done to me?  I also notice you said nothing to him for doing it.


----------



## Kramodlog

Morrus said:


> It's a fiction. The only statehood is one which is recognised.



So what it needs is people who recognize it as such. Like some of its population.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> What ISIS does is worse.  What Obama did is still terrible.



Why is it so terrible? You don't seem to have a problem with him killing other Jihadist. Why does one of them being a U.S. citizen suddenly make it a terrible thing if killing others isn't?


> Second, just as there is a big difference between ISSIS and Obama, there is a huge difference between the vast majority of police shootings and the intentional murder of a U.S. citizen by Obama.  You are comparing apples and oranges.



Well, you do have a point. Police shootings don't often involve people who have declared holy war on the U.S.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> I'm confused.  When I've done it, I backed off.  Why am I getting a warning for having it done to me?  I also notice you said nothing to him for doing it.





Stepping out of being a participant, to note The Rules:  If you have a question about moderation, take it up in Private Message or e-mail, please.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> Their recognition doesn't remove your statehood, though.  It just means that there are no overt diplomatic actions going on with them.  A state doesn't NEED ratification by others.  It will still go on being a solo state without them.




The state that can go it alone, without any relations with or recognition from other nations is a fanciful hypothetical.  Much like a winged unicorn, such a beast doesn't actually exist.


----------



## Maxperson

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Why is it so terrible? You don't seem to have a problem with him killing other Jihadist. Why does one of them being a U.S. citizen suddenly make it a terrible thing if killing others isn't?




Because they are American.  If the government is allowed even once to just murder an American, then there will be other time and other circumstances where they feel that it's okay to do it again.  The government should never be allowed to cross that line.



> Well, you do have a point. Police shootings don't often involve people who have declared holy war on the U.S.




You're right.  Instead they overwhelmingly involve people who are threatening the lives of the officers.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> The state that can go it alone, without any relations with or recognition from other nations is a fanciful hypothetical.  Much like a winged unicorn, such a beast doesn't actually exist.




True, but even ISIS has trading partners, so they aren't going without relations with other nations.


----------



## Orlax

Maxperson said:


> Because they are American.  If the government is allowed even once to just murder an American, then there will be other time and other circumstances where they feel that it's okay to do it again.  The government should never be allowed to cross that line.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.  Instead they overwhelmingly involve people who are threatening the lives of the officers.




No they overwhelmingly involve people that the police say were threatening them.  They are still American civilians killed by the government.  

Any American citizen killed from a drone strike in our enemy's facilities because they've joined the enemy's side is well within the bounds of killing someone threatening your life.  May not be an immediate threat but that's really not a requirement there.  It's also not as if we are going to send police into that compound and I'm not down with our enemy's recruiting American citizens to their side as a shield against our attacks.

You are also seemingly following the ideology that being an American citizen gives you rights, such as the right to due process.  That's not how rights work.  Rights are things all humans are afforded, or should be afforded as a basic human right.  Unfortunately in war zones due process isn't really a thing you have time for.  Pretty much without fail everyone in a warzone is not afforded due process.  War zones are messy and every one there is doing terrible stuff to everyone, and its not a place anyone should have to be in.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> Because they are American.  If the government is allowed even once to just murder an American, then there will be other time and other circumstances where they feel that it's okay to do it again.  The government should never be allowed to cross that line.



And yet it happens often with police killing U.S. citizens. That's not even mentioning the death penalty, which is a state sanctioned killing of mostly U.S. citizens.


> You're right.  Instead they overwhelmingly involve people who are threatening the lives of the officers.



So U.S. citizens that join the Jihad aren't threatening the lives of U.S. citizens or U.S. military personnel?


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> ... the intentional murder of a U.S. citizen by Obama.




I noticed you tried to slip this in by skipping a key step in the 'how we got here' discussion.

You said the American killed by a drone didn't get due process, and thus it was 'murder'. However, he _did_ get due process, it was just due process from a combination of crappy laws. Continuing to use the term 'murder' is inflammatory until you can provide proof that the US ignored these crappy laws (which will be hard because part of what makes these laws crappy is the secrecy around how they're used).

The insertion of morality came about through discussion of whether morals inform a body of law or derive from it, which eventually led to the questions of statehood.


----------



## Maxperson

Orlax said:


> No they overwhelmingly involve people that the police say were threatening them.  They are still American civilians killed by the government.




And the evidence overwhelmingly supports what the police say.



> Any American citizen killed from a drone strike in our enemy's facilities because they've joined the enemy's side is well within the bounds of killing someone threatening your life.  May not be an immediate threat but that's really not a requirement there.




Yes, it absolutely is a requirement.  If it wasn't, the cop from Chicago wouldn't be facing murder charges.  That guy with the knife walking away from him is a non-immediate threat to him and everyone else.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...o-laquan-mcdonald-charges-20151124-story.html



> You are also seemingly following the ideology that being an American citizen gives you rights, such as the right to due process.  That's not how rights work.  Rights are things all humans are afforded, or should be afforded as a basic human right.  Unfortunately in war zones due process isn't really a thing you have time for.  Pretty much without fail everyone in a warzone is not afforded due process.  War zones are messy and every one there is doing terrible stuff to everyone, and its not a place anyone should have to be in.




Then I'm sure you ca show me the formal act of war declared by Congress against Anwar al-Awlaki, or for that matter terrorists.  There is no war going on.  They call it a war, but I can call my car a boat, too.  There's fighting and killing, but no war.  That means there are no war zones.


----------



## Maxperson

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> And yet it happens often with police killing U.S. citizens. That's not even mentioning the death penalty, which is a state sanctioned killing of mostly U.S. citizens.




It happens, but not often.  At least not when you compare the few excessive instances that happen yearly to the number of run-ins and potential instances between police and citizens every year.



