A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Solutions
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bill Cosby - NAACP leaders stunned by remarks of prominent comedian



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #811  
Old June 13th 04, 02:26 PM
Fletch F. Fletch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Fletch F. Fletch wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Fletch F. Fletch wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Okay, I presume that means 'yes' to the large scale question.
How do you know it is actual human nature?
---------------------
Do you want to be stolen from, or do you think people should be
equal? Steve

I don't think that 'should be' enters into it. People are not
equal.
----------------------
Right, and becaause they are not, they need protection of the
State to cause them to be before the law and moral fairness.


Whatever the metric, some are better than others. Whether this
inequality is fair or unfair is arbitrary, but it is reality
nonetheless.
-------------------------
Actually, since these "some" don't constitute any majority, there
is no supposed "authority" to declare some minority to be
"better" than anyone else. The Majority can indeed resolve to
make the compensation of everyone equal per labor hour, and to
believe in the requirement of fairness in the economic life of
the nation. That any one group or any other bunch of people might
think that some minority of people are more fulfilled in their
promise than another, is totally and entirely irrelevant to that,
however it is understood. We all appreciate geniuses as well, but
we don't elect them dictator or make them the slave-master over
everyone else.


Your belief that every person is entitled to his fair share is as
valid as any other belief, but I don't think it comports well
with the competitive nature of our species, at least not on a
large scale. Fletch
-------------------------------------------
It is the ONLY reasonable belief for a majority of people to have
and to demand politically, because it is most in each individual
person's interest, as opposed to the option of each person
deciding to vote to give their life's labor and all power away to
one king, slave-master, dictator, or other minority!
Steve

I must say that I agree with none of your conclusions.
-------------------------
Meaning you can't fault them logically anymore.


Not at all. Meaning that they don't seem logical to me,

----------------
"Seem" doesn't count, you have to specify why and allow me to
make it self-destruct before your eyes, if I can, and I CAN!


and you really seem to have your heels dug in on them.

----------------
Only because they defend themselves perfectly for me.


To be honest, on this issue, you seem
like an outlier, almost to the point of being a loon.

---------------
Such an opinion without logic is merely prating bull****
to distract people from the fact that you're making no sense
and cannot actually bring any cricism to bear of my concepts.

Make logical sense about an issue, or admit defeat.


Of course, in some
posts, you seem very reasonable. But, I see no point in arguing
this issue further with you. I am getting nothing from it.

-----------------
You certainly won't win or lose without playing your hand.

You have managed never to make even one single argument
of the form: "I think this is true and why, and I think
your idea here is wrong and why.", and then deal with the
result. You don't because you sense quite correctly what
WILL HAPPEN! I will wipe the ****ing floor with you.

You're a ****ing coward, and you know you'll LOSE BIG TIME,
so you're just trying to distract people from that fact.
Steve


I have read your posts for a while now and the only thing you have convinced
me of is that you are very angry. You tend to rant, and seem to sway no
one. If you have some strong logical arguments, go ahead and make them if
you wish. I will not blow them off. I will read them, think about them,
and respond. That is the best I can do with you, because the whole
'coward', 'wipe the ****ing floor' thing is getting increasingly boring.
You seem to be under the impression that you are scaring me. Disabuse
yourself of that.

Slainte,
Fletch



  #812  
Old June 13th 04, 02:28 PM
Bob LeChevalier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
wrote:
Satellite fotos are
not reliable. I was involved in a Dakota farmland study where the
(complete) data from satellite fotos and a few aerial fotos we had
conflicted as to where cropland and pasture land were located.


Then a good researcher will attempt to resolve the contradiction.


We did. The sat fotos were obsolete. Sat foto databases
only get updated frequently in areas that are *important*.
Mozt of Africa *izn't*. The CIA may be watching a few areas
closely (e.g., uranium mines in Niger?), the rest of it is moztly
ignored. And most CIA data is classified, you couldn't get their
sat fotos if you wanted...


The CIA isn't the only source of satellite photos. Unclassified
sources abound these days. The international agencies that support
this sort of data gathering, like the IMF and World Bank, have at
least as good access to unclassified photos as anyone.

Any "census" (and infant mortality data) is pure guezzwork.


Incidentally, I'd be interested in seeing a population model that
could produce an average lifespan of 16 years and a rapidly growing
population.


Chicago, Detroit, Philly, East St Louis would probably qualify.


Nope.

One thing you can see from African sat fotos at night, is that it is
totally black over large areas where you know there a lot of (primitive)
people...


