Re: Ping Mr. Tapman


 Religions > Atheism > Re: Ping Mr. Tapman

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1
 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "A.T. Tapman"
Date: 26 Jul 2003 06:08:58 PM
Object: Re: Ping Mr. Tapman
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:27:22 GMT, "juliekale" <me[spammenot]@juliekale.com>
wrote:

"A.T. Tapman" <s123@dellnet.com> wrote in message
news:qqprhv8vvmpu855cgnfpo25c6bgrergpec@4ax.com...

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 23:15:34 GMT, "juliekale"

<me[spammenot]@juliekale.com>

wrote:

"A.T. Tapman" <s123@dellnet.com> wrote in message
news:t2nohvokb7st2ouniar72o0npdb5p9qa9e@4ax.com...

<snip>

Yes they have changed simply because I have changed. And I understand

what

you're saying, it's just that you seem to imply that I have put very

little

thought into the things I believe and why I believe them.
That's okay though. This happenes to me a lot. If you are an atheist you

get

accused of "reactional" thinking all the time.


Some atheists wear their non-belief 'as a hair shirt', as one who has been

a

long time non-believer, I think it is bad practice to replace one

'religion'

for another.


Some do, of course. However, in my experiences with atheists it is generally
a non-issue in their lives, until somebody gets in their faces about it.

No really, patterns are established, these legitimately add to one's

base

of

knowledge, more observation equals more accurate observation.


What I mean is, the reason behind the pattern becomes a matter of
interpretation.
You call it built in inferiority, whereas I can see sociological reasons

for

a great deal of it.


Are you familiar with Occam's Razor? Use judiciously.


Sure. The simplist theory that fits the facts. First you have to make sure
that you know the facts. Sense we disagree on the facts here, this term of
no good to us right at the moment.

I think we disagree on few facts, we do disagree on 'root' causes. You have
no idea how silly I think the phrase 'root' causes is.

<snip>

Are these not differences which environment cannot account for?


Most certainly. But they do not prove inferiority, which is after all,

the

entire point (or so I thought) of the racist for bringing them out in the
first place. If you are not trying to prove racial inferiority

biologically,

why bother with this stuff?


Inferiority/superiority is not my goal. Suitability to present

circumstance

is far closer to what I attempt to demonstrate. Biological differences

are a

major contributor to one's suitability for a given environment.


I fail to see the point with reference to blacks. Are you trying to state
that they are not suitable to live among the rest of us because they have a
hard time getting kidney transplants?

Of course not, I am simply stating that we are physically different, so why
would behavioral differences, due to 'selection for different traits', be
surprising.

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/080501/met_6870358.html

Medical officials say there is a great need for kidney, heart, lung,

liver,

pancreas and small bowel donations from minorities. Tissue from

minority

donors has the best chance of being accepted by a minority recipient's

body.

<snip>
Okay, I see what is being said, and what is the relevance here? Why would
the racist bring this up to prove his case?


Biological differences. if we were all the same, interchangeability of
'parts' would be far less problematic. Also note that some drugs, and

there

effects are race specific.


Sure. And this is the thing that you guys seem to be overlooking. I know
that there are "biological differences", but the facts are that none of
these brought to me was enough to convince me of any kind of inferiority,
nothing to convince me of the laughable argument that blacks are a different
species. As yet, I can't really say why you would bother to bring any of
this up.

I do not claim negroes are a different species. Inferiority/superiority are
only relevant when placed in context of a specific environment.
Your 'belief' does not cause reality to bend.

http://www.fda.gov/cder/reports/race_ethnicity/race_ethnicity_report.htm


There are documented racial differences as well. Caucasians are more

likely

than Asians to have abnormally low levels of an important liver

metabolizing

enzyme (cytochrome p450 2D6). Blacks respond poorly to several classes

of

antihypertensive agents (beta blockers, angiotensive converting enzyme

(ACE)

inhibitors, and angiotensin II antagonists) and appear to have a

greater

risk of angioedema when given ACE inhibitors. It is therefore important

to

include in drug development representation of the broad range of

patients

who will eventually receive the drug, including people of both genders,
representatives of major racial/ethnic groups, and patients with a wide
range of disease severity, concomitant illnesses, and use of

concomitant

treatments.


Still don't see the relevancy to the debate at hand.


Race specific effects of various drugs.


So what? You're trying to prove "suitability" (which I guess can mean
whatever a person would want it to), and so, I don't see the relevancy.

Suitability, in the context of my usage can be explained thusly;
The ability of a specific race to function in a given environment.

<snip>


Plenty more is available.


I'm sure there is. But agian, I have to ask, what is the point here? It's
almost like you're trying to imply that they aren't human, and that this
magically explains their behavior. You do realize, of course, that this

is

laughable in the face of modern science?


I believe the definition of 'human' is wide enough to accommodate the

three

major races. Before you laugh, you may want to get up to speed with the

state

of the art, with regard to what the professionals believe vis-a-vis
biology/behavior.


If you believe the first statement is true then why would you have me bother
with the second?

Where is the dichotomy?

I agree, but I think genetic is the greater influence.


Possibly. You can look to the study of twins seperated at birth for

whatever

evidence may be found there.
I personally think that the nature/nurture arguement can find it's truth
somewhere in the middle.


The consensus of professional opinion runs at 0.7 genetic and 0.3

environment.

The trend is in favor of genetics.
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html


Not to nitpick, but I think this document says 0.4 to 0.8. Anyway, I suspect
that we are never going to really know the answer, for as soon as you make a
"rule" nature will come along in some form or another and break it.
This document does state that blacks living in higher incomes scored better
than "poor" blacks, but no better that "poor" whites, thus as I said before
I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Progress

Of course. But consider the oppression that went before for decades.
Oppressed people will always fight back in one way or the other, and some

of

them are bound to be violent. But the most powerful of them all (MLKjr)
emphasised non-violence, which is why this is the man who has gone down

in

history in such a way that he has.


MLK was a very flawed individual, his 'beatification' was a political
expedient and a sop to negroes. Read more about his life and times and

you

will find violence was his shadow.


Nobody's perfect. But the public imagine is one that has practically been
immortalized, and at his pinnacle, he was a strong advocate of non-violence.

Only in his public statements.

I was exposed to the same 'feel-good' media representation of negroes

as

everyone else. I did not have any direct contact with negroes to

contrast

with this purposeful misrepresentation, so I believed it.
As a child, we never discussed race, as it had no bearing on our lives.


So you mean to state that you were given "unrealistic" expectations of
another group of people?