> So U.S. citizens that join the Jihad aren't threatening the lives of U.S. citizens or U.S. military personnel?




Not directly.  If one of them comes to American and tries to kill people, he's fair game like any other American who is trying to kill someone.


----------



## Maxperson

Cor Azer said:


> I noticed you tried to slip this in by skipping a key step in the 'how we got here' discussion.
> 
> You said the American killed by a drone didn't get due process, and thus it was 'murder'. However, he _did_ get due process, it was just due process from a combination of crappy laws. Continuing to use the term 'murder' is inflammatory until you can provide proof that the US ignored these crappy laws (which will be hard because part of what makes these laws crappy is the secrecy around how they're used).




A law which was very iffy was cited, but no actual process was done.  Obama asked a question and an attorney said he thought it was okay.  That's it.  That's not due process.  No court was gone to in order to find out for sure if it was okay.


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> A law which was very iffy was cited, but no actual process was done.  Obama asked a question and an attorney said he thought it was okay.  That's it.  That's not due process.  No court was gone to in order to find out for sure if it was okay.




Not sure what you mean by 'iffy'. It is very much a real law unless and until repealed or overturned. A crappy law, to be sure, but real.

And I presume you have evidence that no requests were made of the crappy, secret court we're not allowed to know the happenings of? Or are you making a bald-faced unsupported assertion?

Admittedly, I can show no evidence they did follow their crappy law, but since there appears to be no reason _not_ to follow it since they don't have to face immediate public scrutiny of it and the consequences of not following it could be dire when a non-idealogy-aligned government comes into power, Occam's Razor would suggest they did follow their crappy law.


----------



## Maxperson

Cor Azer said:


> Not sure what you mean by 'iffy'. It is very much a real law unless and until repealed or overturned. A crappy law, to be sure, but real.
> 
> And I presume you have evidence that no requests were made of the crappy, secret court we're not allowed to know the happenings of? Or are you making a bald-faced unsupported assertion?
> 
> Admittedly, I can show no evidence they did follow their crappy law, but since there appears to be no reason _not_ to follow it since they don't have to face immediate public scrutiny of it and the consequences of not following it could be dire when a non-idealogy-aligned government comes into power, Occam's Razor would suggest they did follow their crappy law.




The law may not allow what they said it allows.  That's the iffy portion.  We have the memo from Holder which was used to authorize the attack.  If Obama had actually followed procedure, he'd have said he did so in an effort to reduce the condemnation he received for murdering an American citizen with a drone.  He wouldn't have shown the court papers, but he'd have said that he went and got authorization from a courts to do what he did.  Obama has a pattern of passing the buck whenever he can and he couldn't do that here.


----------



## Orlax

Maxperson said:


> Then I'm sure you ca show me the formal act of war declared by Congress against Anwar al-Awlaki, or for that matter terrorists.  There is no war going on.  They call it a war, but I can call my car a boat, too.  There's fighting and killing, but no war.  That means there are no war zones.




By that reasoning that makes every single kill scored by any soldier, as part of the war on terror, from 2001 till today, including the kill on Osama bin laden, a murder that should be punished by due process.


----------



## Ryujin

Orlax said:


> By that reasoning that makes every single kill scored by any soldier, as part of the war on terror, from 2001 till today, including the kill on Osama bin laden, a murder that should be punished by due process.




A "war" is not a "police action." Except Korea. But that was actually a war.


----------



## Orlax

Ryujin said:


> A "war" is not a "police action." Except Korea. But that was actually a war.




I was responding to the latter half of his post I'll amend my quote of him to make that more clear.


----------



## Maxperson

Orlax said:


> By that reasoning that makes every single kill scored by any soldier, as part of the war on terror, from 2001 till today, including the kill on Osama bin laden, a murder that should be punished by due process.




They weren't Americans, and there is no war on terror, because there is no war.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> True, but even ISIS has trading partners, so they aren't going without relations with other nations.




As I said before - stuff that would be called smuggling doesn't count as "relations".  

Most of the oil that ISIL sells to foreign markets goes through independent traders.  In the short term, that works for relatively small volumes, but in the long term that does not support the volume they need to support the local economy, nor is it by any means secure, as there's no treaties protecting it.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> As I said before - stuff that would be called smuggling doesn't count as "relations".
> 
> Most of the oil that ISIL sells to foreign markets goes through independent traders.  In the short term, that works for relatively small volumes, but in the long term that does not support the volume they need to support the local economy, nor is it by any means secure, as there's no treaties protecting it.




It's not smuggling.  For it to smuggling, it would have to be against ISIS law or against the law of the country it goes to if taken directly to that country by ISIS.  Not recognizing someone as a state doesn't make it against the law to receive goods from them.  

I'll agree with you that it's not very secure and is probably not enough long term, but that still doesn't keep them from being a state/country.  It just means that they are going to need more or they will end up like North Korea.


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> It's not smuggling.  For it to smuggling, it would have to be against ISIS law or against the law of the country it goes to if taken directly to that country by ISIS.  Not recognizing someone as a state doesn't make it against the law to receive goods from them.
> 
> I'll agree with you that it's not very secure and is probably not enough long term, but that still doesn't keep them from being a state/country.  It just means that they are going to need more or they will end up like North Korea.




Or against the law of any country it passes through en route... Like Syria and Iraq.


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> The law may not allow what they said it allows.  That's the iffy portion.  We have the memo from Holder which was used to authorize the attack.  If Obama had actually followed procedure, he'd have said he did so in an effort to reduce the condemnation he received for murdering an American citizen with a drone.  He wouldn't have shown the court papers, but he'd have said that he went and got authorization from a courts to do what he did.  Obama has a pattern of passing the buck whenever he can and he couldn't do that here.




