> [Platt] > My humble observations indicate the opposite. In the business world and in > college acceptances, blacks step to the head of the line because of the > color of their skin. > > [Arlo] > Indicating?... "that the success of blacks is not due to their competence > but the color of their skin"?... most blacks? many blacks?
Precisely the problem. Under affirmative action programs blacks can't tell whether it was their competence or their color that got them accepted. > The "stepping to the head of the line" is far outnumbered by incidents like > I related, being denied opportunity because of the color of their skin. Evidence? > [Platt] > >From an article in "Psychology Today:" "That fear, known as xenophobia, > >seems > almost hardwired in the human psyche." I call that "human nature." > > [Arlo] > Of course, any report that confirms your worldview is immediately > unassailable dogma, and any that contradicts it is "leftist lies". This > report hardly represents a consensus. Evidence? None. > Personally I know too many people who > are not victims of the fear and hatred of rehashed xenophobia. And like I > said, I don't think these people are "exceptional", somehow born without > the "genetic" need to "fear people of different colors". Rather, I'd argue > that this type of fear is a socialized phenomenon. Babies, after all, > respond with no fear to people with differing skin pigmentation. It is only > after socializing with a racial-hierarchical and categorizational system to > children learn to "fear" people with different colors, a fear that is > manipulated by politicians and party morons who seek to place the blame for > all the world's ills on the perennial "other". Evidence? None. Babies can't verbalize at the beginning, either, but are hard-wired to speak. > [Platt] > Maybe you should ask yourself why I can have perfectly normal conversations > with others here without vitriol. > > [Arlo] > I am pretty much the only person who responds at length to your moronic > rehashing of talk-radio nonsense. That Ant and Marsha deal with you > kindlier than I do is their own business. Maybe they are better people. > Maybe they have more tolerance at ignoring your insipid rhetoric. With Ham, > of course, you guys stroke each other's masturbatory fascination with the > "individual", so I understand how treat each other with gentleman gloves. At last, have you no shame? Now you attack Ham for his beliefs, too. You are becoming the Joe McCarthy of moq_discuss. > Whatever the case may be, my days of turning a blind eye and shrugging off > your ridiculous distortions and deceptive rhetoric are passed. However, I > do think I respond rather kindly when the dialogue proceeds without the > usual rhetorical atrocities... like this one. > > [Platt] > One need only look at leftist-leaning blogs to see that many liberals speak > in the voice of outrage, agressiveness and moral certainty. If the shoe > fits . . . > > [Arlo] > Oh, yes, those damnable, evil "leftists". Why can't they speak in honest, > civil, non-aggressive ways like noble, pure "conservatives"? Why, one need > only take a look at right-leaning blogs to see that many conservatives are > soft, cuddly teddy-bears, who give lollipops to children, and speak only > the truest and gentlest of words. No... its those horrible "leftists". Only > they speak with outrage. > > Despicable. Thanks. Your sarcasm and outrage prove my point. > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