In effect, yes. I was taught to believe that all humans would react to a
given stimulus in a similar manner. I was mislead.


May I ask what your experiences were with other races, prior to your first
encounter with blacks?

Almost non-existant.

But surely you realize that when the black ecomonic mass catches up,

they

will be right there with you, eh?


Not necessarily, the land is nearly all privately owned and 'use

restricted'.

Even so, it has been said that all will bow to the almighty dollor in the
end.


In most cases, but there are exceptions.


As always, there are exceptions to every rule we could ever hope to create.

Alright, all of this again, doesn't address the other side. Why do

white

allows these things to happen to their neighborhoods?


I would imagine you would agree with the following statement: "People
generally prefer to live among their own."


Xenophobia.


Are you stating that people do not prefer to live with their own? Or are

you

implying that people have no preference? Remember 'white flight'?
Behavior which is nearly universal is generally not defined as xenophobia,
wouldn't you agree?


I think people, in the end, prefer to live where it will be the most
benificial to them.

Most people believe it is beneficial to live among their own.

But "White flight" can be said by some to be rooted in the fear of that
which is "unknown" - a "foriegn peoples", as can the adage that people
prefer to live "among their own". Thus the rerference.

White flight was fueled by 'knowledge of negroes' people pretty much knew what
to expect, so they bolted.

Whites have been 'cowed' to the point that they are generally incapable

of

taking their own side in the race debate.


So we're afraid to stand up for ourselves? Who did this to the white
populace?
It sounds like you seem to accept the popular idea that today's white

person

has a lot of carry over guilt about what happened in the past. And it is
this that keeps us quiet.


Not guilt, social opprobrium, planted purposefully into our culture.


Ah, you mean to say that white people keep quite because they do not want to
be shamed in their own society.
This again must prompt me to ask, who would be doing the shaming? We are the
majority - would we then be shaming ourselves?

The idea of 'white guilt' was introduced to the West by the early
'deconstructionists'. Very few of them were Americans. See 'Theodor Adorno'
and 'Max Horkheimer' for a couple example of the 'deconstruction of America'.

Don't get me wrong here, the US Constitution is perhaps one of the

greatest

documents ever written, as far as governments go.
But it was written with white male bias. Were I alive at that time, I do

not

think it would be acceptable to me in the least.


I don't think the Founders would be impressed. The Founders believed

women to

be too emotionally driven for sound political judgement.


I know they wouldn't be! LOL. (Enter jokes about "heavy negotiations" every
28 days here).
But that's my point. They were interested in furthering themselves and their
own agendas, the white man's agenda.

They were the only ones capable of furthering any agenda.

Contrast that with now, nearly every biped is allowed, even encouraged,

to

vote, regardless of the state of their vested interests.
Did you know the mentally deranged and felons are allowed to vote? As

an

example, in the prisons and jails of Massachusetts, absentee ballots

are

distributed prior to every election day.


Yes. My personal opinion is that they shouldn't be. Having said that....


Which system makes more sense?


If I had to choose...I would rather have every idiot on the planet

voting,

than the social "elite" of any one particular group of individuals.


You would rely upon the good sense and social virtues of the 'unwashed'?

You

would have the 'tax eaters' set tax policy? Those who have demonstrably
proven themselves to have little restraint are to exercise sound judgement
only in the voting booth? The power to tax is the power to destroy. The
destruction has been going along at a progressively accelerating pace.


Actually no. But there again, if I *had to choose, I would deny them
nothing. I would rather have everybody and their mother voting than an elite
few. The reason is obvious and happens to be why females and blacks took up
the right to vote in the first place. The white man held all the power and
was not very generous with it. Perhaps if historically you all had treated
us better we would have had no problems with you having all the political
power. :)

Political power must be seized.

Robert E Lee - the famous quote (LOL) - "With all my devotion to the

Union

and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not

been

able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my

children,

my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in
defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services

may

never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword..."


One of the finest Americans to ever draw breath.


There are many fine americans in our history books.

Didn't they change all that, after the civil war?


In what way? De facto or by constitutional amendment?


Hell I don't know. Politics bore me, and if it wasn't for my father

tutoring

me, I would have flunked American history - esp. the study of American
government.


My Mother is a retired history Prof. I had an educational childhood,

whether

I wanted it or not.


Oh, the torment! You have my sympathies. Unless she made it interesting.

History was brought to life, it was fascinating.

The bulk of the inhabitants of any country never see or acknowledge the

storm

on the horizon. When was it ever so?


I couldn't say. And I didn't mean to present it in that light. Rather I

was

trying to say that most white people (in my experience) don't see think
about the issue all that much. They are too busy living.


Agreed, but awareness is growing.


But here again, I think most white people today would rather not look at it
as a "racial" issue, but more a social one.
Cause let's face it, being called a racist is a very ugly thing in this
society.

It is rapidly becoming a word of many meanings, it has been used too much, it
has lost it's sting.
Anyone winning an arguments with a negro or liberal is nearly always called a
racist. Anyone who has a care for whites is automatically labeled a racist.

Of course this is an illusion. They can fullfill their "unique" destiny
where ever they happen to find themselves. White people are not stopping
them in the least.


I believe negroes are being stifled by restrictive white laws and culture.
Hence my point of 'suitability' for a given environment.


Could you give me an example of this restriction?

Street crime, the kind which terrifies white women. When apprehended the
negro nearly always says something to the effect "I didn't do nothing". To
the negro perp, he is innocent, he only did what he had to do, black machismo
demanded he act in a prescribed manner.

Easy. Every society has somebody to look down on.
The whole world over does it with females, and that is the greatest

example

I can provide you.


You must be joking.


Do you deny sexism both historically and in the world today?

Where have women been better treated than the West?

When is enough, enough? American negroes are free to return to the
Motherland. What do they want besides all that we possess?


But there again, is the attitude, "Why should I?" And it's a good

question

really. Why should they (given their history) do anything at all that we
want them to do?


Suitability.


Why would this be an issue when it would be (to them) better to change our
society to suit them?

Do you wish to live in a negro society? See Africa or Haiti for the
consequences.

Their offspring will pose the same threat as the bulk of their fellows.

See

deviation _to_ the mean.


Ah...you think the exceptions will produce more difficulties.


Not exceptions, just new generations of the whole cross section of

negroes.

Which will be, by default, anti-social and violent. I see.

Which would be similar to negroes as they now exist in America, violent and
anti-social.

There is some logic behind lowering the standards, negroes appear to

become

'socialized' while accommodating a lower IQ than whites.


