Personal assaults on Obama

Kthulhut Fhtagn said:
...difficulties with public speaking =/= lack of intelligence.1...
As someone who often has to pause to gather his thoughts in conversation I'm incredibly offended that you regard me as being unintelligent solely for this reason.2...
You're perfectly aware that "to be honest" is just a phrase commonly used to allow one a moment to gather his/her thoughts yet you continue with this ridiculous line of reasoning.3...
1: You assume the policy is created to lift unintelligent blacks to places of higher learning.42: You assume individuals who benefit from it are less intelligent by default than those who do not.53: You assume he benefited from it solely because he is black, you've never looked to see if he ever has you simply saw a black man and assumed it to be true. Stereotyping brought on by confirmation bias is a sure sign of a racist.64: You assume the program is used for the benefit of blacks, stereotypically. You ignore that the largest beneficiary of affirmative action has been white women.75: In addition to the above, your obvious condescension towards those who have benefited from such programs is telling.8...
Whining about not being able to utilize his privileged status to talk down to those lacking said status is also a sign of a racist.9...
For someone being accused of using racist thinking it is certainly problematic that you characterize the discussion by referring to animals. Whether this was an unfortunate lack of thinking on your part or a Freudian slip remains to be seen, but I'm leaning towards the latter.10...
What I would find more telling is the fact that you refer to "equality before the law" and not "social equality" or "economic equality". This would lead some to conclude that you do not support equal rights for all and lend credence to benburch's accusation that you favor the creation of a privileged class that you are privy to.11Aside from that, it simply doesn't follow as no one is suggesting the answer to all the problems facing disparate minorities and issues of equality with the majority is the same answer. This is a complex issue requires a complex set of answers.12
Click to expand...
1.We agree. You might have deduced this from my earlier comment about Malthus and the Cell Biology PhD.
2. How could I? I don't expect that I've ever heard you speak.
3. I said as much in my earlier comment. "To be honest" is a polysyllabic version of "uh", as I wrote.
4. Not at all. I accept that the intention (of some) of the proponents of affirmative action is to remediate past discrimination and to demonstrate that mesaured performance (e.g., SAT scores) understates potential. The effect is to admit to selective schools students who are not as well prepared as the average white or Asian student.
5. One-on-one, I'd assess the individual individually. On average, the effect of preferential admissions is a mismatch between institutions and students that harms students who cannot keep up.
6. Operationally, a racist is any caucasian who disagrees with a socialist.
7. So? That does not diminish my point: Affirmative action (preferential admission) explains Barak Obama's acceptance at selective schools at least as well as his supposed intellect does.
8. There's a telling generalization.
9. Again, a racist is a caucasian who disagrees with a socialist.
10. Humans are animals. Regional varieties diverge into subspecies. Subspecies diverge into separate species. Species diverge into separate genera. It's a matter of degree. Do you contend that there's no relation between, say, melanin content of the skin and the (number of generations at latitude)x(|90-latitude|)? That people who evolved close to the equator are darker than Northerners? Do you contend that there's no relation between a history of pastoral agriculture and the ability to digest lactose? Really?
11. The critical words here are "equality" and "rights". It's hard to imagine a policy that won't have some disparate impact.
12. Progress. Face that fact and we have to accept disparate impact. To reduce harm means, sometimes, that we have to accept real differences (whether explained by biology or culture).
 
Education Policy, Affirmative Action, and Disparate Impact

Travis said:
Are you seriously advocating that education should be rationed to specific segments of the population?
Click to expand...
No. I'm saying that State education policies will have a disparate impact. There's no way around it. To minimize damage, policymakers will have to collect information on impacts and tailor programs according to the information.

What "race-neutral" policy would minimize harm? Dunno. I recommend a policy I call Parent Performance Contracting, but I'd be happy with a mandatory (for all government-operated schools) policy of credit by exam at any age and at any time of year. Nothing better indicates that the US K-PhD education industry is primarily an employment program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel than the measurement of education in units of time. "A year of Algebra" or "three credit-hours of 20th Century US Diplomatic History" make as much sense as "a pound of friendship" or "a square meter of curiosity".
 
