Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Politics
 President Trump
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author  Topic Next Topic
Page: of 25

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25887 Posts

Posted - 03/04/2017 :  21:24:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Representative Adam Schiff:
No matter how much we hope and pray that this President will grow into one who respects and understands the Constitution, separation of powers, role of a free press, responsibilities as the leader of the free world, or demonstrates even the most basic regard for the truth, we must now accept that President Trump will never become that man.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13368 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2017 :  10:47:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Representative Adam Schiff:
No matter how much we hope and pray that this President will grow into one who respects and understands the Constitution, separation of powers, role of a free press, responsibilities as the leader of the free world, or demonstrates even the most basic regard for the truth, we must now accept that President Trump will never become that man.

Right. And I suspect most people on the Hill recognize Trump for what he is. But it's going to take Republicans to press the issue but they seem a bit timid, don't they? I honestly thought that this wiretapping accusation was several steps too far and even they couldn't keep quiet about Trumps obvious mental instability any longer. Now I don't know.


Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25887 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2017 :  11:48:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
And the pro-Trump rallies held yesterday across the nation gathered hundreds of supporters.

Well, the most I read about was 1,000 people in Nashville. Compare that to the 15,000 who protested the inauguration there.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dredge
New Member

Australia
20 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2017 :  13:39:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dredge a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Oh by the way, Dredge (wanna-be Elliot Marston): don't forget Martin Bryant, Bunting, Wagner, Vlassakis and Haydon, Robert Paul Long, Daniel Holdom, Brendan Sokaluk, Donato Corbo, Geoff Hunt, Ian Francis Jamieson, Damien Little, Wayne and Peter Williams, and Fernando Manrique. Not one aborigine has committed a multiple murder in Australia in the last 20+ years.

Were I to use perverted racist logic, I would wonder if white men will ever be able to conform to the standards of civilized society. I would be forced to conclude that the root of white male dysfunction lies in their dysfunctional white male DNA, wouldn't you agree?

Australian Aborigines are not known as serial killers, but they are a particularly violent race, esp within their own communities. Aborigines don"t have the intelligence to be serial klliers.
Go to Top of Page

Dredge
New Member

Australia
20 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2017 :  14:07:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dredge a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.


I note that Australia is a party to the ICC. If the aborigines are so bad, why hasn't the ICC even indicted anyone from Australia, yet?

I don't think the ICC deals with domestic crimes. Most Aborigines have trouble even graduating from high school; they're not likely to obtain positions of power (thank God!).

No, the idea that the win/loss ratio for a court with an extremely limited jurisdiction and history has some deep meaning for you says it all about how horrible a person you are.

It's interesring that before World War II, my views on race would have been de rigueur and not "horrible" at all. The trouble is, Hitler gave racism a bad name, such that nowadays, pointing out the reality of race differences is an area of neurosis that defies rational discussion. Being "racist" in a society hijacked by Cultural Marxism is a terrible sin ... sometimes even a crime. I've also said that egalitarians like you have only one enemy - reality.
-------------------------------------

I'm skeptical about the philosophical validity of your anti-racist morality (or any morality, for that matter). If humans are the result of mindless evolution and are just biological machines, notions of good and bad are rendered not only subjective, but ultimately meaningless. A human being with moralsáis as meaningless as a shark with morals. The lower animals survive without morals, so humans don't need them either.

In other words, what you call "morality", is nothing more than pretentious posturing (based on pride and ego) and/or a futile attempt to inject meaning into your life (all life is meaningless, according to "science").
Go to Top of Page

Dredge
New Member

Australia
20 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2017 :  14:11:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dredge a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Dave W.,

You were right about Monash uni in South Africa. My info was completely wrong! You can't believe everything people tell you, evidently.
Go to Top of Page

Dredge
New Member

Australia
20 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2017 :  14:27:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dredge a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.


Oprah Winfrey must really chafe your ass, huh? She's a two-fer, after all. And your moral superior by many miles.