Well, this is truly a very interesting topic. If you will remember I told
you I have had varying IQ scores on more than one test.
Let me tell you, when I was very young, I took the Standford Binet, and
scored a 141 (on average). Now, here's the thing - I have taken other

tests

at varying times in my life, though not nowhere nearly as serious a

setting,

and gotten some higher and some lower scores. So I think given this it's

a

fair question to ask why the varying differences with score?
For myself, I can point to times when my mind was not at it's freshest.

My

mental skills not at their sharpest, due to fatigue, stress or what have
you. Other times, a fresh mind always makes a world of difference. As for
the tests themselves, some of them are actually child's play to me, and
others, not nearly so much so.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you have to take these factors

into

consideration. An IQ test is just like any other, the performance of the
individual will be in direct proportion to their physical and mental
wellbeing when they take it.


IQ tests are different, and they each produce a scoring trend in relation

to

other tests. Note the different standards for inclusion into the top 1 or

2

percent of test takers.


Yes I know. But again, this isn't what I'm trying to say. I think the mental
and emotional wellbeing of the test taker must be taken into account as
well.

OK, but I think this is a marginal influence.

The issue is one of environment. The closest theory I can come up with is
within direct expeirence. I have a high IQ, but I did not graduate with
honors by any means when in high school. The reason was apathy. I did not
care. And I have known many intelligent white people in the same

situation.

A friend of mine scored a 29 on her ACT's, but graduated in the bottom

30%

of her class. When I was very young, I had difficulty learning to read.

Not

because I did not understand what was being taught to me but because the
teachers just bored me. I had to take special reading classes, and were

it

not for those classes, I can't say as I would be a very good reader.

Today I

can finish a 500 page book in 2 days, if it suits me to do so.
Now I'm not suggesting that all blacks are closet geniuses by any means,

but

merely that the needs of a certain segment of the populace might be
different from the needs of the rest. It doesn't make them stupid, it

just

makes them different.


The 15 point (one SD or sigma) difference is far too consistent for your
hypothesis.


I understand this, but I guess the inference is that just because you score
low on an IQ test or what have you, doesn't make you stupid or inferior. So
the imfamous 15 points do not bother me so much as the inferences behind
them.
You can have a lower IQ and still contribute greatly to this society. And I
certainly don't think a lower IQ is any reason to look down on anyone. If it
was so, I could concievably look down on 98% of the populace and be well
within my rights to do so.

Name a few contributors to society who were 'blessed' with a low IQ. Low IQ
equals dull and stupid, no exceptions.
Do as you please.

I see. However, according to the very same graph, the peak falls within
average intelligence.
I assume you're wishing me to accept the explanation that this was done

in

the name of political correctness, but it doesn't change the fact that it
was done.


The lower end of average, yes. I don't think I commented upon the

motivations

of the designer of the graph.


The lower end of average is still average though.

Yeah they want $50 a year, but I don't know exactly what being a member

of

Mensa would do for me.


They would send you a magazine which you could leave on your coffee table

to

impress your less gifted friends.


Oh you're kidding! Well I must do that right now...LOL....

I am not kidding, happens quite often to new members.

Power does not exist _without_ the ability to wield it. Whenever the

power of

whites is exercised, the cry of racism is not far behind.


So what?


The power is seldom used, when political power is not used, it does not

exist.

Hence we have very little power over negroes, except the power to

withhold.

We're afraid of being called racists so we do nothing, in other words.

Yes.

Yes, if not stupid, why would they remain poor?


Perhaps because they do not care...anymore.


Without cognitive skills, what good does caring do?


I think this explains some of the poor. Certianly not all. Have you not

ever

met an intelligent bum?


Once, but the poor man was an Entomologist who was incapacitated by

hundreds

insect stings while on a field trip to the Amazon Basin. He lived the

last 25

years of his life as a bum. I don't think the Doctors ever discovered an
organic cause for his mental condition.
Other than this man, all of the bums or poor I have encountered have been
'bone' stupid.


Well, they aren't social butterflies. And I don't know "that many" of them,
but I guess they would be the lower end of the "poor" spectrum. I have known
many poor people though (been poor myself LOL), and not everybody is stupid.
Of course, not everybody stays poor either.

The ones who stay poor are stupid.

Worth every penny, absent the millstone of our negroes, the treasury

would

be

'fat and sassy'.


You think we'd balence the budget in no time, eh?


Not a chance, politics being what they are.


Well, I was thinking about this too. Let's say that you got your wish, and
magically moved all the blacks to a segregated portion of this country. If y
our viewpoints are true, they will be incapable of taking care of themselves
there just as they are here. And thus, as you claim happens here, whites
would have to either step in and provide aid, or watch them deteriorate.
Given historical precident, whites would probably step in. What then is the
point moving them then, other than getting them out of your direct line of
sight, if you're still going to have to spend the money on them for upkeep?

I would gladly pay their upkeep if isolated from them and their pathologies.
We now pay their upkeep and have the 'pleasure' of their company. Which would
you prefer?

I dont' know about the rest, but we get a great deal of federal money

for

medical research. In fact, I think UAB gets a great deal of money, but

then

again, our output is also tremendous. We live up to our expectations.


Are you in a position to judge cost/benefit?


What do you mean?


How do you ascertain value for the money.


I don't know. I would assume that if UAB had no great output, they wouldn't
get anymore money.

Money is allocated by the fed gov by dint of political power and 'logrolling'.

Do the math, intelligent people are in short supply in the negro

community.

So all the blacks on our city counsel, and in our school board, etc,

they're

all idiots?
Maybe I should move.


Start observing them, the thought of moving will cross your mind.


I'll let you know in 20 yrs.

What do you suppose the federal program *Headstart* is for, it is a

dismal

failure.


I have heard some very good things about this program. But that was a

while

back.


Headstart has been a dismal failure from inception, all of the pols are

aware

of this fact, but whenever the program is seriously discussed, the howls

of

racism raise the roof. Headstart is a boondoggle and an inefficient

'jobs'

program.


Well, howls of racism or not, does the program work? This is all that is
relevant. And if it doesn't work, best that we understand why and move on to
better things.

The program does not provide anything but a short lived small up-tick for
black children. This is usually explained by a familiarity with the
mechanisms of schooling provided by this program. Usually, one year after
completing 'headstart', these black children are academically
indistinguishable from their brethren who did not attend.

I would blame the failures then on the home life. A dysfunctional home

life

can devistate an education and social skills.


Occam's razor.


Due to my experiences, actually this is the simpliest explanation for me.

