All-Black School -[Toronto, Canada]- Options

[Raijinili]

You can't just ignore data you don't agree with.

I'm not ignoring it. However, you just basically ignored my analogies and explanations for the discrepancies, so I can't really say the same for you.

It absolutely means that. If I had to hire a mathematician, I would hire an asian person over someone of another race for sure. I mean, I would do it if it weren't illegal.

You're an idiot.

Topic over.

[Irysa]

Even though raised apart, many pairs of twins had the same weight, liked the same kinds of clothes, answered interview questions the same way, and had chosen the same profession. It's likely that ability to learn in school has a heavy genetic factor, and that is why you see performance discrepancy

Most adopted twins aren't adopted by poor people

Most adoptions aren't by poor people

A more significant bias doesn't explain a lack of progress on achieving equality with whites.

Of course it does. Poor kids usually grow up to be poor. It doesn't help that there are people out there set on keeping them poor.

NAACP are a bunch of jerks, trying always to place the blame on everyone else for the problems of black people. If their focus was to help black people and families overcome their problems, I could support it.

Doesn't NAACP have scholarships? If not, there are many other organizations which give scholarships to black people

Certain people in the black community are trying to change the black culture for the better (Bill Cosby) while others (Ludacris) are doing their best to slide it further into the gutter.

You realise most of those people who are "trying to slide black culture into the gutter", were poor black people, right?

You mean you can't choose your religion?

You missed the point. I may as well say I can choose to believe you don't exist.

And atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief.

This post has been edited by Irysa: Feb 18 2008, 12:25 AM

[Ebe]

Atheism has to be a belief because it states a specific belief in the nonexistence in the divine.

To simply have a lack of belief would be to be agnostic.

Believing that there is nothing outside of the profane requires faith, faith is a form of belief. You can't prove that God does not exist, in the same way that you can't prove that there isn't a magical invisible bunny on your head, you can say that you do not personally know of their existence, but to specify that your opinion is that they in fact do not exist is a statement made without evidence, and is therefore a belief.

[Raijinili]

Atheism isn't a religion. It's still a belief system, consisting of one belief.

However, you don't need faith to have a belief, especially if you don't understand it. For example, do you have it on faith that 1+1=1+1?

[Ebe]

While his views were a little screwy IMHO, Balzac addressed the belief in numbers in his book Seraphita.

If we define the numbers as specific units, then this could be true. However we must believe that two objects can be exactly similar, otherwise the addition of two objects will not equal the addition of another two objects, even if this difference is only in terms of a perfect quark (should such a thing exist.) If we are to say that these are not real, existing objects but theoretical units, then of course it requires faith to believe that these imagined concepts are equivocal to one another, we cannot test them to confirm even empirical evidence, which is non-the-less vulnerable to misinterpretation by the senses as we humans possess them. As a result, yes, it requires faith to say that 1+1=1+1.

[Raijinili]

Empirical evidence requires more faith than theoretical values do.

You know why I believe that 1+1=1+1? Because it's part of the definition of the equal sign. I say that the of your skin is now called "skin-color". I ask you what color is your skin. How much faith does it take for you to tell me "skin-colored"?

On the other hand, if I ask you for the color of my skin, then it's clearly not going to be "skin-color" without a leap of faith.

The point is, not everything requires faith.

[Ebe]

But even that assumes color would be inherent to your skin as opposed to an optical illusion created by your brain in response to light rebounding off of pigments contained within your skin. I mean, without light, everything is just darkness right? A lack of color. Hence your skin could be without color, but have the ability to deflect light, and this light sparks a mental reaction that is perceived as color.

To believe that the skin itself has color, even when in total darkness, is once again a matter of faith.

The fact that it is part of the definition of an equal sign is using somewhat skewed logic as you are assuming that something such as the equal sign can possibly exist. It's like saying that you know Omnipotence is not only possible but existent because Islamic Cosmology clearly states the existence of Falak the Omnipotent serpent. Yet this only works if you already grant that Falak is indeed real.

This post has been edited by Ebe: Feb 18 2008, 05:27 AM

[Raijinili]

But even that assumes color would be inherent to your skin

No, wiseguy, it doesn't. I said that "skin-color" is the color of your skin, not the color you perceive it to be.

The fact that it is part of the definition of an equal sign is using somewhat skewed logic as you are assuming that something such as the equal sign can possibly exist. It's like saying that you know Omnipotence is not only possible but existent because Islamic Cosmology clearly states the existence of Falak the Omnipotent serpent. Yet this only works if you already grant that Falak is indeed real.