Ok, I can see that as a reasonable position, even if I disagree with it (it's a pessimistic view of the law, whereas despite ample evidence, I at least try to view things optimistically).

That said, I can certainly still see a government verifying they're on the right side of their law before proceding down a road, so I don't know if getting the opinion alone is damning enough, but it could be used circumstantially if other evidence comes to light.


----------



## Maxperson

Cor Azer said:


> Or against the law of any country it passes through en route... Like Syria and Iraq.




They have water access.  They don't need to go through those countries.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> They weren't Americans, and there is no war on terror, because there is no war.




There is the Authorized Use of Military Force, passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.  In that legislation, in essence the Congress authorized the President to go after Al Qaeda, to prevent future terrorist attacks on the U.S.  You are correct that it is not technically a war, but it isn't the President acting on his own.



> If Obama had actually followed procedure, he'd have said he did so in an effort to reduce the condemnation he received for murdering an American citizen with a drone.




The Administration thinks they did use the process that Congress allowed:

"We believe that the AUMF's authority to use lethal force abroad also may apply in appropriate circumstances to a United States citizen who is part of the forces of an enemy authorization within the scope of the force authorization," reads the Justice Department memorandum, written for attorney general Eric Holder on 16 July 2010 and ostensibly intended strictly for Awlaki's case.  

Among those circumstances: "Where high-level government officials have determined that a capture operation is infeasible and that the targeted person is part of a dangerous enemy force and is engaged in activities that pose a continued and imminent threat to US persons or interests."

Basically, Congress had authorized use of military force on Al Qaeda, so they used military force on a member of Al Qaeda.  The AUMF makes no distinctions of national allegiance, and doesn't require a court clear every offensive action.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> It happens, but not often.



1,000 so far this year isn't often enough?


> At least not when you compare the few excessive instances that happen yearly to the number of run-ins and potential instances between police and citizens every year.



Irrelevant. We are comparing number of people, most of who are U.S. citizens, killed by cops to the number of U.S. citizens killed by the federal government. Do try to stay focused on the discussion.


> Not directly.  If one of them comes to American and tries to kill people, he's fair game like any other American who is trying to kill someone.



So as long as he is not on American soil, he can plot to kill U.S. citizens and military personnel abroad and in the U.S. (as long as he himself isn't in the U.S.), and he isn't directly threatening U.S. citizens and military personnel? In order to avoid you complaining about people putting words in your mouth, I think you should explain that further.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> For it to smuggling, it would have to be against ISIS law or against the law of the country it goes to if taken directly to that country by ISIS.  Not recognizing someone as a state doesn't make it against the law to receive goods from them.




When I do a quick search on ISIS or ISIL oil sales, the resulting reports refer to "smuggling" into Turkey, Iran, and other nations.  For example, one discussion on NPR included this:

_"Solomon: ...
So the oil makes it out of ISIS's territory, particularly to the rebel regions in northwestern Syria, and then they take the fuel - the refined fuel - and they find every way you can think of to get in over the border to Turkey. They've even made pipelines, and they kind of use these hand pumps to pump it in a tube under the border. Some people carry it on boats over a river that runs along parts of the border or mules. But one thing about this is that it's really decreased not, again, because of the effectiveness of the campaign to fight ISIS but actually because oil prices are so low."

MCEVERS: Why hasn't the U.S. and its allies been able to stop this from happening, to stop this sale of ISIS oil?

SOLOMON: I think two reasons. One is simply because it's so embedded now in the community that it's controlling. And that's a big problem because the coalition, especially the United States, have said they don't want to make past mistakes of turning the population against them. And so they're reluctant to bomb what are essentially civilian targets.

The other problem is how much do you pressure your allies like Turkey and Iraq to stop things like smuggling? Can you imagine how much Turkey and Iraq have one their hands trying to fight this organization? There's only so much you can demand. They do put pressure on them, and the Turks really do try. But you have an entire population of people who see this as a great way of making money in desperate conditions. So it's a really difficult situation.

MCEVERS: Erika Solomon is the Middle East correspondent for the Financial Times. Erika, thank you so much."_

You think they're going to hand pump it across the border in tubes if it is legal?  If it is legal, you just put it on a truck and drive it across at a normal border crossing!


----------



## Sadras

Maxperson said:


> People here declared that Obama droning American citizens is both moral and justified due to laws and modern societal values.




We don't have to even go as far as drones to see what a smashing job the Red, White and Blue is doing regarding truth justice and the American way...we can just view  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike#Subsequent_mainstream_media_coverage
I guess its ok because they were justified due to laws and modern societal values and bonus the victims weren't Americans. 

It is a very messy business mixing morals into this equation.  

Would be a great thesis topic "Are the 2007 Baghdad airstrikes justification for suicide bombers now?"


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> There is the Authorized Use of Military Force, passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.  In that legislation, in essence the Congress authorized the President to go after Al Qaeda, to prevent future terrorist attacks on the U.S.  You are correct that it is not technically a war, but it isn't the President acting on his own.




It's unclear whether this legislation allows or was intended to allow the murder of Americans by drone.



> The Administration thinks they did use the process that Congress allowed:
> 
> "We believe that the AUMF's authority to use lethal force abroad also may apply in appropriate circumstances to a United States citizen who is part of the forces of an enemy authorization within the scope of the force authorization," reads the Justice Department memorandum, written for attorney general Eric Holder on 16 July 2010 and ostensibly intended strictly for Awlaki's case.
> 
> Among those circumstances: "Where high-level government officials have determined that a capture operation is infeasible and that the targeted person is part of a dangerous enemy force and is engaged in activities that pose a continued and imminent threat to US persons or interests."