I know. Very interesting. But genetics isn't everything. If it was, why

did

Julie Kale not end up in the top 2% of her graduating class?


You had better ask yourself that question.


I know the answer already. Environment.

More than 30% is still not a majority. It's not a very small minority,

but

it's not a majority.


1 crime for each 17 is brought to resolution, do the math.


Yes, but unless you can prove 17 crimes are done by 17 different people then
you're basically shadow boxing.
A 'criminal' by his nature, is going to commit more than one crime. You do
not know how many they commit before they get caught.

Do the math, put your significant IQ to work.

Even if so, the change indicates ability to change. If the ability was

not

there, obviously there would be no change.


It is called 'fronting' in the vernacular.


LOL....But the ability to front is in and of itself indicative of the
ability to chance.


How so? Does an opossum change?


The question is rather, does he "choose" to change? I would say no. But that
is not the case with the black person.

How have you determined this?

East asians are generally brighter than whites as are ashkenazi jews,

and

their very low representation in the crime figures and other

measurements

of

the various pathologies are meaningful.


Ashkenazi jews? What type of jew might this be?


The two main groups of Jews are Sephardic and Ashkenazi, the former are

Jews

from Spain and Portugal, the latter are from eastern Europe.


Oh...whatever....

Your friend,
A.T. Tapman
Sorry for the delay in replying.
.

User: "the niggest"

Title: Re: Ping Mr. Tapman 26 Jul 2003 07:44:48 PM
"A.T. Tapman" <s123@dellnet.com> wrote

Well, this is truly a very interesting topic. If you will remember I

told

you I have had varying IQ scores on more than one test.
Let me tell you, when I was very young, I took the Standford Binet,

and

scored a 141 (on average). Now, here's the thing - I have taken other

tests

at varying times in my life, though not nowhere nearly as serious a

setting,

and gotten some higher and some lower scores. So I think given this

it's

a

fair question to ask why the varying differences with score?

How many standard deviations from the mean were these scores in each case?
The same number, I would wager.
--
hth
the_niggest
twitting negroes online since 2000AD
.

User: "juliekale"

Title: Re: Ping Mr. Tapman 27 Jul 2003 01:48:36 AM
"A.T. Tapman" <s123@dellnet.com> wrote in message
news:l2t5ivk5j6lbcmr8b2ktmk6appk6hepqst@4ax.com...

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:27:22 GMT, "juliekale"

<me[spammenot]@juliekale.com>

wrote:

"A.T. Tapman" <s123@dellnet.com> wrote in message
news:qqprhv8vvmpu855cgnfpo25c6bgrergpec@4ax.com...

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor? Use judiciously.


Sure. The simplist theory that fits the facts. First you have to make

sure

that you know the facts. Sense we disagree on the facts here, this term

of

no good to us right at the moment.


I think we disagree on few facts, we do disagree on 'root' causes. You

have

no idea how silly I think the phrase 'root' causes is.

I see what you're saying.

I fail to see the point with reference to blacks. Are you trying to state
that they are not suitable to live among the rest of us because they have

a

hard time getting kidney transplants?


Of course not, I am simply stating that we are physically different, so

why

would behavioral differences, due to 'selection for different traits', be
surprising.

In theory, it would be okay, but you'd have to find a physical, or ... I'd
even go so far as to say an evolutionary reason to explain it. One has yet
to be provided, so it just doesn't stand.

Sure. And this is the thing that you guys seem to be overlooking. I know
that there are "biological differences", but the facts are that none of
these brought to me was enough to convince me of any kind of inferiority,
nothing to convince me of the laughable argument that blacks are a

different

species. As yet, I can't really say why you would bother to bring any of
this up.


I do not claim negroes are a different species. Inferiority/superiority

are

only relevant when placed in context of a specific environment.
Your 'belief' does not cause reality to bend.

Certainly not. Nobody's does. But here again, I see it as a matter of
degree. You guys seem to enjoy very much calling blacks "inferior" and want
to treat them as such. Yet, I don't think you'd enjoy the same attitude
turned around on you, if say, another race were to come along en masse, and
outdo you.

Still don't see the relevancy to the debate at hand.


Race specific effects of various drugs.


So what? You're trying to prove "suitability" (which I guess can mean
whatever a person would want it to), and so, I don't see the relevancy.


Suitability, in the context of my usage can be explained thusly;
The ability of a specific race to function in a given environment.

I see. What does the issue of drug effects on certain races have to do with
this?

I believe the definition of 'human' is wide enough to accommodate the

three

major races. Before you laugh, you may want to get up to speed with

the

state

of the art, with regard to what the professionals believe vis-a-vis
biology/behavior.


If you believe the first statement is true then why would you have me

bother

with the second?


Where is the dichotomy?

If you put forth the notion that blacks are human like the rest of us, as a
people, then their biology is not going to be that significantly different
so that it will alter their behavior to the degree that you would have me
accept. In other words, I think the first statement really makes the second
a waste of time.

MLK was a very flawed individual, his 'beatification' was a political
expedient and a sop to negroes. Read more about his life and times and

you

will find violence was his shadow.


Nobody's perfect. But the public imagine is one that has practically been
immortalized, and at his pinnacle, he was a strong advocate of

non-violence.


Only in his public statements.

Yes and well JFK wasn't faithful to his wife either. But how does history
remember him? He was a 'good' man, yes?
Public appearance, some would say, is really all that matters.

In effect, yes. I was taught to believe that all humans would react to

a

given stimulus in a similar manner. I was mislead.


May I ask what your experiences were with other races, prior to your

first

encounter with blacks?


Almost non-existant.

So you are stating to me that you had a clean slate basically. Have you ever
been friends with a black person, known them deeply?

I would imagine you would agree with the following statement:

"People

generally prefer to live among their own."


Xenophobia.


Are you stating that people do not prefer to live with their own? Or

are

you

implying that people have no preference? Remember 'white flight'?
Behavior which is nearly universal is generally not defined as

xenophobia,

wouldn't you agree?


I think people, in the end, prefer to live where it will be the most
benificial to them.


Most people believe it is beneficial to live among their own.

To a degree. If it was completely true, 'white flight' would have been a
great success because the blacks they moved away from would have stayed put,
despite the conditions of their neighborhoods.

But "White flight" can be said by some to be rooted in the fear of that
which is "unknown" - a "foriegn peoples", as can the adage that people
prefer to live "among their own". Thus the rerference.


White flight was fueled by 'knowledge of negroes' people pretty much knew

what

to expect, so they bolted.