The existence of the equal sign is of no matter. The fact that we even have the equal sign in the middle of the equation only says, "Given this definition of the equal sign, is the statement true?" If the equal sign is impossible, that only makes the statement true.

[Ebe]

All I'm saying is that these only work if we accept their premise.

For skin to have skin color, color must exist. If color does not exist, there is no "skin color."

For us to accept that the equal sign is valid, we must accept math. Current paradoxes within the math field show that, if nothing else, algebra requires some fine-tuning. Since math is not absolute, it is possible that the equal sign is invalid, and thus that the entire statement is false.

Now, for the record, I have a reasonable amount of faith that 1+1=1+1, my only point is that, unless one is omniscient, it is impossible to have a belief in anything outside of faith in that thing, as there will otherwise be unknown variables that make all statements impossible to confirm without doubt.

But yes, if we take on faith that the definition of an equal sign is true, then the statement is true.

This post has been edited by Ebe: Feb 18 2008, 06:13 AM

[jcdietz03]

You realise most of those people who are "trying to slide black culture into the gutter", were poor black people, right?

I didn't realize that, but it doesn't matter. They are enouraging bad behavior - wrong no matter who you are. It's not like some gray area or anything - this behavior they're advocating is clearly bad.

By using words like "bitches & hos" they are enouraging sex at a young age.

[Raij|Away]

That's retarded, first of all. It's hard to even respond to that, because anyone who can say that using words like "bitches and hos" makes people have sex at young ages is so unreasonable that it would be hard for one to convince them of anything.

Second of all, are you trying to say that they're doing these bad things because they're black? You probably know nothing of disco and rock and roll, which were popular among white people and which encouraged sex and drugs. (Ever hear of "Sex, drugs, and rock & roll"?)

So not only are you retarded, you're also ignorant.

[Ebe]

And while we're on the subject, while black people are more likely to deal drugs, white people are more likely to buy/use drugs. Does that mean that whites are inherently junkies? Born with a junkie gene maybe? Oh wait, more black people still get busted for drug crimes, and wait, former cops have admitted training recruits to "Pull over blacks and students for drug searches."

Which of course, at least as far as the US and UK are concerned, will give them an unreasonably long jail sentence for having something less damaging then nutmeg.

[Rhiannon]

HEY LET'S FLAME A BIT LESS RAI

By using words like "bitches & hos" they are enouraging sex at a young age.

I wasn't encouraged to have sex at a young age by listening to Mindless Self Indulgence songs (go look up the lyrics to a few songs, and I'm sure you'll understand that they're far worse than people like Ludacris) when I was like ten years old.

Oh wait, the lead singer isn't black so it's okay. GUESS MY POINT IS MOOT NOW LOL

[Ebe]

Why would black music be encouraging this? Rich WASPs listen to hip hop music too.

On the other hand, studies have shown a link between poverty and sex. More money = less love making.

[jcdietz03]

By singing about the bitches & hos, they are glorifying the lifestyle. Ex.: "I got my bitch's and hos" - The song lyrics indicate that this means that having a harem of women is a good thing. In actuality, it is not a good thing. Not for the men or for the women.

For videogame violence, the violence depicted is clearly a fantasy. No way would kids mercilessly kill other kids or adults (as they do in videogames). Most kids do not have access to weapons. With the song, it's not clear that it is a fantasy.

If the problem is that black people are poor, then why not just give black people money? That will solve the problem [/sarcasm] Seriously, what can be done to correct the disparity? I don't think anything. People who are black have suggested the solution above (seriously) and it was rejected by all who considered it. A good solution would be to aggressively prosecute racial discrimination. The problem with that is that racial discrimination is very hard to prove.

They try very hard in school to teach equality, especially equality of race. But everything people see outside of school suggests otherwise. People don't learn about race relations in school. They learn by interacting with members of that race. Depending on their experiences, they form a negative or positive opinion of people of each race. Many people form similar opinions about members of the various races, called stereotypes. Those stereotypes evolved for a reason: because enough people had the experiences described in the stereotype.
Ex: Black people are good sprinters.
Ex: Black people are good basketball players.
Stereotypes describe people of a given race very well generally. That is why they are so hard to defeat.

It's only natural for people to divide things into categories. I don't know exactly what that's called, but categorization is part of human nature. It helps us (simply) understand things that are complicated, and it helps us remember more. By teaching "race equality" you are running counter to human nature. Race relations got the way the are now for a reason. I don't think teaching race equality is a bad thing, but King's dream can never be realized for the simple reason that we are all humans, and we want to divide people into categories, as opposed to viewing all people as "raceless" as King imagines.