Right.  A note by an attorney saying, "I think it's okay." is all that was used.  He got no clarification from a court on whether it was okay or not.  Instead, he went on his own.



> Basically, Congress had authorized use of military force on Al Qaeda, so they used military force on a member of Al Qaeda.  The AUMF makes no distinctions of national allegiance, and doesn't require a court clear every offensive action.




We don't know if it was intended to allow the use of lethal force to murder Americans.  It was used that way, but as you noted, it was supposed to be used against Al Qaeda, not U.S. citizens.  Where one is both, it may not allow the use of that force.  Americans enjoy other protections from other laws.  When laws are in conflict, you don't get to just decide which one to use.  It's for the courts to decide.


----------



## Maxperson

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> 1,000 so far this year isn't often enough?




First, your source if bupkis.  Second, there have't been 1000 deaths by police, where those being killed were not a threat to the lives of the officers or legitimately perceived as a threat.  The police are not obligated to end up dead from not reacting to a perceived threat with lethal force.  If you don't want to end up dead, comply with the police orders and sue later if the arrest was not justified.



> Irrelevant. We are comparing number of people, most of who are U.S. citizens, killed by cops to the number of U.S. citizens killed by the federal government. Do try to stay focused on the discussion.




You're the only one here discussing that.  The rest of us are talking about murder by the government, not death by the government.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> You think they're going to hand pump it across the border in tubes if it is legal?  If it is legal, you just put it on a truck and drive it across at a normal border crossing!




Yes.  When you are being bombed by the enemy, you do what you can do avoid that happening.  As soon as the U.S. and others go away, you will see permanent pipes go up.


----------



## Maxperson

Sadras said:


> We don't have to even go as far as drones to see what a smashing job the Red, White and Blue is doing regarding truth justice and the American way...we can just view  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike#Subsequent_mainstream_media_coverage
> I guess its ok because they were justified due to laws and modern societal values and bonus the victims weren't Americans.
> 
> It is a very messy business mixing morals into this equation.
> 
> Would be a great thesis topic "Are the 2007 Baghdad airstrikes justification for suicide bombers now?"




It's not about that.  Wars are bad and accidents happen.  They suck, but there's no way to avoid them.  Collateral damage is very different than intentionally targeting civilians or Americans.


----------



## Sadras

Maxperson said:


> It's not about that.  Wars are bad and accidents happen.  They suck, but there's no way to avoid them.  Collateral damage is very different than intentionally targeting civilians or Americans.




 This wasn't necessarily 'collateral damage' - it was a 'lets kill them all' attitude - which included the targeting of civilians. Also the 'no way to avoid them' in a war sure, but there is certainly a way to avoid making less of them factor which wasn't high on the priority, IMO.


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> Right.  A note by an attorney saying, "I think it's okay." is all that was used.  He got no clarification from a court on whether it was okay or not.  Instead, he went on his own.




My understanding is that courts _never_ pre-emptively rule on legality of stuff. At best, all you can ever do is ask a lawyer, "Is this legal?", and if the lawyer says, "I think so due to...", you cross your fingers and wait to see if anyone with standing in the case challenges your lawyer's opinion in court. Only then will a court decide whose interpretation is valid.

Thus, no court would ever rule on Obama's actions until he actually took them and someone with standing steps up and says, "Not cool!"

And here again, crappy law rears its head, making it hard for anyone to have standing.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> It's unclear whether this legislation allows or was intended to allow the murder of Americans by drone.




Yeah, you keep using the emotionally loaded language.  This is, at the moment, a legal discussion.  In a legal context, "murder" is what you have after you have shown the killing was not legally justified (*legally*, not morally).  I raise the point because, just as you are not supposed to murder people, we also have a big thing about folks being innocent until proven guilty.    

The legislation is amazingly brief.  It does not spell out some forces that are allowed, and others that are not.  It says, "...the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force..." - failure to give express capabilities must have been intentional, the Congress was enabling broad powers.  Nor does it say that American citizens are not to be targets of this force - if they're part of, aiding, or abetting Al Qaeda or their operations, they were potential targets.



> Right.  A note by an attorney saying, "I think it's okay." is all that was used.  He got no clarification from a court on whether it was okay or not.  Instead, he went on his own.




Since Congress had already authorized broad and unspecified capabilities, that's *more* than was really required.  Soldiers don't generally wait on courts for authorizations to shoot particular enemies.  



> We don't know if it was intended to allow the use of lethal force to murder Americans.  It was used that way, but as you noted, it was supposed to be used against Al Qaeda, not U.S. citizens.  Where one is both, it may not allow the use of that force.




There is *nothing* in the legislation that even vaguely suggests that US citizens are excluded.  Such an interpretation is not supported by the text.

So, you may have a problem with the AUMF, in concept or execution, but given the AUMF, proving this was not legal is difficult.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> First, your source if bupkis.



No your source is bupkis. Or should I say, you have no source at all and are just pulling stats and made up "facts" out of thin air? You may not like the source, but you've provided no evidence to the source I provided as being bupkis or the level of bupkis of the source.



> Second, there have't been 1000 deaths by police, where those being killed were not a threat to the lives of the officers or legitimately perceived as a threat.



So you don't perceive U.S. citizens who have joined with an extremist group and are planning and taking part in attacks agains the U.S., its citizens, and its military personnel to be threats? You don't legitimately perceive it as a legitimate threat? That's interesting.



> The police are not obligated to end up dead from not reacting to a perceived threat with lethal force.  If you don't want to end up dead, comply with the police orders and sue later if the arrest was not justified.



Permission to move the goal post has been rejected. Stay on topic.





> You're the only one here discussing that.  The rest of us are talking about murder by the government, not death by the government.