So? Do you think that they conduct census surveys at night?


The point is, there is damn little electricity in mozt of Africa.
And census-taking is way way down on the list of priorities...


Not for the international agencies that base their decisions about
African policy on census data.

The US conducted a census in 1790. A nighttime satellite photo of
that time period would probably have been entirely dark.


Native Americans of the time (primitives akin to today'z
Africanz) did no census taking, and little other record-keeping for
that matter.


The US managed to take a census, regardless of what the Native
Americans did.

If the resources are coming from, say, the UN, who is paying for
50,000 of your people to go and gather census data, and is helping in
the management of the census-taking, then you are not in fact wasting
uncommitted resources - they've been committed precisely to pay for a
census.


Who else would entrust a bunch of corrupt IQ-65 retardz to do something
precise like enumeration? The UN got taken...


Actually, simple counting and recording of data is probably something
that mentally retarded people can do quite successfully, especially
when provided with adequate instructions and procedures.

Probably every country has some sort of statistical bureau.
Several of them have some of the data online.


For a few relatively civilized areas of high population, perhapz.


No. For their entire country.

Bob, remember the big flap over the 2000 USA census where one faction
wanted to substitute some statistical sampling technique for the
inner cities, rather than attempting to count IQ-75_Nozez, because they
*knew* it was impossible to get good data...?


No. They knew that there were systematic errors in the data, and they
knew how to correct for those errors.

Nearly all of Africa is in even worze shape than that.


I'm sure. So what? A census that uses a systematic sampling
technique may actually give more accurate results than one that does
not. And when it comes to vital statistics, a relatively large error
would have little effect on the demographic analysis of the population
as a whole.

Most of these countries are Fkg starving to death

Gabon per capita food intake 2560 calories, 109% of minimum. Nigeria
2883 calories, 120% of minimum.

Cannibalz eat well, but it...uh...affectz the cenzus...


Evidence of cannibalism?


Evidence of how much incest is occurring in your neighborhood?
Nobody'z talking (or drum-banging).


A lack of evidence means that nothing can be concluded.

And that caloric intake data
you cited, what a laff. Three significant figures from some primitive
spear-chucking AfroDAFN villages? You gotta apply the Smell_Test
to your data, not just believe some website...


Racists are the ones that exude the foul odor. International agencies
that are trying to determine which countries need food aid more than
others have motivation to gather useful data.

The bottom line is that you are quick to assert the importance of
statistical data that supports your racist conclusions, but data which
does not, or even which is agnostic, "fails the smell test" to you.

lojbab
--
lojbab

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
http://www.lojban.org
  #813  
Old June 13th 04, 02:30 PM
Fletch F. Fletch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote:
Not at all. Meaning that they don't seem logical to me,

----------------
"Seem" doesn't count, you have to specify why and allow me to
make it self-destruct before your eyes, if I can, and I CAN!


It's real simple, Steve, and it applies to any who argue from any
ideological basis. Your ideology requires certain assumptions, as do
all ideologies. Fletch rejects those assumptions, possibly without
even definitely knowing what they are. Thus, though your logic may be
flawless based on those assumptions, your results are meaningless to
him.

You have managed never to make even one single argument
of the form: "I think this is true and why, and I think
your idea here is wrong and why.", and then deal with the
result. You don't because you sense quite correctly what
WILL HAPPEN! I will wipe the ****ing floor with you.

You're a ****ing coward, and you know you'll LOSE BIG TIME,


One cannot win an argument with an ideologist, unless on the off
chance the ideologist manages to be inconsistent. You haven't been
inconsistent.

But an ideologist cannot win an argument with someone who rejects the
assumptions necessary for the ideology to apply.

lojbab


Steve does not believe in assumptions. This much I have gleaned from his
hate.

"One seldom meets a true believer worth knowing."

Slainte,
Fletch


  #814  
Old June 13th 04, 02:31 PM
Fletch F. Fletch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

As I said, one can always be an asshole who will finally need killing
because his assertions are based on his sickness and not upon reason.


See the irony here?

Slainte,
Fletch



  #815  
Old June 13th 04, 02:41 PM
Holger Dansk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 09:04:31 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:

Holger Dansk wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 22:40:45 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:

You post to Usenet in the manner of a troll, to several unrelated
newsgroups.

You knock down people who are different from you.


And, I'm supposed to obtain glory by doing that?


You must think that you get something out of it, or you wouldn't
continue to do so.