Kthulhut Fhtagn said:
AlBell said:
Because Stalin etal, Mao etal, pol pot, and N.Korea all used or are using similar economic and political philosophies.
Click to expand...

If Keynes were alive he'd be facepalming.
Click to expand...

That's okay. I just facepalmed so hard my hand stings.


Wow.

I assume you will present all the policies and philosophies that Obama actually shares with Mao, pol pot, Stalin and N.Korea.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
No. I'm saying that State education policies will have a disparate impact. There's no way around it. To minimize damage, policymakers will have to collect information on impacts and tailor programs according to the information.

What "race-neutral" policy would minimize harm? Dunno. I recommend a policy I call Parent Performance Contracting, but I'd be happy with a mandatory (for all government-operated schools) policy of credit by exam at any age and at any time of year. Nothing better indicates that the US K-PhD education industry is primarily an employment program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel than the measurement of education in units of time. "A year of Algebra" or "three credit-hours of 20th Century US Diplomatic History" make as much sense as "a pound of friendship" or "a square meter of curiosity".
Click to expand...

Sounds like an interesting proposal for education reform. What does it have to do with Obama and affirmative action?
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
1
10. Humans are animals. Regional varieties diverge into subspecies. Subspecies diverge into separate species. Species diverge into separate genera. It's a matter of degree. Do you contend that there's no relation between, say, melanin content of the skin and the (number of generations at latitude)x(|90-latitude|)? That people who evolved close to the equator are darker than Northerners? Do you contend that there's no relation between a history of pastoral agriculture and the ability to digest lactose? Really?
Click to expand...

As a biologist, I must address this. Humans were bottlenecked just ten thousand years ago, like tigers we've not had time to genetically diverge at all. We're still almost entirely identical---the closest thing to a subspecies we have are the Inuit. Even they can interbreed with any other human on the planet.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
As a biologist, I must address this. Humans were bottlenecked just ten thousand years ago1, like tigers we've not had time to genetically diverge at all.2 We're still almost entirely identical---the closest thing to a subspecies we have are the Inuit. Even they can interbreed with any other human on the planet.3
Click to expand...
1. I thought it was 70,000 years ago (Tambora). What's the source of this 10,000 figure?
2. Anatomists can determine the race of a murder victim from dentition. As I wrote earlier, the frequency of lactose intolerance is a function (inverse) of the length of pastoral agriculture. Then there's Rh factor, etc.
3. Fecundity of crosses is one measure. Anyway, it's not important to my thesis that the source of difference be biological. Cultural differences, by historical accident, will relate to race, since newcomers usually start at the bottom rung of the economic ladder.
 
Education Policy, Affirmative Action, and Disparate Impact

Travis said:
Sounds like an interesting proposal for education reform. What does it have to do with Obama and affirmative action?
Click to expand...
Thanks. What does it have to do with Obama? Not much. With affirmative action? It reduces taxpayer exposure to suits based on "disparate impact". You asked what I advocate. I answered.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
1.We agree. You might have deduced this from my earlier comment about Malthus and the Cell Biology PhD.
Click to expand...

Then you should stop dishonestly presenting this as evidence of Obama's lack of intelligence.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
2. How could I? I don't expect that I've ever heard you speak.
Click to expand...

You miss the point; I also often "um" and "uh" my way through conversations. I do so because I often need to gather my thoughts when speaking. The fact that you consider this a sign or symptom of lack of intelligence is extremely insulting.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
3. I said as much in my earlier comment. "To be honest" is a polysyllabic version of "uh", as I wrote.
Click to expand...

Indeed you did, so why attempt to qualify it further?

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
4. Not at all. I accept that the intention (of some) of the proponents of affirmative action is to remediate past discrimination and to demonstrate that mesaured performance (e.g., SAT scores) understates potential. The effect is to admit to selective schools students who are not as well prepared as the average white or Asian student.
Click to expand...

Choosing to qualify your statement with "of some" undermines any point you thought you were making.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
5. One-on-one, I'd assess the individual individually. On average, the effect of preferential admissions is a mismatch between institutions and students that harms students who cannot keep up.
Click to expand...

