There are many applications of Affirmative Action that I oppose–quotas and lowered standards first among them. However, we do not have to have genuine races in order to make an argument for Affirmatie Action. The fact that fools artificially separated humanity based on appearance and wrote laws and regulations to harm other people based on those appearances means that actions may now be taken to rectify the harm done by that artificial construct.
If we had ever jailed everyone who had red hair on the basis that red haired people are always violently angry–a point that is absurd, although it is found in much fiction–it would not be wrong to make redress to people who had been harmed by their being jailed just because we know that the “red hair = violent anger” story is silly. They still hae the red hair.
That is the problem with creating mountains of nonsense based on appearance: people believe that nonsense and continue to take (wrongful) actions based on appearance.
I’m not threatened by holidays. I enjoy learning about different cultures. If I lived in Whitelandia, and some or all of the people wanted to celebrate Cynco de Mayo, I would probably be at the celebration each year. I’m more concerned with the repopulating of the United States and Europe.
The use of such contraceptive devices as the pill, RU486 and abortion are not related to a “naturally” declining birth-rate.
There are many social programs that reward out-of-wedlock childbirth, even for whites who choose to suckle at government’s teat, but let’s go to the holy-grail of liberalism, the Fourteenth Amendment, or rather, the deliberate misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This section of the Amendment was soley intended to grant the rights of citizenship to those already born in the United States at the time of ratification, particularly, to the newly freed slaves, as indicated by the phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”.
Section 1 of the Amendment was never intended to be used as an invitation for an “illegal” to waddle accross the border, squat down and squirt out a democrat, who now, with all the “privileges and immunities” of a United States citizen, is entitled to a cornucopia of welfare entitlements and the offer of citizenship to its extended family and, thus, expanding the Democratic voter rolls.
Were they not so detrimental to traditional American society, liberals would be downright laughable at how they masquerade as honorable guardians of Constitutional integrity, while working diligently to subvert the very meaning of America’s most sacred document in the construction of their “Through the Looking Glass” worldview.
And I thought the 14th Amendment was to ensure that the rights of citizenship were not abridged! Silly me, it was a Democratic conspiracy (although it was passed by the Republicans.)
<Gollum>Trixy Democratses! They trixed us!</Gollum>
Razorsharp, if you’re going to quote and cite the Consitution, at least address the entirety of the section you’re discussing, not just a portion you like out of context. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is:
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In essence, this secion is ensurig that states not descriminate against any person or group. It ensures that all citizens are treated failry under due process of law.
People born in the United States, all people, are American citizens. This entitles them to the full rights and privliages of all citizens.
So what would you have, Razorsharp? Any policy that descriminates against those born to illegal immigrants would violate the very prtion of the Constitution you ignored.
People born in the United States, and any naturalized citizen, has the right to vote according to their beliefs.
Why thank you Razorsharp! I am Hispanic-American and one of my close relatives is Republican and his family too. You will be glad to know that they are “squirting” more little republicans also!
Besides spewing more asinine arguments, your last post though will be good to print and show to my relatives to convince them on not voting republican next time, for that you have my thanks.
And I’ll continue to use the Tibetan analogy, because it exposes the double standard Multiculturalists use when dealing with Whites and Non-Whites.
No, Whites Americans do not have a separate nation. Don’t tell the Turks your new theory. They could slaughter the Kurds, and it wouldn’t be genocide, because the Kurds don’t have their own nation. Do I understand you correctly?
I am reminded of the Reverend Jessee Jackson proclaiming that the penalties for possession of crack cocaine were racist because because they were harsher than the penalties for possessing the powder form of the drug.
I kept waiting for the Reverend Jackson to proclaim that the penalties for car-jacking were racist bacause they were harsher than the penalties for simple auto-theft.
Millen88, you’re right! My uncle’s family, living in Sourthern California, was killed by marauding Mexicans as they crossed the border!