Yes, I'm discussing that... with you. Or have you not noticed what you have been discussing?


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> First, your source if bupkis.




You have to support that, not just assert it.  Upon what do you base the idea that this is not factual information?  They do give a description of their methodology here:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/about-the-counted

What about this is inappropriate or inaccurate?

1000 shot dead by police.  Of those, 203 were unarmed individuals.  That would suggest that 20% of the time, use of lethal force was not required.  That is a pretty nasty failure rate.  If 20% of your software didn't work right, you'd be pissed off.  And these are dead people who didn't have to be dead.

If we take this as a typical year, that would indicate that over time, the number is (or will be) thousands killed who didn't have to be.  You're interested in one death of a guy working with Al Qaeda, but you're okay with these hundreds of deaths of unarmed civilians?


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> Yeah, you keep using the emotionally loaded language.  This is, at the moment, a legal discussion.  In a legal context, "murder" is what you have after you have shown the killing was not legally justified (*legally*, not morally).  I raise the point because, just as you are not supposed to murder people, we also have a big thing about folks being innocent until proven guilty.
> 
> The legislation is amazingly brief.  It does not spell out some forces that are allowed, and others that are not.  It says, "...the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force..." - failure to give express capabilities must have been intentional, the Congress was enabling broad powers.  Nor does it say that American citizens are not to be targets of this force - if they're part of, aiding, or abetting Al Qaeda or their operations, they were potential targets.




that pesky Constitution that guaranteed him a jury trial.  That legislation when used to deprive Americans of their Constitutional rights is invalid.  



> Since Congress had already authorized broad and unspecified capabilities, that's *more* than was really required.  Soldiers don't generally wait on courts for authorizations to shoot particular enemies.




Apples and oranges.  Americans are different than the enemies we usually face. 



> There is *nothing* in the legislation that even vaguely suggests that US citizens are excluded.  Such an interpretation is not supported by the text.




The Constitution protects Americans from that legislation.


----------



## Maxperson

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> So you don't perceive U.S. citizens who have joined with an extremist group and are planning and taking part in attacks agains the U.S., its citizens, and its military personnel to be threats? You don't legitimately perceive it as a legitimate threat? That's interesting.




Give me a break.  You know very well from my recent posts that it's the direct and immediate threat to the officers that allows them to shoot.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> You have to support that, not just assert it.  Upon what do you base the idea that this is not factual information?  They do give a description of their methodology here:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/about-the-counted
> 
> What about this is inappropriate or inaccurate?




The Guardian is a very biased and bupkis source in general.  I don't waste my time with biased sources like that.  Will they sometimes be accurate?  Sure.  I'm not going to sift through the junk to find out, though.



> 1000 shot dead by police.  Of those, 203 were unarmed individuals.  That would suggest that 20% of the time, use of lethal force was not required.  That is a pretty nasty failure rate.  If 20% of your software didn't work right, you'd be pissed off.  And these are dead people who didn't have to be dead.




Incorrect.  Lethal force is required every time the officers have reason to fear for their safety.  That includes all the times that unarmed people reach for their waste bands, into glove boxes and so on.  That fact that 80% of the time those people are reaching for weapons makes that necessary.  It's highly unreasonable to expect officers to end up wounded or dead 80% of the time in order to not shoot the 20% who were unarmed.  

The long and the short of it is that if the cops are after you, don't do something stupid and earn wounding or death.  Keep your hands visible and move slowly.  Comply, and if the cops are in the wrong, sue them later.  If you reach quickly for something out of sight and end up shot, it's your fault, not the fault of the cops.



> If we take this as a typical year, that would indicate that over time, the number is (or will be) thousands killed who didn't have to be.  You're interested in one death of a guy working with Al Qaeda, but you're okay with these hundreds of deaths of unarmed civilians?




Those very few times where the cops are in the wrong, like the one in Chicago, I want them charged and tried for murder...........just like Obama.


----------



## tomBitonti

Maxperson said:


> Incorrect.  Lethal force is required every time the officers have reason to fear for their safety.  That includes all the times that unarmed people reach for their waste bands, into glove boxes and so on.  That fact that 80% of the time those people are reaching for weapons makes that necessary.  It's highly unreasonable to expect officers to end up wounded or dead 80% of the time in order to not shoot the 20% who were unarmed.




Eh, where are you getting those percentages?

Anyways:

From "Tenessee v. Garner," 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (see https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html):



> This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.




There is a lot more to the decision, much too much to quote here.  Here are a few select quotes:

Part 15:



> One other aspect of the common law rule bears emphasis. It forbids the use of deadly force to apprehend a misdemeanant, condemning such action as disproportionately severe. See Holloway v. Moser, 193 N.C., at 187, 136 S.E. at 376; State v. Smith, 127 Iowa at 535, 103 N.W. at 945. See generally Annot., 83 A.L.R. 3d 238 (1978).




Part 18:



> For accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, a department must restrict the use of deadly force to situations where
> 
> "the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life . . . or in defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury."




The standard is not "fear for their safety" but "in immediate danger of serious physical injury".  Maybe that's what you mean by "safety", but if so, the expression is terribly loose.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Maxperson

tomBitonti said:


> From "Tenessee v. Garner," 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (see https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html):
> 
> There is a lot more to the decision, much too much to quote here.  Here are a few select quotes:




You picked a case not dealing with self-defense, but rather dealing with someone trying to escape.  It doesn't talk about what happens when the civilian is making threatening moves that put the officer in fear for his life.



> Part 15:




Irrelevant.  It's not talking about someone making a sudden move towards a possible weapon.



> Part 18:
> For accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, a department must restrict the use of deadly force to situations where "the officer *reasonably believes* that the action is in defense of human life . . . or in defense of any person in *immediate danger* of serious physical injury."