Even if true; this statement has nothing to do with your claims regarding Barack Obama. Supporting a claim you've made with regards to an individual based on a broader group he allegedly belongs to is fallacious -- it's guilt by association or, in this case, stupidity by association. Hell, it's stupidity by alleged association.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
6. Operationally, a racist is any caucasian who disagrees with a socialist.
Click to expand...

Utilizing such strawmrn marginalizes the effects of actual racism, demeans its victims, and masks actual racists from criticism. Things a racist would be interested in doing.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
7. So? That does not diminish my point: Affirmative action (preferential admission) explains Barak Obama's acceptance at selective schools at least as well as his supposed intellect does.
Click to expand...

Your supposed explanation is begging the question, it's only supported by the assertion ergo your claim relies upon its premise. You treat allegation as evidence enough for condemnation.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
8. There's a telling generalization.
Click to expand...

Pointing to the specific behaviors on an individual is by definition not a generalization.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
9. Again, a racist is a caucasian who disagrees with a socialist.
Click to expand...

Repeatedly asserting that a statement is true is not evidence of that statement being true. This, along with your earlier mentions, are simply a way for you to avoid having to answer for your bad behavior. This is something I'm simply not going to allow you to do.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
10. Humans are animals. Regional varieties diverge into subspecies. Subspecies diverge into separate species. Species diverge into separate genera. It's a matter of degree. Do you contend that there's no relation between, say, melanin content of the skin and the (number of generations at latitude)x(|90-latitude|)? That people who evolved close to the equator are darker than Northerners? Do you contend that there's no relation between a history of pastoral agriculture and the ability to digest lactose? Really?
Click to expand...

Completely and wholly irrelevant; we're not discussing the ability to digest lactose anymore than we are discussing melanin content or the fact that humans are animals. The fact remains that in a discussion on human rights and equality between the races/genders you made a comparison that hinted you may regard what rights these groups ought to have is based upon biology.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you may actually have just chosen a poor comparison but your behavior in this thread vis-a-vis race makes me question why I should be so charitable in my interpretation. Your continued reference to biology when the discussion is on rights continues to be troubling. If you refuse to address any of these points further I'm simply going to assume you're a vehement racist.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
11. The critical words here are "equality" and "rights". It's hard to imagine a policy that won't have some disparate impact.
Click to expand...

Obviously, but that's by design. It's quite obvious that if you grant a legal right to a minority that they did not previously have it will have a disparate impact on any number of populations. Ending slavery had a disparate impact on Southern plantation owners. Permitting gay marriage will have a disparate impact on Christian conservatives. Any eroding of the privileges enjoyed by white, Evangelic, cisgendered, heterosexual males is going to have a disparate impact. All you're really telling me here is that society shouldn't be bothered with affording rights to minorities if they inconvenience you personally.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
12. Progress. Face that fact and we have to accept disparate impact. To reduce harm means, sometimes, that we have to accept real differences (whether explained by biology or culture).
Click to expand...

Again, as explained by your behavior here we can assume that this means whatever inconveniences you personally.
 
Augustine said:
You may want to go back and read the criticism again. There was nothing in there about being successful or not being Republican. If you can't respond to the actual criticism, it might be because it's valid. Might want to think about that rather than hunkering down in the bunker.
Click to expand...

The actual criticism written out isn't valid. The real reason is what I just posted. If it was Bush that did this, then the Right (including you) would be bragging and Fox News would still be running the story.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
1. I thought it was 70,000 years ago (Tambora). What's the source of this 10,000 figure?
Click to expand...
Sorry. Toba erupted about 75,000 years ago. Other bottlenecks: supposedly all human mitochondria have a common ancestor about 200,000 years ago, if genetic clocks are accurate. All Y chromosomes have a common ancestor about 140,000 years ago, on similar assumptions I suppose. What's the 10,000 year bottleneck? By then, humans had occupied the Americas.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Sorry. Toba erupted about 75,000 years ago. Other bottlenecks: supposedly all human mitochondria have a common ancestor about 200,000 years ago, if genetic clocks are accurate. All Y chromosomes have a common ancestor about 140,000 years ago, on similar assumptions I suppose. What's the 10,000 year bottleneck? By then, humans had occupied the Americas.
Click to expand...