Oh wait, they weren’t. In fact, the Mexicans in Southern California are working hard, helping their families, and trying to make a better life for themselves. It’s not an invading army. It’s not ethnic cleansing. It’s America, the melting pot, where everyone has a chance at a better life.
The Chinese government has been systematically dismantling Tibet for decades with troops, intimidation, forced deportations, and mass killings. The Mexicans coming into the United States have done nothing even remotely like this. They’re in the United States working jobs others don’t want at wages others don’t accept. This isn’t an invasion, it isn’t genocide. It’s the free market, and it’s a good thing.
BTW - You should have a talk with your friend Charles A Lindbergh, he seems to think that China is 100% Chinese.
I have done nothing but point out the inherent confusion in your claims.
I have pointed out that race is a construct or an invention.
You replied that it was an objective reality that “any layman” can see. You also claimed that there were inherent “skills and intelligence” defined by race.
You have failed to point out any skill or intelligence that can be attributed to race.
You have failed to point out who even belongs to which race and have fled from identifying whether there are three or four or five or sixty races.
Given that I recognize that race is an invention based on superficial appearances, it is not difficult for me to show that people have been persecuted for having the “wrong” appearance–with the further stipulation that most people in the U.S. subscribe to a “three race” understanding specifically because of the limited number of places from which the majority of people in the U.S. has immigrated (or been transported).
I do not deny that people can identify “races”; I only point out that the “races” that they identify are social constructs based on superficial appearances of a limited number of groups.
(People can also “see” that the world is flat and that the sun, moon, and stars circle about the earth, but the ability to “see” such things does not make them real. People can “see” that a rising full moon gets smaller as it climbs higher in the sky, but it never actually changes size and what they “see” is in error.)
So how have I failed to acknowledge your “true sentiments”?
I acknowledge that you have an erroneous belief that races have an objective (not invented) reality and I acknowledge that you have the odd belief that there are qualities associated with these invented groups. Given that your “sentiments” are based on errors, I have no need to consider the “sentiments” that are based on falsehoods.
While acknowledging your errors, I have simply pointed out that they are errors. I also note that other people who share your errors have harmed people based on their appearances. I do not see where I have misconstrued your words.
How many races are there? (3? 4? 5? 60? some other number? )
What are the races? (How do you identify them or categorize them?)
What “skills” are found in some races and not others? (Provide evidence, please.)
As long as you contrinue to post wild diatribes against facts, I am going to point out your errors.
In fact, Jackson would be right on this pooint. Unlike your failed analogy of autotheft vs carjacking, the only difference between crack and powder cocaine is that crack is more popular in the inner city and powder is more popular in the suburbs. The effects of the two methods of taking the drug are identical. (The original hysterical claim that crack was more addictive than powder were debunked by the medical community within a few months of the passage of the stiffer crack laws–over 15 years ago.)
Carjacking is a violent crime against a person; car theft does not involve violence against a person.
Powder cocaine is a mind-altering drug with destructive aspects in its addiction; crack is a mind-altering drug with exactly the same destructive aspects in its addiction. The only difference is that the community that indulges each drug is more white or more black–with the harsher penalties directed against the black community.
No, all you have ever done is to distort and misrepresent things that I have written to enable you to construct a strawman to knock down. And here, you have done it again. I never claimed that there were inherent skills and intelligence defined by race. What I did say was that there were skills and intelligence that could be attributed to evolution.
You, sir, are a bearer of false witness. You owe me an appology.
Well, if you want to play the definition game (“You used a word to mean A, but I take it to mean B, therefore you meant to say B”) go ahead. By “natural” I meant simply that people were having fewer children because that’s what they chose to do (as opposed to having it forced upon them). Increased prosperity and education and greater options for women tends to have this effect, thus the dropping birthrates among American, Canadian and European families. Interestingly, this also tends to happen among immigrant familes after two or three generations. The children become thoroughly assimilated to Western culture and enjoy all the benefits and opportunities offered to people whose familes have been in palce much longer, and many of them draw the same conclusion: it’s easier to have a higher standard of living if you have fewer children.
