|
Russian Federation1381 Posts
I don't live in USA and never talked to a black man, never seen many of them either, so i'm not really bothered or biased...
But i just read these news, and kind of puzzled, isn't a kind of biased approach crime-wise is justified due to statistics like these (seems legit) -
|
On July 24 2009 15:32 Magic84 wrote:I don't live in USA and never talked to a black man, never seen many of them either, so i'm not really bothered or biased... But i just read these news, and kind of puzzled, isn't a kind of biased approach crime-wise is justified due to statistics like these (seems legit) -
yes, it's obvious you don't live in the US  , we dont have many rational discussions about race here. it's essentially a taboo topic, there's nothing better to shut up a multiracial crowd in the US than to ask what their opinions are on the race issue. hence the OP
|
On July 24 2009 15:15 jonnyp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 15:11 dasanivan wrote:
Ok, then what if I forced you to dichotomize the "self-entitlement" thing. Suppose you could take self-entitlement-ness and transform it into a continuous scale. Now take everyone below the median as "not self-entitled" and everyone above the median as "self-entitled". Which do you think would be more harmful to progress?
before i say anything, i will mention that this system is flawed because you have no definition of progress. progress could be the genocide of an entire group of people, as certain leaders in history have defined it. if you were to reduce this situation into a dichotomy of "not self-entitled" and "self-entitled," naturally those who do not feel self-entitled will lose everything to those who feel self-entitled. naturally. for a group to survive in the dichotomy, they must be "self-entitled," or they will not survive. in my experience (warning: generalizing from experience could be dangerous) people who feel self-entitled tend to sit around complaining that they deserve more, that they're "above" menial labor or whatever. people who don't feel self-entitled tend to work harder to EARN what they get.
in my argument, the person who doesn't work would be classified as "feels more self-entitlement than deserved," and the person who does work would be classified as "feels as much self-entitlement as deserved."
|
On July 24 2009 15:32 Magic84 wrote:I don't live in USA and never talked to a black man, never seen many of them either, so i'm not really bothered or biased... But i just read these news, and kind of puzzled, isn't a kind of biased approach crime-wise is justified due to statistics like these (seems legit) -
what do you intend to prove with this?
|
Russian Federation1381 Posts
On July 24 2009 15:36 jonnyp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 15:32 Magic84 wrote:I don't live in USA and never talked to a black man, never seen many of them either, so i'm not really bothered or biased... But i just read these news, and kind of puzzled, isn't a kind of biased approach crime-wise is justified due to statistics like these (seems legit) - yes, it's obvious you don't live in the US , we dont have many rational discussions about race here. it's essentially a taboo topic, there's nothing better to shut up a multiracial crowd in the US than to ask what their opinions are on the race issue. hence the OP
Don't you have a freedom of speech? Facts like these aren't even being discussed?
I can see the reasoning though.
|
On July 24 2009 15:38 dasanivan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 15:32 Magic84 wrote:I don't live in USA and never talked to a black man, never seen many of them either, so i'm not really bothered or biased... But i just read these news, and kind of puzzled, isn't a kind of biased approach crime-wise is justified due to statistics like these (seems legit) - what do you intend to prove with this?
he's referring back to the OP situation about the Gates guy, he's wondering if, since more crimes are committed by black people isn't it justified from a police POV to discriminate based on race (e.g. who they stop, what they think looks suspicious etc)
|
On July 24 2009 15:40 Magic84 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 15:36 jonnyp wrote:On July 24 2009 15:32 Magic84 wrote:I don't live in USA and never talked to a black man, never seen many of them either, so i'm not really bothered or biased... But i just read these news, and kind of puzzled, isn't a kind of biased approach crime-wise is justified due to statistics like these (seems legit) - yes, it's obvious you don't live in the US , we dont have many rational discussions about race here. it's essentially a taboo topic, there's nothing better to shut up a multiracial crowd in the US than to ask what their opinions are on the race issue. hence the OP Don't you have a freedom of speech? Facts like these aren't even being discussed? I can see the reasoning though.
You can't discuss the facts because those who believe in "white guilt" and think they caused what is currently happening in the black community will try and rationalize why it is "our" fault, and not theirs no matter how many statistics you lay at them.