Not sure what you mean by "two-fer". Oprah Winfrey (aka Miss Piggy) is a creeeeeeepy witch. I can't even stand looking at her. Negroes in the USA need to consider the fact that, if not for slavery, they would have been born in some third-world dump in Sub-Sahran Africa, and not in the richest nation in the world.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25887 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2017 :  15:56:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dredge

Australian Aborigines are not known as serial killers, but they are a particularly violent race, esp within their own communities. Aborigines don"t have the intelligence to be serial klliers.
And you, Mr. Marston, don't have the intelligence to read what I wrote. Not all multiple murderers are serial killers.

I don't think the ICC deals with domestic crimes.
Everyone convicted by the ICC to date for violence has been convicted for crimes committed within their own country.

It's interesring that before World War II, my views on race would have been de rigueur and not "horrible" at all.
That's progression for you. Before 1700 or so, Mr. Marston, you would have had a short, nasty life as a peasant somewhere, scraping by while your local nobleman took what he pleased of your money, food and women, and it would have been considered de rigueur and not horrible at all.

I'm happy for you that we don't live in such appalling times anymore, and I'm happy for women, brown people and gays that we don't live before WWII, either.

But you go right ahead and dream your little dream of living eighty years ago. Do you fondle yourself while imagining slipping on those sexy jackboots?

The trouble is, Hitler gave racism a bad name...
And why aren't you a Nazi? Hitler was under the impression that Jewish criminality was in their genes, just like you think of aborigines. I'm having a hard time finding a moral difference between you and Adolf.

...such that nowadays, pointing out the reality of race differences...
But you've done no such thing. You've made claims and refused to supply evidence to support them. Preaching and lying is all you've been doing.

I've also said that egalitarians like you have only one enemy - reality.
No, reality has a well-known liberal bias.

I'm skeptical about the philosophical validity of your anti-racist morality (or any morality, for that matter). If humans are the result of mindless evolution and are just biological machines, notions of good and bad are rendered not only subjective, but ultimately meaningless. A human being with morals is as meaningless as a shark with morals. The lower animals survive without morals, so humans don't need them either.

In other words, what you call "morality", is nothing more than pretentious posturing (based on pride and ego) and/or a futile attempt to inject meaning into your life (all life is meaningless, according to "science").
According to the Bible, it's all meaningless, too. If you need more than Ecclesiastes to prove it to yourself, all you need to do is realize that you're nothing more than a pawn in a game God is playing, and he won't tell you what the goal is. Can't have meaning when you don't know what you're doing.

On the other hand, actual human morality is complex. Far too much so for you.

You were right about Monash uni in South Africa. My info was completely wrong! You can't believe everything people tell you, evidently.
Well, now that you've figured that out, maybe some of the other crap that's stuck between your ears will loosen up.

Not sure what you mean by "two-fer".
She's black and a woman.

Oprah Winfrey (aka Miss Piggy) is a creeeeeeepy witch.
Ain't you a little old to believe in witches, sonny?

Negroes in the USA need to consider the fact that, if not for slavery, they would have been born in some third-world dump in Sub-Sahran Africa, and not in the richest nation in the world.
Hahahahaha! Said as if they're not often born in third-world dumps right here in the U.S.A. thanks to racists like you. In general, the rich in the U.S.A. have been hard at work for hundreds of years to prevent the poor from becoming anything but poorer, and they've mostly been successful.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25887 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2017 :  19:44:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
And now FBI Director Comey has asked the DoJ to release a statement denying any wiretaps of Trump or Trump's campaign.

It's like Comey has never acted without the DoJ's approval. It's like Comey has never sent a letter to anyone without the Attorney General's permission.

I wonder if he regrets his previous unauthorized letters.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

99 Posts

Posted - 03/07/2017 :  10:40:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

I do think those describe President Obama pretty well.
You think a person can teach three classes per semester in constitutional law at the University of Chicago for twelve years and yet "sub-literate" describes him "pretty well?"

Good grief. I can see it now: the coming civil war is going to be between the anti-intellectuals and the rest of us. And the sub-literate haters will not understand at all the irony that the tactics they use or the guns they shoot were created by people who actually cracked a damned book.
I will give you that Obama is literate. Trump is not sub literate either. He can read and write. But the other descriptions can describe President Obama.