You didn't read that, did you?  The bolded says it all.  The officer only needs to reasonably believe that immediate danger is happening.  The danger doesn't have to be real.



> The standard is not "fear for their safety" but "in immediate danger of serious physical injury".  Maybe that's what you mean by "safety", but if so, the expression is terribly loose.




You are wrong.  Reasonable believe of immediate danger is all that is required for lethal force to be used.  You posted it yourself.  It's also all over the place in official laws, documents, case law, etc.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> Give me a break.  You know very well from my recent posts that it's the direct and immediate threat to the officers that allows them to shoot.



So you have a problem with all drone attacks, not just the ones on U.S, citizens, right? I mean, a lot of them happen to be on targets that aren't directly and/or immediately attacking the U.S., its citizens, or its military personnel.


----------



## tomBitonti

To continue, the cited case is presented as setting the standard for the use of deadly force.  For example, see 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force

Here is another view:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0074.htm



> USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
> By: George Coppolo, Chief Attorney
> 
> You asked what procedures Connecticut law requires to be followed when a law enforcement officer uses a deadly weapon that causes someone's death.
> 
> SUMMARY
> 
> The law requires the Division of Criminal Justice to investigate whenever a law enforcement officer, while performing his or her duties, uses deadly physical force that causes someone's death. It must also determine whether the officer's use of deadly physical force was appropriate under standards established by statute and submit a report of its findings and conclusions to the chief state's attorney. The division is a state executive branch agency headed by the chief state's attorney, and is in charge of the investigation and prosecution of all criminal matters in the Superior Court.
> 
> The statutory standards allow an officer to use deadly physical force when the officer *reasonably believes* it is *necessary* to (1) *defend himself or herself or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force* or (2) arrest or prevent the escape of someone the officer reasonably believes has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threat of serious physical injury, and, if feasible, the officer has given warning of his or her intent to use deadly physical force.




Bold added by me.

Thx
tomB


----------



## Maxperson

tomBitonti said:


> To continue, the cited case is presented as setting the standard for the use of deadly force.  For example, see
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force
> 
> Here is another view:
> 
> https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0074.htm
> 
> 
> 
> Bold added by me.
> 
> Thx
> tomB




Then you agree with me that all that is needed is for an officer to fear for his safety.  An officer is not going to fear for his safety unless he reasonably believes that he is in danger from someone about to use imminent deadly force against him and that it is necessary to use deadly force on that person.

All you've done in the last few posts is support my position.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> An officer is not going to fear for his safety unless he reasonably believes




Stop right there.

This is the crux of the issue.  An officer can fear for his safety if he *un*reasonably believes things as well.  

It is also not entirely clear that the real-world officers are actually always responding out of this fear.  Some of them may be responding in anger, pride, or arrogance, or many other things, and claiming they felt there was a threat to their lives after the fact.  Humans are demonstrably very good at rationalization.

Police officers are *human*.  They are not perfect beings.  Our approach to police officers cannot be blind to this.


----------



## billd91

Maxperson said:


> The Constitution protects Americans from that legislation.




The Constitution protects far more than Americans. Most of its protective provisions don't apply just to citizens but to persons, a designation that goes way beyond citizens. So exactly how are Americans different from non-Americans, again?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

billd91 said:


> The Constitution protects far more than Americans. Most of its protective provisions don't apply just to citizens but to persons, a designation that goes way beyond citizens. So exactly how are Americans different from non-Americans, again?



Because Murica, that's why. On a serious note, I doubt there is any real difference, besides U.S. citizens being U.S. citizens, which to some people with a twisted view makes them somehow special as compared to non-U.S. citizens, especially when compared to immigrants or worse... Muslims. I'm sure Max will put forth some explanation which will make total sense.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> that pesky Constitution that guaranteed him a jury trial.  That legislation when used to deprive Americans of their Constitutional rights is invalid.




Have you read the text of the 5th Amendment recently?  Please allow me to remind you of it...

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Not that the word "citizen" or "American" does not appear in the text.  It is "person".  The 5th Amendment is not citizenship specific (neither are the 6th, 7th, or 8th, which also deal with jurisprudence).  So, please stop beating that drum.



> Apples and oranges.  Americans are different than the enemies we usually face.
> 
> The Constitution protects Americans from that legislation.




Nope, and nope.  The text does not support that interpretation.

So, now we have an issue.  When the 5th through 8th amendments apply, they apply to everyone, regardless of citizenship.  We are now dangerously close to saying that the US cannot prosecute a war, because it cannot deprive anyone of life without due process of law, and you define that as trial by jury.  This is clearly a balderdash interpretation, as the document was written after the Revolutionary War - the Founding Fathers clearly believed that war was okay. The 5th includes, "...in time of War or public danger".  They recognized there were exceptional circumstances where normal jurisprudence did not apply - war *and* public danger. 

Then, we have a sticky bit.  The Constitution does give Congress the power to declare war.  But, it *DOES NOT DEFINE WAR*, nor even how Congress should go about declaring it.  The document also declares the President to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces - presumably with attendant rights to give particular orders.

We might take the AUMF to be a declaration of war - nowhere are we told that the declaration must include the word "war".  We can certainly take it as a declaration of a time of public danger, as it references stopping future attacks.  It seems pretty clear that Congress intended this to be considered a time when normal jurisprudence did not apply to members of Al Qaeda.

If Congress wanted to, at any time they could have rescinded the AUMF, and remove the President's power to order the military to attack Al Qaeda.  They didn't.  