Anyone want to see the Out of Wedlock and Single mother statistics?
|
United States24745 Posts
On July 24 2009 15:40 Magic84 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 15:36 jonnyp wrote:On July 24 2009 15:32 Magic84 wrote:I don't live in USA and never talked to a black man, never seen many of them either, so i'm not really bothered or biased... But i just read these news, and kind of puzzled, isn't a kind of biased approach crime-wise is justified due to statistics like these (seems legit) - yes, it's obvious you don't live in the US , we dont have many rational discussions about race here. it's essentially a taboo topic, there's nothing better to shut up a multiracial crowd in the US than to ask what their opinions are on the race issue. hence the OP Don't you have a freedom of speech? Facts like these aren't even being discussed? I can see the reasoning though.
Freedom of speech limits the government's ability to control what we are allowed to say. This issue however is limited by how we control each other (hence taboo rather than illegal).
|
On July 24 2009 15:31 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 15:25 dasanivan wrote:On July 24 2009 15:08 ItsYoungLee wrote:On July 24 2009 15:01 dasanivan wrote:
And clarify to me again, why thinking that self-entitlement is self-harmful is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously? What do you propose?
self-entitlement, without the negative connotation, would basically be me believing that I should allowed half of the cake that, say, my twin brother and I are given. it becomes bad when I think I am entitled to more cake than my identical twin brother for whatever reason. in the situation we have now in America, it is difficult to quantify "the cake," and to have an opinion of whether blacks believe they are entitled to more than anyone else would require you to have many, many facts before words like "evil," or "dangerous" are even considered to be used. I guess it needs to be clarified. According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution? Who says that your twin brother should be given the same amount of cake? Shouldn't you have to earn your piece of the cake, and then the size should depend roughly on how hard you worked? I'm confused. you are confused, first of all, because you are overcomplicating what i said. perhaps i should have explicitly stated that my twin brother and i are equally deserving of the cake, in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth (get the point?)'s eyes. The sole purpose of my example was to define self-entitlement in a light that would not be seen by most as negative. i continued my argument by saying that the situation of today is actually a lot more complex, and that one should have a lot more ammunition with which to argue than you, as of this moment, have. You say, "According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution?" But my argument had nothing to do with our governments, the US, life, liberty, or the Constitution. Simply put, Blacks feel self-entitlement, and the only reason they should feel any less self-entitlement is if they feel more than they should. But how do you know whether they feel entitled to more than they should? Read my prior post. Entitlements breed stagnation and backwords progress. It does nothing to incentivize progress. (Not only that, but its a form of wealth distribution, which I am vehemently opposed to morally, and philosophically)
my argument has nothing to do with wealth distribution. you must understand the way i have defined "self-entitlement" during the argument. you feel entitled to your paycheck after you work, correct? along the same line, i do not feel entitled to a paycheck if i do not work. the idea of entitlements of which you speak is not the same idea i am using to carry my arguments.
|
On July 24 2009 15:40 Magic84 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 15:36 jonnyp wrote:On July 24 2009 15:32 Magic84 wrote:I don't live in USA and never talked to a black man, never seen many of them either, so i'm not really bothered or biased... But i just read these news, and kind of puzzled, isn't a kind of biased approach crime-wise is justified due to statistics like these (seems legit) - yes, it's obvious you don't live in the US , we dont have many rational discussions about race here. it's essentially a taboo topic, there's nothing better to shut up a multiracial crowd in the US than to ask what their opinions are on the race issue. hence the OP Don't you have a freedom of speech? Facts like these aren't even being discussed? I can see the reasoning though.
it's really weird actually, in the US it sometimes feels like we have 2 completely separate cultures, and to some extent we do. the idea of "political correctness" has been taken to the point where you can be instantly fired (or marked as a racist) for a perceived racist comment, even if it's taken out of context from your personal life/facebook/myspace or whatever. so people are very cautious about sharing their views
|
On July 24 2009 15:36 dasanivan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 15:15 jonnyp wrote:On July 24 2009 15:11 dasanivan wrote:
Ok, then what if I forced you to dichotomize the "self-entitlement" thing. Suppose you could take self-entitlement-ness and transform it into a continuous scale. Now take everyone below the median as "not self-entitled" and everyone above the median as "self-entitled". Which do you think would be more harmful to progress?
before i say anything, i will mention that this system is flawed because you have no definition of progress. progress could be the genocide of an entire group of people, as certain leaders in history have defined it. if you were to reduce this situation into a dichotomy of "not self-entitled" and "self-entitled," naturally those who do not feel self-entitled will lose everything to those who feel self-entitled. naturally. for a group to survive in the dichotomy, they must be "self-entitled," or they will not survive. in my experience (warning: generalizing from experience could be dangerous) people who feel self-entitled tend to sit around complaining that they deserve more, that they're "above" menial labor or whatever. people who don't feel self-entitled tend to work harder to EARN what they get. in my argument, the person who doesn't work would be classified as "feels more self-entitlement than deserved," and the person who does work would be classified as "feels as much self-entitlement as deserved."