Knowledge, or prejudice? There is a difference.

Not guilt, social opprobrium, planted purposefully into our culture.


Ah, you mean to say that white people keep quite because they do not want

to

be shamed in their own society.
This again must prompt me to ask, who would be doing the shaming? We are

the

majority - would we then be shaming ourselves?


The idea of 'white guilt' was introduced to the West by the early
'deconstructionists'. Very few of them were Americans. See 'Theodor

Adorno'

and 'Max Horkheimer' for a couple example of the 'deconstruction of

America'.
So, no guilt then. From where does the social pressure to stay silent come?

I know they wouldn't be! LOL. (Enter jokes about "heavy negotiations"

every

28 days here).
But that's my point. They were interested in furthering themselves and

their

own agendas, the white man's agenda.


They were the only ones capable of furthering any agenda.

Because they didn't allow anybody else to have any say.

You would rely upon the good sense and social virtues of the

'unwashed'?

You

would have the 'tax eaters' set tax policy? Those who have

demonstrably

proven themselves to have little restraint are to exercise sound

judgement

only in the voting booth? The power to tax is the power to destroy.

The

destruction has been going along at a progressively accelerating pace.


Actually no. But there again, if I *had to choose, I would deny them
nothing. I would rather have everybody and their mother voting than an

elite

few. The reason is obvious and happens to be why females and blacks took

up

the right to vote in the first place. The white man held all the power

and

was not very generous with it. Perhaps if historically you all had

treated

us better we would have had no problems with you having all the political
power. :)


Political power must be seized.

Why would you say this? You live in a democrasy.

My Mother is a retired history Prof. I had an educational childhood,

whether

I wanted it or not.


Oh, the torment! You have my sympathies. Unless she made it interesting.


History was brought to life, it was fascinating.

Good for you then! I'd rather watch the history channel.

But here again, I think most white people today would rather not look at

it

as a "racial" issue, but more a social one.
Cause let's face it, being called a racist is a very ugly thing in this
society.


It is rapidly becoming a word of many meanings, it has been used too much,

it

has lost it's sting.

I agree with this to a point.

Anyone winning an arguments with a negro or liberal is nearly always

called a

racist. Anyone who has a care for whites is automatically labeled a

racist.
It's easy to say. I would also add that anyone who critizes blacks in any
way generally gets called a racist. But then on the other hand, I have
shared my views with both races and very, very few think me racist. Of
course, what they say behind my back is beyond me....

I believe negroes are being stifled by restrictive white laws and

culture.

Hence my point of 'suitability' for a given environment.


Could you give me an example of this restriction?


Street crime, the kind which terrifies white women. When apprehended the
negro nearly always says something to the effect "I didn't do nothing".

To

the negro perp, he is innocent, he only did what he had to do, black

machismo

demanded he act in a prescribed manner.

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but would not a white male in similar
situation say the exact same thing?
Further, how do you know that a black criminal in this situation must have a
racial mechanism inside directing his ego to do this?

Easy. Every society has somebody to look down on.
The whole world over does it with females, and that is the greatest

example

I can provide you.


You must be joking.


Do you deny sexism both historically and in the world today?


Where have women been better treated than the West?

The West, as you say, historically has treated women oppressivly up until
around 50 years or so ago, and this culture is still rampant with double
standards of the sexes. Also, this does not negate the rest of the world and
the fact that in many cultures today women are looked down upon and treated
as such.

When is enough, enough? American negroes are free to return to the
Motherland. What do they want besides all that we possess?


But there again, is the attitude, "Why should I?" And it's a good

question

really. Why should they (given their history) do anything at all that

we

want them to do?


Suitability.


Why would this be an issue when it would be (to them) better to change

our

society to suit them?


Do you wish to live in a negro society? See Africa or Haiti for the
consequences.

Not what I'm saying. You wish them to return to the motherland or find their
own land. The question I have asked is "why should they?" To which you
reply, "suitability". Understood that this is your viewpoint, but it
certainly won't be theirs. Most blacks in this society think that it should
change for them, not the other way around. This is why I am saying. It's
easier for them to demand that we change, rather than they do. If you wish
them to change, or make some kind of very big choice, like leaving, for
instance, you're going to have to give them a good reason to do so.

IQ tests are different, and they each produce a scoring trend in

relation

to

other tests. Note the different standards for inclusion into the top 1

or

2

percent of test takers.


Yes I know. But again, this isn't what I'm trying to say. I think the

mental

and emotional wellbeing of the test taker must be taken into account as
well.


OK, but I think this is a marginal influence.

Possibly. It's hard to say. I took one over the internet here recently just
to see how it would go. Got a 137, after 12 very long hours and too little
sleep. So go figure.

The 15 point (one SD or sigma) difference is far too consistent for

your

hypothesis.


I understand this, but I guess the inference is that just because you

score

low on an IQ test or what have you, doesn't make you stupid or inferior.

So

the imfamous 15 points do not bother me so much as the inferences behind
them.
You can have a lower IQ and still contribute greatly to this society. And

I

certainly don't think a lower IQ is any reason to look down on anyone. If

it

was so, I could concievably look down on 98% of the populace and be well
within my rights to do so.


Name a few contributors to society who were 'blessed' with a low IQ. Low

IQ

equals dull and stupid, no exceptions.
Do as you please.

Low IQ people can hold jobs, drive cars, learn trades just like everybody
else. This might not be the same thing as e=mc^2, but it does contribute to
society.

They would send you a magazine which you could leave on your coffee

table

to

impress your less gifted friends.


Oh you're kidding! Well I must do that right now...LOL....


I am not kidding, happens quite often to new members.

I would never do this. It's kind of arrogant to talk about a higher IQ.
People think you are looking down on them or calling them dumb.

The power is seldom used, when political power is not used, it does not

exist.

Hence we have very little power over negroes, except the power to

withhold.

We're afraid of being called racists so we do nothing, in other words.


Yes.

Why would white people care so much?

Well, they aren't social butterflies. And I don't know "that many" of

them,

but I guess they would be the lower end of the "poor" spectrum. I have

known

many poor people though (been poor myself LOL), and not everybody is

stupid.

Of course, not everybody stays poor either.


The ones who stay poor are stupid.

Or apathetic.

Well, I was thinking about this too. Let's say that you got your wish,

and

magically moved all the blacks to a segregated portion of this country.