Christian Hedonist doesn't even understand the Bible well enough to figure out that it's a tool to keep him submissive and pliable.
To whom? Who is keeping all the Christians in the world submissive and pliable? For what reason?
Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

99 Posts

Posted - 03/07/2017 :  10:44:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by ThorGoLucky

Either way, I'm done with you. Bye.
Ok. Typical liberal/progressive. You can call people nasty names but when I call someone the same names I am a troll. Got it.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25887 Posts

Posted - 03/07/2017 :  11:17:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The predictable pattern behind Trump’s wiretapping claim

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

99 Posts

Posted - 03/07/2017 :  11:47:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Said like someone who's never had to worry about a job. There are factory towns - today, in the U.S. - where calling in sick means the next person on the waiting list gets to have your job. They don't have the luxury of being able to quit.
How can you possibly know that I have never worried about a job? Where are these factories?

Say that about the basics. Government entities do not bake bread or milk cows. When the cost of bread or milk goes up, consumers grumble about it, but ultimately dig into their wallets and fork over the money.
So you think that the answer is to increase the minimum wage so people have to go without other things they need or get another job to buy basic items. So why not just increase the minimum wages on workers providing necessary items?

Every complaint you're making was made in the 1930s, during the debates over the first national minimum wage law. That law, and the subsequent increases in the minimum wage, have not brought the economic ruin their detractors have constantly claimed they would.
I am not against the minimum wage, I have already stated that. I am for a wage that workers and employers can agree on. Like it or not our economic system does not put a burden on businesses to provide for anyone’s family or financial well-being. I agree on spending money on programs to educate people to get a job. I am not for free college tuition but I am for free vocational education such as mechanics, electricians, carpenters, plumbers, hair stylists, welders etc. I think that is money well spent.

In some places, it needs to be that much or more. A single parent of three in our Nation's Capitol needs at least $50/hr just to pay the normal costs of living.
Ok, then why are they living in Washington DC? Do you think every job needs to pay for someone to have a living wage for a family of three?
Who says they are? I'm talking about fraud and the like. Without the rules (a free market), companies won't have to "play by the rules."
I agree. Normally when conservatives talk about free markets they are not talking about no regulations, but limited regulations. I don’t know of any politician that advocates for no government regulation.

Okay: you think that some people are "deserving" of less money than they require to live.
I in no way said that. That is your bias toward conservatives. I did say that not all jobs will pay for someone to live on.

I'm sure that idea was taught to you. It didn't pop into your head from nothing.
So that has to be bias and not my own conclusions? I have also been taught about communism. I have concluded that it is an immoral system as practiced by all communist governments. Why isn’t your belief that some people should make $50/hr no matter what the job not biased?

Or, how many studies do you need to "prove" to you that resumes with female names are routinely considered less employable than resumes given male names despite everything else on the resumes being exactly the same?

Or, how many reports do you require as "proof" that "stop-and-frisk" programs routinely stopped and frisked way more people of color than they did whites, despite whites being more likely to be carrying contraband?
Where are these studies? What are the reasons for them being less employable?

Or just look at the Republicans' gerrymandering and voter-ID efforts. They've said, out loud, in public, that minorities are more likely to vote Democrat, and so they're doing everything they can to discourage minorities from voting, or just ensuring that minority votes don't count.
Or democrats doing the same thing. It is a fact that many minorities are more likely to vote democrat so saying that out loud is not some sort of indication that they are racist or something.

Really? How do you know that women have the opportunities to get those jobs? I'm guessing that you mean that they have the same opportunities as men do, but that's flat-out wrong. They might have the same opportunities to send in a resume, but that's because they cannot be prohibited from using the mail. Once those resumes hit desks, those opportunities seem to dry up.
Colleges are trying to attract women in STEM fields not discourage them. They are not applying at the same rate as men.

Is there a great multitude of women trying to get those jobs but are denied because they are women?
Yes!
Where?

Around 60% of college students are women and they can apply to any of the degree programs.
"Can apply to," sure. "Can get the same degree of consideration," no.
Where is your proof that colleges are rejecting women in STEM programs because they are women. Like I said above many colleges are recruiting women knot engineering and science because they are not applying for those programs.

Why are public school teachers paid so poorly for the jobs they have? There is a crisis, and it's due to a systemic bias against women. Good grief! Thousands of years of bias and outright subjugation haven't corrected themselves in the last few decades. Male children are still taught that some things are "women's work." It's quite easy to see that there are more male public school teachers in the more "liberal" states. Texas is only a little below average, I'd give the state a D+. The real losers are Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina.
I don’t see how 2-4 percentage points is an indication of liberal policies?