yes, i was agreeing with you. i was saying that in my experience people who feel self-entitled despite not doing anything are typically whiners who sit around rather than work for what they feel they already deserve. those who don't feel entitled to much tend to work harder for what they get, since they don't feel they deserve it in and of themselves
|
On July 24 2009 15:44 dasanivan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 15:31 Aegraen wrote:On July 24 2009 15:25 dasanivan wrote:On July 24 2009 15:08 ItsYoungLee wrote:On July 24 2009 15:01 dasanivan wrote:
And clarify to me again, why thinking that self-entitlement is self-harmful is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously? What do you propose?
self-entitlement, without the negative connotation, would basically be me believing that I should allowed half of the cake that, say, my twin brother and I are given. it becomes bad when I think I am entitled to more cake than my identical twin brother for whatever reason. in the situation we have now in America, it is difficult to quantify "the cake," and to have an opinion of whether blacks believe they are entitled to more than anyone else would require you to have many, many facts before words like "evil," or "dangerous" are even considered to be used. I guess it needs to be clarified. According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution? Who says that your twin brother should be given the same amount of cake? Shouldn't you have to earn your piece of the cake, and then the size should depend roughly on how hard you worked? I'm confused. you are confused, first of all, because you are overcomplicating what i said. perhaps i should have explicitly stated that my twin brother and i are equally deserving of the cake, in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth (get the point?)'s eyes. The sole purpose of my example was to define self-entitlement in a light that would not be seen by most as negative. i continued my argument by saying that the situation of today is actually a lot more complex, and that one should have a lot more ammunition with which to argue than you, as of this moment, have. You say, "According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution?" But my argument had nothing to do with our governments, the US, life, liberty, or the Constitution. Simply put, Blacks feel self-entitlement, and the only reason they should feel any less self-entitlement is if they feel more than they should. But how do you know whether they feel entitled to more than they should? Read my prior post. Entitlements breed stagnation and backwords progress. It does nothing to incentivize progress. (Not only that, but its a form of wealth distribution, which I am vehemently opposed to morally, and philosophically) my argument has nothing to do with wealth distribution. you must understand the way i have defined "self-entitlement" during the argument. you feel entitled to your paycheck after you work, correct? along the same line, i do not feel entitled to a paycheck if i do not work. the idea of entitlements of which you speak is not the same idea i am using to carry my arguments.
No, I do not feel "entitled" to my paycheck. I feel I have EARNED my paycheck. There is a huge difference.
|
On July 24 2009 15:46 jonnyp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 15:40 Magic84 wrote:On July 24 2009 15:36 jonnyp wrote:On July 24 2009 15:32 Magic84 wrote:I don't live in USA and never talked to a black man, never seen many of them either, so i'm not really bothered or biased... But i just read these news, and kind of puzzled, isn't a kind of biased approach crime-wise is justified due to statistics like these (seems legit) - yes, it's obvious you don't live in the US , we dont have many rational discussions about race here. it's essentially a taboo topic, there's nothing better to shut up a multiracial crowd in the US than to ask what their opinions are on the race issue. hence the OP Don't you have a freedom of speech? Facts like these aren't even being discussed? I can see the reasoning though. it's really weird actually, in the US it sometimes feels like we have 2 completely separate cultures, and to some extent we do. the idea of "political correctness" has been taken to the point where you can be instantly fired (or marked as a racist) for a perceived racist comment, even if it's taken out of context from your personal life/facebook/myspace or whatever. so people are very cautious about sharing their views
I think it's similar to the idea of overreaction to certain things like toy guns and middle eastern people in airports. in a nation where there is a history of racism, weapons, and ideals of regional origin being abused, people naturally become extremely cautious.