If y

our viewpoints are true, they will be incapable of taking care of

themselves

there just as they are here. And thus, as you claim happens here, whites
would have to either step in and provide aid, or watch them deteriorate.
Given historical precident, whites would probably step in. What then is t

he

point moving them then, other than getting them out of your direct line

of

sight, if you're still going to have to spend the money on them for

upkeep?


I would gladly pay their upkeep if isolated from them and their

pathologies.

We now pay their upkeep and have the 'pleasure' of their company. Which

would

you prefer?

Black people do not bother me. So it would be irrelevant to me either way.
As I said, maybe I"m used to it and I do not see pathogical behavior every
where I turn.

How do you ascertain value for the money.


I don't know. I would assume that if UAB had no great output, they

wouldn't

get anymore money.


Money is allocated by the fed gov by dint of political power and

'logrolling'.
Well, I am not sure but I don't think UAB (from the medical side anyway) is
all about politics. The researchers here have 9 centers that are top of the
line, some of the best in the entire country. They produce results.

Well, howls of racism or not, does the program work? This is all that is
relevant. And if it doesn't work, best that we understand why and move on

to

better things.


The program does not provide anything but a short lived small up-tick for
black children. This is usually explained by a familiarity with the
mechanisms of schooling provided by this program. Usually, one year after
completing 'headstart', these black children are academically
indistinguishable from their brethren who did not attend.

But there is change in the beginning?
I can't help but think that if they were *incapable, there would be no
change at all.

1 crime for each 17 is brought to resolution, do the math.


Yes, but unless you can prove 17 crimes are done by 17 different people

then

you're basically shadow boxing.
A 'criminal' by his nature, is going to commit more than one crime. You

do

not know how many they commit before they get caught.


Do the math, put your significant IQ to work.

I don't have to really. I can read the National Victims Survey put out by
the FBI every year. If these people are telling the truth, yes blacks commit
more crime. But it still doesn't equal a majority of blacks committing
crime.

LOL....But the ability to front is in and of itself indicative of the
ability to chance.


How so? Does an opossum change?


The question is rather, does he "choose" to change? I would say no. But

that

is not the case with the black person.


How have you determined this?

In the black, because if he did not have the ability to change, he would not
change.
If the basic black person was, as someone said, "unevolved" sense 6000 years
ago due to *inability, then no black person alive today would be much
different from those 'uncivilized' in the afraican plains.
Sense there are many expamples of blacks who can 'appear' changed, then this
tells me it's merely a matter of choice.
The bigger question then should be, why are they choosing not to change?

Sorry for the delay in replying.

No problem.
--
Julie Kale (aa#1029)
Listen to the music now at www.juliekale.com
.
User: "juliekale"

Title: Re: Ping Mr. Tapman 29 Jul 2003 10:45:35 PM
"A.T. Tapman" <s123@dellnet.com> wrote in message
news:lo7eivsut2ugk2c897smcrpa110kk61bnq@4ax.com...

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 06:48:36 GMT, "juliekale"

<me[spammenot]@juliekale.com>

wrote:

<snip>

Of course not, I am simply stating that we are physically different, so

why

would behavioral differences, due to 'selection for different traits',

be

surprising.


In theory, it would be okay, but you'd have to find a physical, or ...

I'd

even go so far as to say an evolutionary reason to explain it. One has

yet

to be provided, so it just doesn't stand.


You are correct, the mechanisms have not been proven. The correlations

have

been established as fact, but the scientific method requires explainations

for

the process. Just a matter of time and continueing investegations.

That seems to me like an awfully big leap of faith on your part.

Certainly not. Nobody's does. But here again, I see it as a matter of
degree. You guys seem to enjoy very much calling blacks "inferior" and

want

to treat them as such. Yet, I don't think you'd enjoy the same attitude
turned around on you, if say, another race were to come along en masse,

and

outdo you.


So?

So don't you think you ought to "think twice" before you say such things? It
is important to be sure. History could turn around on you easily, and
suddenly now you become the scapegoat.

I see. What does the issue of drug effects on certain races have to do

with

this?


Different metabolism, due to differing physiologies.

I still don't see the connection to your argument of suitability.

If you believe the first statement is true then why would you have me

bother

with the second?


Where is the dichotomy?


If you put forth the notion that blacks are human like the rest of us, as

a

people, then their biology is not going to be that significantly

different

so that it will alter their behavior to the degree that you would have me
accept. In other words, I think the first statement really makes the

second

a waste of time.


The definition of 'human' is very wide, similar to the definition of

'dog'.
Ah. I see what you're saying.

Yes and well JFK wasn't faithful to his wife either. But how does history
remember him? He was a 'good' man, yes?
Public appearance, some would say, is really all that matters.


Feet of clay.

Only the truth.

May I ask what your experiences were with other races, prior to your

first

encounter with blacks?


Almost non-existant.


So you are stating to me that you had a clean slate basically. Have you

ever

been friends with a black person, known them deeply?


No.

And I am predicting that you would not consider it.
Let me ask you, if you hypothetically did such a thing, what do you expect
that you would find there?

I think people, in the end, prefer to live where it will be the most
benificial to them.


Most people believe it is beneficial to live among their own.


To a degree. If it was completely true, 'white flight' would have been a
great success because the blacks they moved away from would have stayed

put,

despite the conditions of their neighborhoods.


The negroes could not 'stay put' they destroyed their 'hoods' and moved on

to

repeat the cycle. See any major city, with a significant negro

population,

for evidence.

A project might appear run down, but it serves it's function well. People
don't have to leave it, they want to. The question is why do they want to.
It's a curious social statement, all this black and white moving.

White flight was fueled by 'knowledge of negroes' people pretty much

knew

what

to expect, so they bolted.


Knowledge, or prejudice? There is a difference.


Prejudice is simply a 'shorthand' version of judgement gained through
experience. It is not evil.

If I was abused by white men all my life, would you call it wrong of me to
discriminate against them based on past experience?
(I don't btw, but hypothetically speaking here.)

The idea of 'white guilt' was introduced to the West by the early
'deconstructionists'. Very few of them were Americans. See 'Theodor

Adorno'

and 'Max Horkheimer' for a couple example of the 'deconstruction of

America'.

So, no guilt then. From where does the social pressure to stay silent

come?


I believe it is more along the lines of everting one's eyes and attention.

Don't want to get involved, type of thing?

I know they wouldn't be! LOL. (Enter jokes about "heavy negotiations"

every

28 days here).
But that's my point. They were interested in furthering themselves and

their

own agendas, the white man's agenda.


They were the only ones capable of furthering any agenda.


Because they didn't allow anybody else to have any say.


How did they stifle 'everyone else'?