But what's really key here is that systemic bias against women hurts men, too. There might have been a fantastic male teacher out there who was thrust by family and peers into, say, mining or forestry or ranching because those were good, "manly" jobs. Instead of thriving and going on to become leaders of their fields, the students he might have had were instead taught by someone bitter and jaded, who was only in teaching for the paycheck, because despite having a masters in fluid dynamics, idiotic lab directors saw "Jane" on the resume and chucked it in the trash.
Ok, a lot of mights and if in there. If this is so how do you combat it?

There are a gazillion people out there who wound up in a public school job because they couldn't find work in their preferred field, so they "settled" and got themselves a teaching certificate. Some percentage of them go to work every day and simply go through the motions, without the passion needed for educating. They are, through no fault of their own really, dragging down the potential of the kids in this country.
So what do you want to do about this?

So before you ever think about complaining about possible systemic bias against men again, realize that systemic bias against anyone hurts everyone. Not just sexual or racist bias, but classist bias, religious bias and a host of other biases based on characteristics that have nothing to do with job performance.
I was not complaining about systemic bias against men. I was making a point that you must feel there was if 75% of teachers are women.

Oh, and just because bias has lessened in recent history doesn't mean the bias has vanished altogether. There's still a lot of work to be done.
And that is the problem with liberal ideology. They have a perpetual boogeyman to extract money and freedoms from the citizens because there will always be racism and bias in society. We should work against racism and bias while still understanding we cannot eradicate it altogether. Maybe one step is people limiting racist accusations to actual racism cases. Just to let you in on something, telling conservatives they are racist because they grew up white is not a good tact to take. Conservatives believe in individual actions not labeling groups of people that liberals do. You are telling people like me who grew up being taught racism is wrong, working my entire life to treat people equally and not based on skin color, working to teach my kids that racism is wrong etc. that I am racist (white privilege) because I am white. What ever happened to content of character?
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25887 Posts

Posted - 03/07/2017 :  12:14:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

I will give you that Obama is literate. Trump is not sub literate either. He can read and write.
I'm not so sure of that.

But the other descriptions can describe President Obama.
Well, here they are again, I'd like to see you come up with examples of these behaviours from Obama:
  • petulant

  • brattish

  • sub-literate

  • ill-informed

  • paranoid

  • solipsistic

  • crass

  • vain

  • thin-skinned

  • vindictive

  • litigious

  • ultra-narcissistic

  • na´ve

  • sociopathic

  • bullying

  • misogynistic

  • unstable

  • flimflamming

  • racist

  • vulgar

  • authoritarian

  • megalomaniacal

  • mammonistic

  • serial-lying

  • demagogue

  • mistakes brashness for charisma

  • upholds loyalty as paramount over ethics

It'll be especially interesting to see your examples for "paranoid," "crass," "litigious, "misogynistic," "racist" and "vulgar."

Start with "litigious." There are lots of examples of Trump suing or threatening to sue people for merely saying bad things about him. When is the last time Obama personally sued anyone? If you cannot locate even a single lawsuit filed by Obama, then the idea that he is litigious is nonsense.

(And no, you can't use DoJ or other agency lawsuits during Obama's presidency as a proxy, for obvious reasons.)

Christian Hedonist doesn't even understand the Bible well enough to figure out that it's a tool to keep him submissive and pliable.
To whom? Who is keeping all the Christians in the world submissive and pliable? For what reason?
Yeah, like there's just one person orchestrating it all. Sheesh. And it's not just Christianity.

But perhaps you'll enlighten me. I have yet to find any Bible verses, stories or parables about standing up for oneself against one's oppressor ("turn the other cheek" teaches the opposite). I have yet to find anything in the Bible about ensuring secular justice for all people (the rules condoning slavery, or the idea of a "chosen people," teach the opposite).