That’s ironic, considering how far off your subsequent interpretation is. The 14th was a necessary follow-up to the 13th, since even though slavery had been declared illegal by Federal authority, some states will still passing laws putting unfair restrictions on blacks. It represented a major shift away from state’s rights, but toward individual rights, protected by Federal power.
And I notice how casually you abandon the “government teat” bit as soon as someone calls you on it. Typical.
As I understand it, there’s no explicit or implied meaning in the U.S. Constitution defining the nation as primarily for the benefit of whites (STILL undefined!) so what exactly is being subverted? Please quote relevant passages which you feel are sacred (although officially the U.S. has no “sacred” documents of any kind, and even the Constitution itself describes a procedure by which any or all of itself can be amended) and are being subverted.
I think you do understand me correctly, but find it easier to pretend that you don’t, because otherwise you’d have to modify your prejudices.
I don’t know what “double standard” you’re referring to. Locking people up without trial is wrong. Imposing long prison terms for political differences is wrong. Using torture is wrong. But here’s the key: none of these outrages are being systematically used against white people in the United States and certainly not by Mexican immigrants.
In any case, it gets tiresome to keep repeating the point, since you cannot or will not recognize it. I’ll just simplify and say “Tibet is not relevant to the mythical plight of American whites” whenever you bring it up again, as I’m sure you will since repetition is all you really have.
The plight of the Kurds is similarly irrelevant, until such time as American whites are hit with poison gas attacks, massacres and torture, as the Kurds have been. The words “genocide” or “attempted genocide” could arguably be applied to the Kurds. They can’t possibly be applied (with a straight face) to white people living in America.
When I pointed out that race was an invention, you claimed that it was real, and appealed to the identifications of oak trees and genus (rather than the topic of race). I wrote a rebuttal using the word “group” to note that the racial category was invented. You then replied:
Clearly, you are claiming that the “groups” (races) existed independently of the categories invented by scientists. You then go on to talk about the thousands of years of evolution that explain the (supposed) differences between the “intelligence, skills and traditions” of the various “groups” (races). Had you meant something different (which your inclusion of the word traditions belies), you should have said something different–or at least corrected it some time during the last dozen or so exchanged posts.
I see in preview that you are one of those people who has refused to follow the pharmacological studies of the last 15 years. I am not surprised.
Just out of curiosity, tom, I myself thought the use of crack cocaine (smoking it) was, essentially, a cheap-and-easy way to freebase, thus providing a more intense (though possibly shorter-lived) high than merely inhaling the powder. I’d assumed the method of delivery made the drug seem more intense, rather than the drug itself being somehow stronger in crystal form than in powder form.
I’ll have to look into it. For obvious reasons, it’s not something I can start a GD thread about.
As stated, you are correct (and the self-serving report that the U.S. Senate commissioned last year came to that conclusion, as well). The problem from that point is making the assumption that quicker, more intense, briefer highs clearly leads to mopre addiction (which was the conclusion of the Senate report).
However, while that may appear to be a “logical” conclusion, based on inadequate information, the medical community has not found evidence that the conclusion is true in fact. About seven months after the draconian drug laws were hustled through Congress (prompted, ironically, by the death of Len Bias using powder), medical researchers reported that they could not find actual evidence to support that conclusion.
One of the things that interests me is that after four pages of posts to this thread, it is obvious that most Dopers who have commented find the company and companionship of people of diverse cultures preferable to isolation – especially isolation with those who are so negative about something they are not even able to define. That is so bizarre and illogical!
BTW, Belowjob2.0, just as many Southerners have out-grown the prejudices of their past, maybe you could reconsider some of the assumptions that you make about Southerners. I know that you admitted that it was an “oversimplification” and I appreciate the acknowledgement. But way, way too many people oversimplify and others start to assume that we are more like Razorsharp and not very much like the people who actually live in my neighborhood.