|
On July 24 2009 15:53 dasanivan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 15:46 jonnyp wrote:On July 24 2009 15:40 Magic84 wrote:On July 24 2009 15:36 jonnyp wrote:On July 24 2009 15:32 Magic84 wrote:I don't live in USA and never talked to a black man, never seen many of them either, so i'm not really bothered or biased... But i just read these news, and kind of puzzled, isn't a kind of biased approach crime-wise is justified due to statistics like these (seems legit) - yes, it's obvious you don't live in the US , we dont have many rational discussions about race here. it's essentially a taboo topic, there's nothing better to shut up a multiracial crowd in the US than to ask what their opinions are on the race issue. hence the OP Don't you have a freedom of speech? Facts like these aren't even being discussed? I can see the reasoning though. it's really weird actually, in the US it sometimes feels like we have 2 completely separate cultures, and to some extent we do. the idea of "political correctness" has been taken to the point where you can be instantly fired (or marked as a racist) for a perceived racist comment, even if it's taken out of context from your personal life/facebook/myspace or whatever. so people are very cautious about sharing their views I think it's similar to the idea of overreaction to certain things like toy guns and middle eastern people in airports. in a nation where there is a history of racism, weapons, and ideals of regional origin being abused, people naturally become extremely cautious.
Southern Pride baby. Proudest people in the world 
|
On July 24 2009 15:51 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 15:44 dasanivan wrote:On July 24 2009 15:31 Aegraen wrote:On July 24 2009 15:25 dasanivan wrote:On July 24 2009 15:08 ItsYoungLee wrote:On July 24 2009 15:01 dasanivan wrote:
And clarify to me again, why thinking that self-entitlement is self-harmful is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously? What do you propose?
self-entitlement, without the negative connotation, would basically be me believing that I should allowed half of the cake that, say, my twin brother and I are given. it becomes bad when I think I am entitled to more cake than my identical twin brother for whatever reason. in the situation we have now in America, it is difficult to quantify "the cake," and to have an opinion of whether blacks believe they are entitled to more than anyone else would require you to have many, many facts before words like "evil," or "dangerous" are even considered to be used. I guess it needs to be clarified. According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution? Who says that your twin brother should be given the same amount of cake? Shouldn't you have to earn your piece of the cake, and then the size should depend roughly on how hard you worked? I'm confused. you are confused, first of all, because you are overcomplicating what i said. perhaps i should have explicitly stated that my twin brother and i are equally deserving of the cake, in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth (get the point?)'s eyes. The sole purpose of my example was to define self-entitlement in a light that would not be seen by most as negative. i continued my argument by saying that the situation of today is actually a lot more complex, and that one should have a lot more ammunition with which to argue than you, as of this moment, have. You say, "According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution?" But my argument had nothing to do with our governments, the US, life, liberty, or the Constitution. Simply put, Blacks feel self-entitlement, and the only reason they should feel any less self-entitlement is if they feel more than they should. But how do you know whether they feel entitled to more than they should? Read my prior post. Entitlements breed stagnation and backwords progress. It does nothing to incentivize progress. (Not only that, but its a form of wealth distribution, which I am vehemently opposed to morally, and philosophically) my argument has nothing to do with wealth distribution. you must understand the way i have defined "self-entitlement" during the argument. you feel entitled to your paycheck after you work, correct? along the same line, i do not feel entitled to a paycheck if i do not work. the idea of entitlements of which you speak is not the same idea i am using to carry my arguments. No, I do not feel "entitled" to my paycheck. I feel I have EARNED my paycheck. There is a huge difference.
if it so pleases you, change all the words i used containing "entitlement" to "banpitongbrew," and define the new word as "something one deserves"
|
On July 24 2009 15:56 dasanivan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 15:51 Aegraen wrote:On July 24 2009 15:44 dasanivan wrote:On July 24 2009 15:31 Aegraen wrote:On July 24 2009 15:25 dasanivan wrote:On July 24 2009 15:08 ItsYoungLee wrote:On July 24 2009 15:01 dasanivan wrote:
And clarify to me again, why thinking that self-entitlement is self-harmful is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously? What do you propose?