Instead, the Bible seems to teach that when life hands you lemons, you should suck it up and deal because there'll be a big reward after you die. That keeps Christians subdued and pliable during (for example) the last forty years while the Republicans have been trying to undo the New Deal. Oligarchs would much rather you think your lot in life is pre-ordained and/or a test of your faith than have you go out and do something to make life more fair. 'Cause nine times out of ten the problem comes down to money, and people who learn that the 1% could feed the 99% while still living in luxury get angry. Angry people generally aren't content to continue eating the shit sandwich that the rich having been serving.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25887 Posts

Posted - 03/07/2017 :  14:18:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

How can you possibly know that I have never worried about a job?
No, I said that you said something like you'd never had to worry about a job.

Where are these factories?
All over. Any place there's a waiting list for jobs and no union.

Say that about the basics. Government entities do not bake bread or milk cows. When the cost of bread or milk goes up, consumers grumble about it, but ultimately dig into their wallets and fork over the money.
So you think that the answer is to increase the minimum wage so people have to go without other things they need or get another job to buy basic items. So why not just increase the minimum wages on workers providing necessary items?
I don't understand your point here at all.

Every complaint you're making was made in the 1930s, during the debates over the first national minimum wage law. That law, and the subsequent increases in the minimum wage, have not brought the economic ruin their detractors have constantly claimed they would.
I am not against the minimum wage, I have already stated that.
Not my point: the bad stuff conservatives keep thinking will happen every time the minimum wage goes up has never happened.

I am for a wage that workers and employers can agree on.
Well, with a desperate enough employee, they'll agree to a dollar a day. And an employer with low-ish morals would accept. Minimum wage protects the desperate from the evil.

Like it or not our economic system does not put a burden on businesses to provide for anyone’s family or financial well-being.
Of course not. That's why there are people working two or even three jobs. The government should be protecting people:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
One cannot begin to pursue happiness if one cannot meet one's basic needs. If a person has to choose, due to whatever circumstances, between food and necessary medicine, then the government is failing "to secure these rights." They're not privileges that anyone can revoke for cause, they are rights that the government should be protecting.

I agree on spending money on programs to educate people to get a job. I am not for free college tuition but I am for free vocational education such as mechanics, electricians, carpenters, plumbers, hair stylists, welders etc. I think that is money well spent.
What do you have against a college education? We're going to need many more college-educated people as our economy will inevitably give up being resources- and manufacturing-based and turn into a technological and information economy. We'll still need mechanics, electricians, carpenters, etc., but we'll probably need many fewer of them. Just like how there aren't too many horse-drawn buggy factories around today.

In some places, it needs to be that much or more. A single parent of three in our Nation's Capitol needs at least $50/hr just to pay the normal costs of living.
Ok, then why are they living in Washington DC?
Do you think poor people can just move to another city when they feel like it? Last time I moved, it cost me thousands. The really desperately poor can't afford a bus ticket. Do you think they should hitchhike out of the city?

Do you think every job needs to pay for someone to have a living wage for a family of three?
No. Do you think someone who (due to spouse having an accident, say) suddenly finds themselves a single parent of three making $25/hr should starve to death?

Who says they are? I'm talking about fraud and the like. Without the rules (a free market), companies won't have to "play by the rules."
I agree. Normally when conservatives talk about free markets they are not talking about no regulations, but limited regulations. I don’t know of any politician that advocates for no government regulation.
What can I say? A free market with regulation isn't free, it's constrained. And you can't wave the free market magic wand and expect me to be convinced of anything unless you describe in detail which regulations apply.

Mostly because the libertarian utopia in which bad businesses are punished through market forces is a pipe dream. Consumers don't know enough to pull that off, and expecting them to is ludicrous.

Okay: you think that some people are "deserving" of less money than they require to live.
I in no way said that. That is your bias toward conservatives.
No, it is what you said.

I did say that not all jobs will pay for someone to live on.
Exactly. How many jobs do you think one person could have simultaneously? There are only so-many hours in a day. If a person's "skill level" only lets them (in your "free market") make $3/hr at every job they've tried, then they can make a maximum of $72/day, and assuming no sleep and working seven days a week, that's $504/week. A single 9-to-5 job paying $15/hr pays $600/week, and even that's below poverty level in many places. So yes, you are indeed saying that some people don't deserve to make enough to live on, if their "skill level" is low enough, because there isn't infinite time available.

Oddly enough, there is infinite money, because the government keeps making more and more of it. So conservatives are forced to justify why they think some people aren't "deserving" of a livable slice from an infinite pie. Jobs and the economy aren't zero-sum games.