You must be talking about my saying that some individuals do not have a
good value system.

To have a good value system is not knocking down people who don't.

I'm a member of Phi Delta Theta fraternity. During rush week once one
of the Freshmen who came to one of our rush parties (The ones where we
decide who we want to add to our fraternity.) and he put a cigarette out
by throwing it on the floor of the fraternity house den and stomping it
with his foot. After he did that, it was out of the question for him to
become a member of our fraternity. It told us that his value system was
not any good.

It did not make any of us feel any glory, but we felt sorry for him as
we would anyone who was so depraved.

Holger


http://www.mindspring.com/~holger1/holger1.htm
  #816  
Old June 13th 04, 03:33 PM
Bob LeChevalier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Holger Dansk wrote:
To have a good value system is not knocking down people who don't.

I'm a member of Phi Delta Theta fraternity. During rush week once one
of the Freshmen who came to one of our rush parties (The ones where we
decide who we want to add to our fraternity.) and he put a cigarette out
by throwing it on the floor of the fraternity house den and stomping it
with his foot. After he did that, it was out of the question for him to
become a member of our fraternity. It told us that his value system was
not any good.

It did not make any of us feel any glory, but we felt sorry for him as
we would anyone who was so depraved.


Your value system puts people down because of their skin color and
other physical features. Your value system considers differences in
pronunciation of words to be a moral failing.

You do not have a good value system.

If you think that isn't a putdown, well I assure you that it is.

lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
http://www.lojban.org
  #817  
Old June 13th 04, 04:42 PM
Holger Dansk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 10:33:01 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:

Holger Dansk wrote:
To have a good value system is not knocking down people who don't.

I'm a member of Phi Delta Theta fraternity. During rush week once one
of the Freshmen who came to one of our rush parties (The ones where we
decide who we want to add to our fraternity.) and he put a cigarette out
by throwing it on the floor of the fraternity house den and stomping it
with his foot. After he did that, it was out of the question for him to
become a member of our fraternity. It told us that his value system was
not any good.

It did not make any of us feel any glory, but we felt sorry for him as
we would anyone who was so depraved.


Your value system puts people down because of their skin color and
other physical features.


Wrong. The rushee mentioned above was white.

Your value system considers differences in
pronunciation of words to be a moral failing.


It's not a moral failing, but to mispronounce words damages a person's
ability to get a good job that's not just a laboring job.

You do not have a good value system.

If you think that isn't a putdown, well I assure you that it is.


Tell us what you consider to be a good value system. I think it would
be very interesting.

Holger

http://www.mindspring.com/~holger1/holger1.htm
  #818  
Old June 13th 04, 04:54 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Bob LeChevalier wrote:

Holger Dansk wrote:

It did not make any of us feel any glory, but we felt sorry for him as
we would anyone who was so depraved.


Your value system puts people down because of their skin color and
other physical features. Your value system considers differences in
pronunciation of words to be a moral failing.

You do not have a good value system.


Hey Bob, do go-with-the-statz Insurance_Companies have
a good value system? Or are they morally depraved?
  #819  
Old June 13th 04, 08:23 PM
Bob LeChevalier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Holger Dansk wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 10:33:01 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:
Holger Dansk wrote:
To have a good value system is not knocking down people who don't.

I'm a member of Phi Delta Theta fraternity. During rush week once one
of the Freshmen who came to one of our rush parties (The ones where we
decide who we want to add to our fraternity.) and he put a cigarette out
by throwing it on the floor of the fraternity house den and stomping it
with his foot. After he did that, it was out of the question for him to
become a member of our fraternity. It told us that his value system was
not any good.

It did not make any of us feel any glory, but we felt sorry for him as
we would anyone who was so depraved.


Your value system puts people down because of their skin color and
other physical features.


Wrong. The rushee mentioned above was white.


The above is irrelevant. I'm speaking of your more common posts.

Your value system considers differences in
pronunciation of words to be a moral failing.


It's not a moral failing, but to mispronounce words damages a person's
ability to get a good job that's not just a laboring job.


You put them down for it. That indicates your value system.

You do not have a good value system.

If you think that isn't a putdown, well I assure you that it is.


Tell us what you consider to be a good value system. I think it would
be very interesting.


I don't have a definition of a good value system, and I'm not sure
there is such a thing. I know that any racist value is a bad value.

lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
http://www.lojban.org
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A first 'Parker Jensen' bill advances wexwimpy Foster Parents 0 February 8th 04 07:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.