How does any group stifle any other?
They made the laws and kept the power.

Political power must be seized.


Why would you say this? You live in a democrasy.


Actually, a representative republic.

Okay have it your way. Still why would you say this?
<snip>

Street crime, the kind which terrifies white women. When apprehended

the

negro nearly always says something to the effect "I didn't do nothing".

To

the negro perp, he is innocent, he only did what he had to do, black

machismo

demanded he act in a prescribed manner.


Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but would not a white male in similar
situation say the exact same thing?

Perhaps.

Perhaps he wouldn't say "I didn't do anything wrong?" LOL. You know he would
say this.

Further, how do you know that a black criminal in this situation must

have a

racial mechanism inside directing his ego to do this?


The consistency of this particular response indicates a racial or cultural
component.

It looks to me more like your typical criminal denial, regardless of what
race he is.

Do you deny sexism both historically and in the world today?


Where have women been better treated than the West?


The West, as you say, historically has treated women oppressivly up until
around 50 years or so ago, and this culture is still rampant with double
standards of the sexes. Also, this does not negate the rest of the world

and

the fact that in many cultures today women are looked down upon and

treated

as such.


So what? Such is human nature.

To find a scapegoat within a society and look down on them, blaming them for
most of your social difficulties? Yes, you are right. This is my point. Men
have done it with women, whites have done it with blacks. Republicans do it
to democrats (and vise versa), conservatives and liberals do it to one
another, christians do it to...just about everybody, and hell, atheists
sometimes do it to christians. But just because you point the finger doesn't
make you right. It only means you've found your scapegoat. We are all too
human, indeed.

Do you wish to live in a negro society? See Africa or Haiti for the
consequences.


Not what I'm saying. You wish them to return to the motherland or find

their

own land. The question I have asked is "why should they?" To which you
reply, "suitability". Understood that this is your viewpoint, but it
certainly won't be theirs. Most blacks in this society think that it

should

change for them, not the other way around. This is why I am saying. It's
easier for them to demand that we change, rather than they do. If you

wish

them to change, or make some kind of very big choice, like leaving, for
instance, you're going to have to give them a good reason to do so.


I believe as western society becomes more and more technologically

advanced,

the negro may find his own reasons for segregation.

Perhaps so. But right now I personally don't see it. As long as "white"
society conforms to "black" culture, there is really no reason for blacks to
seek any kind of segregation whatsoever.

OK, but I think this is a marginal influence.


Possibly. It's hard to say. I took one over the internet here recently

just

to see how it would go. Got a 137, after 12 very long hours and too

little

sleep. So go figure.


Which one did you take?
If you like, I will take the same one and report my score.

Sure. The test is www.iqtest.com, and you can take the test for free.
However, if you want the "profile" you have to pay the $9.95 to get it.
Sneaky bastards. :)
They claim to have a 5 point deviation from the standard tests. This holds
true with my own personal experience of various IQ tests. Of course it's
done via internet and depends a great deal on the honesty of the user. For
myself, it took 9 min to complete (again after about 12 hours of work), and
these are my results. -
http://www.iqtest.com/view/iqtest/profile/66.25.119.110.10587702798878
They give you a little "certificate" of completion too. Kinda cool. :)

Low IQ people can hold jobs, drive cars, learn trades just like everybody
else. This might not be the same thing as e=mc^2, but it does contribute

to

society.


Yes, toilets always require cleaning.

You speak with contempt of the toilet cleaners, but without them, *you would
have to do it.

I would never do this. It's kind of arrogant to talk about a higher IQ.
People think you are looking down on them or calling them dumb.


I never discuss my test results, unless directly asked.

Or as a point of debate.

We're afraid of being called racists so we do nothing, in other words.


Yes.


Why would white people care so much?


Who needs the drama or an 'in your face' uncivilized negro.

I think white people pick their dramas where it suits them. 50 yrs ago it
didn't bother whites to be called racists.

Black people do not bother me. So it would be irrelevant to me either

way.

As I said, maybe I"m used to it and I do not see pathogical behavior

every

where I turn.


Perhaps you have become inured to their behavior.

Perhaps.

Money is allocated by the fed gov by dint of political power and

'logrolling'.

Well, I am not sure but I don't think UAB (from the medical side anyway)

is

all about politics. The researchers here have 9 centers that are top of

the

line, some of the best in the entire country. They produce results.


All research facilities are 'all politics, all of the time'. This is just

the

way of the world.

Well they do AIDS, cancer and a few others. I think you can see why the
gov't might spend a considerable amount of money for this.

But there is change in the beginning?
I can't help but think that if they were *incapable, there would be no
change at all.


The change is attributed to an early familiarity with the mechanisms of
school.

I still see it as more environment than genetics. I have known too many
sucessess in the black race.

Do the math, put your significant IQ to work.


I don't have to really. I can read the National Victims Survey put out by
the FBI every year. If these people are telling the truth, yes blacks

commit

more crime. But it still doesn't equal a majority of blacks committing
crime.


What if it were 49.9% committing crime?

I think if this were the case, white people would have ejected blacks from
the country a long time ago.

In the black, because if he did not have the ability to change, he would

not

change.
If the basic black person was, as someone said, "unevolved" sense 6000

years

ago due to *inability, then no black person alive today would be much
different from those 'uncivilized' in the afraican plains.
Sense there are many expamples of blacks who can 'appear' changed, then

this

tells me it's merely a matter of choice.
The bigger question then should be, why are they choosing not to change?


It could be cultural or it could be a genetic predilection, but in the end

it

is still the operative reality.

And as such, it is really the only thing worth addressing.
--
Julie Kale (aa#1029)
Listen to the music now at www.juliekale.com
.
User: "A.T. Tapman"

Title: Re: Ping Mr. Tapman 31 Jul 2003 07:12:24 PM
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:45:35 GMT, "juliekale" <me[spammenot]@juliekale.com>
wrote:

"A.T. Tapman" <s123@dellnet.com> wrote in message
news:lo7eivsut2ugk2c897smcrpa110kk61bnq@4ax.com...

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 06:48:36 GMT, "juliekale"

<me[spammenot]@juliekale.com>

wrote:

<snip>

Of course not, I am simply stating that we are physically different, so

why

would behavioral differences, due to 'selection for different traits',

be

surprising.


In theory, it would be okay, but you'd have to find a physical, or ...

I'd

even go so far as to say an evolutionary reason to explain it. One has

yet

to be provided, so it just doesn't stand.


You are correct, the mechanisms have not been proven. The correlations

have

been established as fact, but the scientific method requires explainations

for

the process. Just a matter of time and continuing investigations.