I'm sure that idea was taught to you. It didn't pop into your head from nothing.
So that has to be bias and not my own conclusions?
You didn't provide any argument against which I could gauge your conclusions.

I have also been taught about communism. I have concluded that it is an immoral system as practiced by all communist governments.
Oh, so if one thing that's taught isn't a conclusion, you think that I think that all things that are taught aren't conclusions? Please.

Why isn’t your belief that some people should make $50/hr no matter what the job not biased?
Because I have no such belief.

Or, how many studies do you need to "prove" to you that resumes with female names are routinely considered less employable than resumes given male names despite everything else on the resumes being exactly the same?
Where are these studies? What are the reasons for them being less employable?
Good grief: I just told you that the only thing different about the resumes was the name. The "reasons for them being less employable" must have something to do with that single variable then, don't you think? One such study is described in Why does John get the STEM job rather than Jennifer?

Or just look at the Republicans' gerrymandering and voter-ID efforts. They've said, out loud, in public, that minorities are more likely to vote Democrat, and so they're doing everything they can to discourage minorities from voting, or just ensuring that minority votes don't count.
Or democrats doing the same thing.
Really? When and where? Let's see some data to support your both-sides-do-itism.

It is a fact that many minorities are more likely to vote democrat so saying that out loud is not some sort of indication that they are racist or something.
No, what's racist is denying them the right to vote because of their skin color.

Colleges are trying to attract women in STEM fields not discourage them. They are not applying at the same rate as men.

...

Like I said above many colleges are recruiting women knot engineering and science because they are not applying for those programs.
Citations?

I don’t see how 2-4 percentage points is an indication of liberal policies?
You must be kidding me. Didn't I just finish talking about how the biases don't get erased very quickly?

Ok, a lot of mights and if in there.
It was merely an example of a possibility. I've known teachers who were teaching because it was the only job available, though. They suck at it.

If this is so how do you combat it?
By calling out and otherwise marginalizing sexism wherever it rears its ugly head.

I was not complaining about systemic bias against men. I was making a point that you must feel there was if 75% of teachers are women.
As my paragraphs of response should have suggested to you, it was not a point I agree with.

Oh, and just because bias has lessened in recent history doesn't mean the bias has vanished altogether. There's still a lot of work to be done.
And that is the problem with liberal ideology. They have a perpetual boogeyman to extract money and freedoms from the citizens because there will always be racism and bias in society. We should work against racism and bias while still understanding we cannot eradicate it altogether.
How is your last sentence different from what liberals say? Quote me a liberal who thinks that it'll ever be possible to eliminate racism and sexism entirely.

Anyway, the money that's needed to combat racism and sexism and other biases will lessen as the Isms are worn down. There's not a whole lot of money or freedoms being "extracted" to eliminate chattel slavery in the U.S., for example.

Some freedoms aren't so free, anyway. The "freedom" to keep slaves was, of course, based on the idea that those who were slaves had no rights. The "freedom" of business owners to discriminate against gays is based on the idea that gay people should not enjoy the same service as straights. Etc. Some of these alleged "freedoms" should not exist in a civilized society.

Maybe one step is people limiting racist accusations to actual racism cases. Just to let you in on something, telling conservatives they are racist because they grew up white is not a good tact to take.
Who said that? People are racist because they are people. Nobody is immune.

Conservatives believe in individual actions not labeling groups of people that liberals do.
Yeah, tell that to every conservative who thinks "the gay" is somehow bad for America.

You are telling people like me who grew up being taught racism is wrong, working my entire life to treat people equally and not based on skin color, working to teach my kids that racism is wrong etc. that I am racist (white privilege) because I am white.
Acknowledging that you have privileges because you are white is not anyone calling anyone else racist. If I were as unprincipled as you, I'd call your statement "typical conservative ignorant thin-skinned whining" or something like that. But I won't.

That white people live privileged lives over black people on average is undeniable. White people don't (on average) get pulled over by police just because they're white, for one small example.

Denying that this privilege exists (and has been continually manufactured by white people since before 1776) is what's racist.

What ever happened to content of character?
I'm looking at the content of your character, and it's not pretty.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 25  Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.06 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000