We may find it unseemly, and undesirable for our military forces to be used in such a manner.  That doesn't mean they were technically illegal.  We may, in retrospect, have preferred such action not be legal - but hindsight is 20/20.  We should not hold people accountable for the unintended consequences we were not wise enough to consider, retroactively.  Next time, elect thoughtful Congresspeople who put limits on authorizations of use of military force, and move on.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> Stop right there.
> 
> This is the crux of the issue.  An officer can fear for his safety if he *un*reasonably believes things as well.
> 
> It is also not entirely clear that the real-world officers are actually always responding out of this fear.  Some of them may be responding in anger, pride, or arrogance, or many other things, and claiming they felt there was a threat to their lives after the fact.  Humans are demonstrably very good at rationalization.
> 
> Police officers are *human*.  They are not perfect beings.  Our approach to police officers cannot be blind to this.




Yes.  Some officers do unreasonably believe they are in danger.  They are more and more frequently being prosecuted for it.  That doesn't mean that those who reasonably believe themselves to be in danger from an unarmed person that they don't know is unarmed, are in the wrong for shooting.


----------



## Maxperson

billd91 said:


> The Constitution protects far more than Americans. Most of its protective provisions don't apply just to citizens but to persons, a designation that goes way beyond citizens. So exactly how are Americans different from non-Americans, again?




Not outside of the U.S.  Our laws don't extend beyond our borders except for our citizens.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> Have you read the text of the 5th Amendment recently?  Please allow me to remind you of it...
> 
> "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
> 
> Not that the word "citizen" or "American" does not appear in the text.  It is "person".  The 5th Amendment is not citizenship specific (neither are the 6th, 7th, or 8th, which also deal with jurisprudence).  So, please stop beating that drum.




I have read it.  No law, including the Constitution applies outside of our borders except when it concerns our citizens, and even that is limited with regard to our citizens also being subject to the laws of the country they are in.

Let me also remind you of this part of the Constitution.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It speaks only of the U.S., not of other countries.  Our Constitution only applies to America and American citizens.  Citizens of other countries who are in other countries do have its protections.



> Nope, and nope.  The text does not support that interpretation.




The murder (yes, I'm going to keep using that word) deprived him of his ability to confront his accusers.

Also, the law congress wrote is not sufficient to count as due process.

"Standing by itself, the phrase “due process” would seem to refer solely and simply to procedure, to process in court, and therefore to be so limited that “due process of law” would be what the legislative branch enacted it to be. But that is not the interpretation which has been placed on the term. “It is manifest that it was not left to the legislative power to enact any process which might be devised. The article is a restraint on the legislative as well as on the executive and judicial powers of the government, *and cannot be so construed as to leave congress[p.1345]free to make any process ‘due process of law’ by its mere will.[b/]”

Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co. 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272, 276 (1856). Webster had made the argument as counsel in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518–82 (1819). And see Chief Justice Shaw’s opinion in Jones v. Robbins, 74 Mass. (8 Gray) 329 (1857).




			So, now we have an issue.  When the 5th through 8th amendments apply, they apply to everyone, regardless of citizenship.  We are now dangerously close to saying that the US cannot prosecute a war, because it cannot deprive anyone of life without due process of law, and you define that as trial by jury.  This is clearly a balderdash interpretation, as the document was written after the Revolutionary War - the Founding Fathers clearly believed that war was okay. The 5th includes, "...in time of War or public danger".  They recognized there were exceptional circumstances where normal jurisprudence did not apply - war *and* public danger.
		
Click to expand...



We aren't even remotely close to saying the US cannot prosecute a war.  Outside of American citizens, the Constitution literally cannot apply to any other person.  The laws of a country do not extend beyond its borders except with regard to its citizens, and even then they take back seat to the laws of the country the American is in.




			We might take the AUMF to be a declaration of war - nowhere are we told that the declaration must include the word "war".  We can certainly take it as a declaration of a time of public danger, as it references stopping future attacks.  It seems pretty clear that Congress intended this to be considered a time when normal jurisprudence did not apply to members of Al Qaeda.
		
Click to expand...



That's why precedent is so important.  Look at what we did when we declared war in the past.




			We may find it unseemly, and undesirable for our military forces to be used in such a manner.  That doesn't mean they were technically illegal.  We may, in retrospect, have preferred such action not be legal - but hindsight is 20/20.  We should not hold people accountable for the unintended consequences we were not wise enough to consider, retroactively.  Next time, elect thoughtful Congresspeople who put limits on authorizations of use of military force, and move on.
		
Click to expand...



I hold little faith in that ever happening.  We re-elected people who passed Obamacare so that they could see what was inside it.  If we're re-electing people who pass massive legislation blindly, there's no way it's going to get any better any time soon.*


----------



## Sadras

Maxperson said:


> I hold little faith in that ever happening.  We re-elected people who passed Obamacare so that they could see what was inside it.  If we're re-electing people who pass massive legislation blindly, there's no way it's going to get any better any time soon.




I believe this is sadly true. Despite beautifully crafted legislature and well-meaning intentions, Congress is so obviously corrupt that even if an attempt is made to fight the 'system' - us the people stand little chance - against the might of the Corporations and the Story-Spinning Media, and if that doesn't work 'fixing' elections or assassinating are always possible options on the table.


----------



## Janx

Umbran said:


> Stop right there.
> 
> This is the crux of the issue.  An officer can fear for his safety if he *un*reasonably believes things as well.
> 
> It is also not entirely clear that the real-world officers are actually always responding out of this fear.  Some of them may be responding in anger, pride, or arrogance, or many other things, and claiming they felt there was a threat to their lives after the fact.  Humans are demonstrably very good at rationalization.
> 
> Police officers are *human*.  They are not perfect beings.  Our approach to police officers cannot be blind to this.