My mistake. I got mixed up with what i was told as a YEC.
 
thaiboxerken said:
The actual criticism written out isn't valid. The real reason is what I just posted. If it was Bush that did this, then the Right (including you) would be bragging and Fox News would still be running the story.
Click to expand...

If the criticism wasn't valid, then it should be easy to address. Instead all I hear is unfounded personal speculation and ill-advised attempts at chicken hawk slurs (which only shows how feeble attempts to address the actual criticism are). Do continue to hunker down in the bunker; tell yourself that any criticism is just bitter wingnuts. ;)
 
Kthulhut Fhtagn said:
Even if true; this statement has nothing to do with your claims regarding Barack Obama. Supporting a claim you've made with regards to an individual based on a broader group he allegedly belongs to is fallacious -- it's guilt by association or, in this case, stupidity by association. Hell, it's stupidity by alleged association.1
Operationally, a racist is any caucasian who disagrees with a socialist.
Click to expand...
Utilizing such strawmrn marginalizes the effects of actual racism, demeans its victims, and masks actual racists from criticism. Things a racist would be interested in doing.2
Affirmative action (preferential admission) explains Barak Obama's acceptance at selective schools at least as well as his supposed intellect does.
Click to expand...
Your supposed explanation is begging the question, it's only supported by the assertion ergo your claim relies upon its premise. You treat allegation as evidence enough for condemnation.3
In addition to the above, your obvious condescension towards those who have benefited from such programs is telling.
Click to expand...
There's a telling generalization.
Click to expand...
Pointing to the specific behaviors on an individual is by definition not a generalization.4
Repeatedly asserting that a statement is true is not evidence of that statement being true. This, along with your earlier mentions, are simply a way for you to avoid having to answer for your bad behavior. This is something I'm simply not going to allow you to do.5

Completely and wholly irrelevant; we're not discussing the ability to digest lactose anymore than we are discussing melanin content or the fact that humans are animals. The fact remains that in a discussion on human rights and equality between the races/genders you made a comparison that hinted you may regard what rights these groups ought to have is based upon biology.6
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you may actually have just chosen a poor comparison but your behavior in this thread vis-a-vis race makes me question why I should be so charitable in my interpretation. Your continued reference to biology when the discussion is on rights continues to be troubling.7 If you refuse to address any of these points further I'm simply going to assume you're a vehement racist.8...
Obviously, but that's by design. It's quite obvious that if you grant a legal right to a minority that they did not previously have it will have a disparate impact on any number of populations. Ending slavery had a disparate impact on Southern plantation owners. Permitting gay marriage will have a disparate impact on Christian conservatives. Any eroding of the privileges enjoyed by white, Evangelic, cisgendered, heterosexual males is going to have a disparate impact. All you're really telling me here is that society shouldn't be bothered with affording rights to minorities if they inconvenience you personally.9

Again, as explained by your behavior here we can assume that this means whatever inconveniences you personally.10
Click to expand...
1. I could look it up, but I doubt that Barak Obama was a National Merit finalist. His transcripts are sealed. The only "evidence" of Barak Obama's intellect are attendance at selective schools, his speech, and the policies his administration has pursued. If we leave the policies aside, that leaves school and speech. Affirmative action is a fact. It explains Obama's attendance at selective schools as well as does intellect. His speech is, uh, no evidence, uh, of intellect. I agree it does not have to imply inferior intellect, either.
2. It's hardly a strawman. It's an observation, that fans of the interventionist State toss "racist" around pretty loosely.
3. Affirmative action places into selective schools students who would not otherwise qualify for admission. It applies to more black students than white students. It's hardly certain that Barak Obama gained admission to Columbia and Harvard through affirmative action, but hardly impossible, either. It's an explanation that works as well as "intellect".
4. "Those" is a plural.
5. It would be easier to keep this civil if neither of us made the other the subject of the discussion. As to "not allow": dunno how you can stop it.
6. It's an analogy. "Equal" treatment can have unequal results. Obviously.
7. Note the passive voice.
8. Assume away. I'll stick with my operational definition: a racist is any caucasian who disagrees with a socialist.
9. Dunno 'bout "should". "Equal" application of the law will have unequal (disparate) results. Consider incarceration rates, school graduation rates, etc. Yes or no?
10. Assume away. It's easier than dealing with the explicit argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom