Is it just me, or are all your grievances the white grievances?
Can we not have 2 or 3 dimensional discourse? Caricatures are nothing more than strawmen set up by the wrong person. Stuff like this just looks like defensive, knee-jerk, yer-in-my-way-ism.
LOL!
Oh! I get it. You’re the comic relief in this thread… :smack:
Because, I gotta tell you, after watching two minutes of a sermon… I feel like I have gazed into his soul and now find him completely rotten. cough
The alternative was worse. And as much as LBJ was a bit of a dick, we’d be in twice as worse shape now (and black people would be untold multiples worse off) if he hadn’t done what he did when he did for the Civil Rights movement.
So, quoting him accurately is not intellectually honest?
So, would you agree that someone making a reasoned and well-thought-out analysis of the problems of the black community and finished with a call to “lynch all those niggers and let them burn in hell” should be analyzed with a careful regard for context?
No, my characterization of your cite was accurate.
I find it unfortunate that the one example that you asserted as a fact turned out on even superficial examination to be a grotesque distortion. IOW, you defended Wright’s offensive nonsense with another dose of your own.
Which is preposterous.
I understand your reluctance to defend this silly claim.
Whether or not you make sense, have been shown to be generally reliable, and whether or not you end your story with a foaming rant of hatred against those who have different skin color. If you did end your story that way, I probably wouldn’t dedicate a book to you. But that’s just me.
*Wizard’s First Rule: People are stupid. Given the right motivation, almost anyone can be made to believe almost anything. * - Terry Goodkind.
Well, he dedicated a book to him.
Wright does.
Partly because they are stupid and gullible. Part is because race-baiting hate-mongers abuse their position to lie to them.
You said it was debateable. Facts are not debateable; opinions are. It is a fact that AIDS has no cure.
Here we go again. Do I need to cite the sticky again?
Race baiting and race-hatred have a long and not honorable history in this country and abroad. Wright does it because it gets a reaction, and draws support and funds from the gullible goofballs who jerk their knees instead of thinking.
Regards,
Shodan
:dubious: Read the Wikipedia article on the Great Society. You will find no mention of affirmative action, nor of any program depending on racial categories, preferences, quotas or set-asides (nor of anything else, for that matter, that can reasonably be said to have “borne poisonous fruit”).
Affirmative action came in at roughly the same time (actually it started under Kennedy), but it was a separate phenomenon. All Johnson really contributed to it was the name.
FTR, I agree with Michael Lind: Race-based affirmative action should be, not merely abolished, but replaced with an even more vigorous (and inevitably more expensive) set of class-based “social escalator” programs to help poor people of all races achieve middle-class education, opportunities and status. But that’s another debate.
Bear in mind that only some few of the things he says are falsehoods. There’s the UL about the U.S. govermnent causing AIDS and . . . well, that’s about it, really.
Oh, and, once again, Shodan, what exactly are these “problems of integration” to which you were referring in post #82?
Not when you take a small snippet out of context to imply he was saying something most honest people know he was not saying.
More incoherent rambling. Do you really think that would be analogous to anything Rev. Wright said? Is a call to lynch people and the use of racial slurs close to anything he has said? Honestly, your analogy is absolutely ridiculous, and shows how tenuous your understanding of the issue is.
No it was not. Again, it was a partial quote cut to distort the point being made. One, which could be debated on its own merits. Rather, you decide to interpret it in such a questionable light. First, the cite says no animal testing was done. Do you have any proof that this is not the case? Second, respond to the real question here, do you doubt that minorities have been used as “guinea pigs” in medical experiments? You can bitch about this one cite, choosing to ignore the larger issue if you want, but all that shows is how deliberately obtuse you are being.
That was not the only example I cited. Not to mention, its not the only example of things like this happening.
Cite? Show me some animal studies done prior to human testing that established the safety of the procedure both in the long and short term. Even your own cites do not claim that there is no risk based on human studies. This becomes a issue of degree. My cite clearly overstates the risk based on our current understanding, but you are trying to say there is no risk. Furthermore, the sentence in the cite you harp on states the author’s opinion is based on the lack of animal studies, known to him, done prior to human testing. Yes, in hindsight, with the results of several human studies, his zealotry seems laughable. But if the results were different, would we feel the same way? If he is right, and there were no conclusive animal studies done, how can you defend that? If the Tuskegee experiment had shown that the participants somehow had a positive health outcome, would the surrounding ethical concerns disappear?
Foaming rant? Who are you talking about? What did Wright say that could be described as a foaming rant of hatred against those who have a different skin color?
First, you said a cure for AIDS. AIDS is not HIV. “Acquired immune deficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS or Aids) is a collection of symptoms and infections resulting from the specific damage to the immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in humans”. From here :
And yes, the site says no cure for AIDS, meaning there is nothing that will completely rid your body of the HIV virus. Technically speaking, you are right. But, I think it was clear that I was not arguing that there was a cure for HIV in that sense seeing how I used the next few sentences to explain why I thought it was debatable. Most of the people talking about a “cure” for AIDS/HIV are discussing medication which prevents them from being sick and suffering. Kinda like how a bypass surgery will “cure” the symptoms arising form a blockage. Technically, it’s not a cure, but it solves what the patient sees as a problem. People who believe in these theories are looking at people like Magic Johnson. They see this guy, once given a death sentence, being symptom free (AFAIK). They don’t care that he still has traces of the HIV virus, they see him as being “cured”.
Today, we have medications that will essentially stop HIV from progressing to that point indefinitely in some people. Additionally, we can prevent people exposed to the virus from getting getting it themselves with great success. That’s why the sentence following the one you continually quote was as follows:
“Protease Inhibitors and other drug therapies have become more and more effective in lowering viral load and prevent HIV from progressing to AIDS. Many wealthy HIV patients today will live long enough to die from heart disease like the rest of us.”
If a drug can essentially create an environment where HIV is not life threatening, and does not progress to AIDS, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to call it a cure. Again, it depends on how you define a “cure”. Did we cure polio? Do we cure strep throat? Depends on what your definition of a cure is.
Go ahead and explain to me where you think there is any flip-flopping going on there. I explained this to you in detail.
Stick to arguing the points of discussion and leave the personal observations for trhe Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
No, I am not going to read the cites to you.
Yes, it is. The only difference is that Obama supporters are willing to overlook, deny, excuse, and minimize hate speech coming from their own side, and scream with outrage when it comes from anyone else.
It is illustrative to observe the willingness of one side to stretch for excuses in one instance, but not others. Why aren’t you arguing for “context” when you hear calls for lynching?
Well, no - you were the one claiming that it was an example of black women being used as guinea pigs. Turns out that was not the case - vacuum aspiration is used, not because anyone wants to do experiments but because it is safer than the alternative. I thought you had been brought to realize that - apparently the expiration date on your understanding has passed.
The rest of your post is just flailing around, trying to recover from being shown that your cite isn’t worth a fart in a hurricane. The problem remains - Wright is basing his rants on stupidity and lies. His audience eats it up like candy. You produce a cite as evidence for Wright’s hate-mongering that is almost as ridiculous as the hate-mongering itself. And all this is supposed to lead us to a greater understanding of how St. Obama is going to lead us all to the Promised Land, inspired by wise leaders like this Wright clown.
Uh-huh. 
Regards,
Shodan
What cites? Those in post #22 do not suggest the existence of, nor have anything to do with, any “problems of integration.” And those in post #47 deal with busing and nothing else – surely that can’t be what you’re talking about – this ain’t 1972!
I’m still not going to read them to you.
Regards,
Shodan
Then at least specify them. Or, better still, simply name the “problems of integraton” to which you refer.
I hate to be part of this hijack, but the issue of integration is an interesting one to me. I live in a suburb that is one of the most successful and stable integrated neighborhoods in maybe the entire country. It wasn’t forced, but it was, let’s say, strongly encouraged. City ordinances designed to prevent white flight were passed, and I think a very strong argument could be made that some of them were unconstitutional (such as the law which forbids putting a “for sale” sign on your property). Now, the reason this law and others are allowed to exist is because the vast majority of people in town believe that integration is a positive thing, worth striving for by almost whatever means necessary. Personally, I love my neighborhood and I’m glad the integration has worked, but I can very well see why the same methods would not be welcome in other places with people of a different mindset. Living in such a community can chafe a little bit, let me tell you. The local government believes there is a cure for every ill, and it usually seems to involve taking away a personal freedom or spending more of your money. And the results are not always there…even within this supposedly utopian community, there are some tensions. I have heard that the kids at the high school are largely self-segregating. In addition, there is controversy there because some parents are complaining that Black kids get more detentions than White kids (although it has not been established whether they are given these detentions unfairly, so the controversy rages). So I would say, yes, even in a successfully integrated community, there are “problems with integration.” Even if people aren’t “forced” to do it, they may feel somewhat coerced, not to mention that there may be discomfort between people of essentially two different subcultures trying to coexist. So integration does not magically erase racial tension…it’s just that in some places, there are people willing to try to work together to achieve something. What doesn’t help is when there are community leaders like the Rev. Wright to make those tensions more profound than they need to be.
I hope you realize almost nobody with a firm grasp of reality will agree with you. Calling someone a nigger and prosiign they be lynched is nothing like what Rev. Wright said.
Because nobody said anything about lynching. If someone did, like that reporter when talking about Tiger Woods, I would try to learn the context of a situation.
And again, you’ve conveniently forgotten to answer the question? **Show me a cite that the procedure was proved to be safe based on animal studies. **
You again conveniently forgot that the reason such rants gain traction is because of all the real problems that exist out there. Again, are you claiming minorities have never been used as guinea pigs in medical experiments? How about you answer the question posed to you rather than just harping on what you see as a “ridiculous” cite. Seeing as you know as well as I do that we have been used in that way, countless times, why are you are flabbergasted that people believe in similar, yet unfounded conspiracy theories? Is it because you expect Black people to have utilize a level of rationality no other group does? People beleive in angels and the devil, and yet you think believing the government created HIV is so laughably unbelievable.
I’m sure Hoover hated MLK and collected dirt on him*, but this is the first I’ve heard of any blackmail. Cite?
*I recall a cartoon from when Hoover died: He’s in Heaven sitting on a bulging file cabinet. He snarls at an onlooker, “Of course I brought them with me! How do you think I got in here?”