I recall once, an acronym:

False
Evidence
Appearing
Real

It was meant to indicate what fear was.  I never bought into that, as logically, you can be afraid of something that is quite real.  But the inverse is also true.  You can be afraid of something that looks scary, but isn't, or claim to be afraid of something.  In Concealed Handgun License training, we hear the phrase "in fear for life" as a catch-phrase to use to help justify the shooting to a jury.  Ideally, that's not intended for fraudulent purposes, but if you're a sniper/bad-ass and get mugged, you might not actually be afraid, but technically you are in danger if you don't take action, and thus have a right to shoot.  A jury won't buy that unless you frame it as "I was afraid for my life"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

[video=youtube;Nt6kKhlX8vU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU&sns=em[/video]


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> I have read it.  No law, including the Constitution applies outside of our borders except when it concerns our citizens, and even that is limited with regard to our citizens also being subject to the laws of the country they are in.




I say, again - the text does not support the idea that citizens and non-citizens are different.  Either the law applies to *both* or to neither.  

I agree with you that US criminal law generally does not apply outside our borders - but it does not apply to either citizens or non-citizens.  



> We aren't even remotely close to saying the US cannot prosecute a war.




Of course, not - I'm just saying your simple interpretation leads to that result because, as I have noted several times, the document does not discriminate between citizens and non-citizens on the subject of jurisprudence.



> Outside of American citizens, the Constitution literally cannot apply to any other person.




That is incorrect.  The Constitution applies to everyone within our borders.  Whether you are a citizen or not, you get due process if you are to face criminal charges within the US.  As you note, the US doesn't get to prosecute people who are acting in other nations, as our law does not apply - again, citizenship is not relevant.  If a crime was committed within our borders, and the suspect then left, we can generally only ask for them to be extradited, such that we can then go through our normal legal processes for prosecuting a crime.

Thus, the only time we get to extend our arms to people who are elsewhere is when it *isn't* a question of criminal law. I reiterate that the Founding Fathers clearly understood that there were cases where criminal law did not apply - within our borders or without, even short of a declaration of war.  The AUMF sits as a case of governmental recognition/declaration of such a situation.  




> I hold little faith in that ever happening.




Lack of faith in the possibility leads to self-fulfilling prophecy.  The world cannot change if you do not act as if it can be changed.

Mind you, the AUMF is not "massive".  It is 315 words.  151 words if we toss out the preamble as non-binding fluff.  That it is broad and open-ended is bleedingly obvious, not hidden in 17 levels of sub-sections and appendices.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> I say, again - the text does not support the idea that citizens and non-citizens are different.  Either the law applies to *both* or to neither.




It can't apply to both outside the borders and it can apply to citizens.  What you say is only true within the U.S.  



> I agree with you that US criminal law generally does not apply outside our borders - but it does not apply to either citizens or non-citizens.




http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/u...cans-who-commit-sex-crimes-overseas.html?_r=0

It does apply to citizens outside the US, but not non-citizens.



> That is incorrect.  The Constitution applies to everyone within our borders.  Whether you are a citizen or not, you get due process if you are to face criminal charges within the US.  As you note, the US doesn't get to prosecute people who are acting in other nations, as our law does not apply - again, citizenship is not relevant.  If a crime was committed within our borders, and the suspect then left, we can generally only ask for them to be extradited, such that we can then go through our normal legal processes for prosecuting a crime.




You can stop with the "within our borders" stuff.  I haven't argued against that and we are in agreement that the US Constitution applies to all within our borders.  I'm talking about outside our borders.



> Thus, the only time we get to extend our arms to people who are elsewhere is when it *isn't* a question of criminal law. I reiterate that the Founding Fathers clearly understood that there were cases where criminal law did not apply - within our borders or without, even short of a declaration of war.  The AUMF sits as a case of governmental recognition/declaration of such a situation.




The AUMF is not due process and Americans are guaranteed due process from our government no matter what.  I provided the link. 



> Lack of faith in the possibility leads to self-fulfilling prophecy.  The world cannot change if you do not act as if it can be changed.




Who said anything about acting that way.  I dutifully cast my vote in vain against those that act that way.  If my vote was the only one that mattered, the country would be in much better hands right now.  It's not, though, so the masses of sheep that keep re-electing incompetent leaders continue to lead our country astray.



> Mind you, the AUMF is not "massive".  It is 315 words.  151 words if we toss out the preamble as non-binding fluff.  That it is broad and open-ended is bleedingly obvious, not hidden in 17 levels of sub-sections and appendices.




It's also not due process, so it can't take away an American's right to due process as guaranteed by the Constitution.


----------



## tomBitonti

> I say, again - the text does not support the idea that citizens and non-citizens are different. Either the law applies to *both* or to neither.






> It can't apply to both outside the borders and it can apply to citizens. What you say is only true within the U.S.




Whether a person is within the Unted States borders (or in a place under their control, such as Guantanamo) is different than whether that person is a citizen.  Theses are different questions.

My understanding is that most protections apply equally to all persons, citizens and non-citizens alike, within the United States borders.

Some laws (as opposed to rights) extend beyond the borders.  For example, laws against murder.

Here is a good read:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...o_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html

Thx!
TomB

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...s-Persecuted-Christians/page105#ixzz3tFzLF4By


----------



## Sadras

Maxperson said:


> I dutifully cast my vote in vain against those that act that way.  If my vote was the only one that mattered, the country would be in much better hands right now.  It's not, though, so the masses of sheep that keep re-electing incompetent leaders continue to lead our country astray.




Apparently using the word sheep in  someone's argument is a big no-no as informed to me in post #21 on this thread (included below). I find the word 'turkeys' to be a suitable replacement. Haven't had any comebacks as yet.  



William Bonney said:


> Please don't use the word 'sheep' in a serious post unless you're referring to _Ovis aries_, it's really pretentious and detracts from your position.


----------