self-entitlement, without the negative connotation, would basically be me believing that I should allowed half of the cake that, say, my twin brother and I are given. it becomes bad when I think I am entitled to more cake than my identical twin brother for whatever reason. in the situation we have now in America, it is difficult to quantify "the cake," and to have an opinion of whether blacks believe they are entitled to more than anyone else would require you to have many, many facts before words like "evil," or "dangerous" are even considered to be used. I guess it needs to be clarified. According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution? Who says that your twin brother should be given the same amount of cake? Shouldn't you have to earn your piece of the cake, and then the size should depend roughly on how hard you worked? I'm confused. you are confused, first of all, because you are overcomplicating what i said. perhaps i should have explicitly stated that my twin brother and i are equally deserving of the cake, in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth (get the point?)'s eyes. The sole purpose of my example was to define self-entitlement in a light that would not be seen by most as negative. i continued my argument by saying that the situation of today is actually a lot more complex, and that one should have a lot more ammunition with which to argue than you, as of this moment, have. You say, "According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution?" But my argument had nothing to do with our governments, the US, life, liberty, or the Constitution. Simply put, Blacks feel self-entitlement, and the only reason they should feel any less self-entitlement is if they feel more than they should. But how do you know whether they feel entitled to more than they should? Read my prior post. Entitlements breed stagnation and backwords progress. It does nothing to incentivize progress. (Not only that, but its a form of wealth distribution, which I am vehemently opposed to morally, and philosophically) my argument has nothing to do with wealth distribution. you must understand the way i have defined "self-entitlement" during the argument. you feel entitled to your paycheck after you work, correct? along the same line, i do not feel entitled to a paycheck if i do not work. the idea of entitlements of which you speak is not the same idea i am using to carry my arguments. No, I do not feel "entitled" to my paycheck. I feel I have EARNED my paycheck. There is a huge difference. if it so pleases you, change all the words i used containing "entitlement" to "banpitongbrew," and define the new word as "something one deserves"
It was quite obvious the OP was talking about Government entitlement programs and their adverse effects on society. You then hijacked the word and went on a tangent (along with the OP who got sidetracked with you), about some existential meaning. The point of fact is, Entitlements and the sense of people owing you anything, or more than reasonably expected either because of arbitrary birth skin pigments or other racial characteristics drags society down. It does nothing to give incentive to improve ones self.
|
|
|
it's true that for the duration of the argument, "entitlements" was used too haphazardly. it's my opinion that it isn't my place to argue whether blacks do indeed deserve, in a country that can either gain or lose from providing those that have had a history of being disadvantaged, special treatment, and i believe i've already said the same about the OP (that it was not his place to argue), in light of his rant.
i claimed that "self-entitlement" was not necessarily evil, using the definition i used to hijack the word, soon after my attempt to counter the OP's original rant. This I did because what a Black person feels when he cries out with the race card cannot automatically be related directly to the term "self-entitlement" as defined by a sense of deserving something one does not deserve. This feeling can just as easily be a sense of unfair treatment, stemming from not getting something one indeed is entitled to: non-discrimination.
Indeed, the original rant had to do with Gates acting like he did. Government entitlements seems like a subject the OP turned to after calming down, at which point I had irrevocably gone into existentialism mode.
|
On July 24 2009 16:13 NukemDuke wrote:
I Laughed, out loud none the less. When I read the part about Asians being one of the more hated minorities.
you disagree? perhaps now asian americans are more respected but they were severely discriminated against even as late as the 1940's (hint: something called world war 2), japanese people were forced into internment camps across the US. even japanese people born and raised in the US two generations back were hated - not disliked - hated. earlier chinese people were also hated, check out this political cartoon from the era:
i think it's pretty clear what the general feeling towards asians at that time was
(img source from wikipedia.org)
|
Hahaha at the "Yellow Terror" - LOL.
Dasanivan - Good point on your argument about whether self-entitlement in the Black community is more than it should be, but I think it's obvious from the context of my discussion that unjustified self-entitlement is harmful to progress.
In my view, you're entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, along with your rights in the constitution. If anything, if you're going to "level the playing field" as so many racially charged government policies intend to do, then you should rather discriminate on the basis of economic situation of an individual.
When I think of someone who's overly self-entitled about their race, they go into situations with a racial narrative already in mind "Oh well, I'm Asian, and if I don't get that job, they're just oppressing us Asians. Oh, that cop just pulled me over just because I'm Asian". This type of attitude does nothing to empower you, it's just a form of self-victimization that renders you helpless. That attitude is what I find repulsive.
Of course you won't find research to prove my point - who would fund that kind of research in America? The failure of certain minorities in America while other non-white minority groups thrive under the same government definitely points to a failure, not in the American system, but possibly in the intrinsic cultural values of that minority group. Not to mention, Magic84's post, if statistically intact, raises some serious questions - is it racial profiling, or are there other factors?
On July 24 2009 16:13 NukemDuke wrote:
I Laughed, out loud none the less. When I read the part about Asians being one of the more hated minorities.
Read again LOL. The part about being the most hated minority I intended to apply to the Jewish people. On second thought though, governmental policies definitely seem to hate minorities (especially when it comes to applying to college, medical school, etc... >< )
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee65/Shuu0/Misc/a.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/YellowTerror.jpg)