That seems to me like an awfully big leap of faith on your part.

Not really, this is the direction research has been heading for the last 40
years.

Certainly not. Nobody's does. But here again, I see it as a matter of
degree. You guys seem to enjoy very much calling blacks "inferior" and

want

to treat them as such. Yet, I don't think you'd enjoy the same attitude
turned around on you, if say, another race were to come along en masse,

and

outdo you.


So?


So don't you think you ought to "think twice" before you say such things? It
is important to be sure. History could turn around on you easily, and
suddenly now you become the scapegoat.

My philosophical outlook is not changed by what 'might' be.

I see. What does the issue of drug effects on certain races have to do

with

this?


Different metabolism, due to differing physiologies.


I still don't see the connection to your argument of suitability.

OK

If you believe the first statement is true then why would you have me

bother

with the second?


Where is the dichotomy?


If you put forth the notion that blacks are human like the rest of us, as

a

people, then their biology is not going to be that significantly

different

so that it will alter their behavior to the degree that you would have me
accept. In other words, I think the first statement really makes the

second

a waste of time.


The definition of 'human' is very wide, similar to the definition of

'dog'.

Ah. I see what you're saying.

Yes and well JFK wasn't faithful to his wife either. But how does history
remember him? He was a 'good' man, yes?
Public appearance, some would say, is really all that matters.


Feet of clay.


Only the truth.

How long was this truth occluded from the general public?

May I ask what your experiences were with other races, prior to your

first

encounter with blacks?


Almost non-existant.


So you are stating to me that you had a clean slate basically. Have you

ever

been friends with a black person, known them deeply?


No.


And I am predicting that you would not consider it.
Let me ask you, if you hypothetically did such a thing, what do you expect
that you would find there?

I have negroes in my employ, I do know what to expect, but I do not consider
any of them friends. I have a fairly tight definition of 'friend'.

I think people, in the end, prefer to live where it will be the most
benificial to them.


Most people believe it is beneficial to live among their own.


To a degree. If it was completely true, 'white flight' would have been a
great success because the blacks they moved away from would have stayed

put,

despite the conditions of their neighborhoods.


The negroes could not 'stay put' they destroyed their 'hoods' and moved on

to

repeat the cycle. See any major city, with a significant negro

population,

for evidence.


A project might appear run down, but it serves it's function well. People
don't have to leave it, they want to. The question is why do they want to.
It's a curious social statement, all this black and white moving.

It is not hard to comprehend, whites move out when negroes move in. Negroes
move out when they have destroyed the local infrastructure.

White flight was fueled by 'knowledge of negroes' people pretty much

knew

what

to expect, so they bolted.


Knowledge, or prejudice? There is a difference.


Prejudice is simply a 'shorthand' version of judgement gained through
experience. It is not evil.


If I was abused by white men all my life, would you call it wrong of me to
discriminate against them based on past experience?
(I don't btw, but hypothetically speaking here.)

I would call it common sense.

The idea of 'white guilt' was introduced to the West by the early
'deconstructionists'. Very few of them were Americans. See 'Theodor

Adorno'

and 'Max Horkheimer' for a couple example of the 'deconstruction of

America'.

So, no guilt then. From where does the social pressure to stay silent

come?


I believe it is more along the lines of everting one's eyes and attention.


Don't want to get involved, type of thing?

Yes, more and more I see people becoming hermit-like, the indications of this
are all around us. We attempt to keep the world at bay.

I know they wouldn't be! LOL. (Enter jokes about "heavy negotiations"

every

28 days here).
But that's my point. They were interested in furthering themselves and

their

own agendas, the white man's agenda.


They were the only ones capable of furthering any agenda.


Because they didn't allow anybody else to have any say.


How did they stifle 'everyone else'?


How does any group stifle any other?
They made the laws and kept the power.

In the face of _what_ resistance?

Political power must be seized.


Why would you say this? You live in a democrasy.


Actually, a representative republic.


Okay have it your way. Still why would you say this?

One does not wait for power to seek them out, it must be pursued.

<snip>

Street crime, the kind which terrifies white women. When apprehended

the

negro nearly always says something to the effect "I didn't do nothing".

To

the negro perp, he is innocent, he only did what he had to do, black

machismo

demanded he act in a prescribed manner.


Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but would not a white male in similar
situation say the exact same thing?

Perhaps.


Perhaps he wouldn't say "I didn't do anything wrong?" LOL. You know he would
say this.

Likely.

Further, how do you know that a black criminal in this situation must

have a

racial mechanism inside directing his ego to do this?


The consistency of this particular response indicates a racial or cultural
component.


It looks to me more like your typical criminal denial, regardless of what
race he is.

True, they share much, culturally and mentally.

Do you deny sexism both historically and in the world today?


Where have women been better treated than the West?


The West, as you say, historically has treated women oppressivly up until
around 50 years or so ago, and this culture is still rampant with double
standards of the sexes. Also, this does not negate the rest of the world

and

the fact that in many cultures today women are looked down upon and

treated

as such.


So what? Such is human nature.


To find a scapegoat within a society and look down on them, blaming them for
most of your social difficulties? Yes, you are right. This is my point. Men
have done it with women, whites have done it with blacks. Republicans do it
to democrats (and vise versa), conservatives and liberals do it to one
another, christians do it to...just about everybody, and hell, atheists
sometimes do it to christians. But just because you point the finger doesn't
make you right. It only means you've found your scapegoat. We are all too
human, indeed.

I was going to write "in the west men do not blame women for their
circumstance", but I have reconsidered, men sometimes do blame women for their
circumstance. I believe this works both ways.

Do you wish to live in a negro society? See Africa or Haiti for the
consequences.


Not what I'm saying. You wish them to return to the motherland or find

their

own land. The question I have asked is "why should they?" To which you
reply, "suitability". Understood that this is your viewpoint, but it
certainly won't be theirs. Most blacks in this society think that it

should

change for them, not the other way around. This is why I am saying. It's
easier for them to demand that we change, rather than they do. If you

wish

them to change, or make some kind of very big choice, like leaving, for
instance, you're going to have to give them a good reason to do so.


I believe as western society becomes more and more technologically

advanced,

the negro may find his own reasons for segregation.


Perhaps so. But right now I personally don't see it. As long as "white"
society conforms to "black" culture, there is really no reason for blacks to
seek any kind of segregation whatsoever.

Backlash.

OK, but I think this is a marginal influence.


Possibly. It's hard to say. I took one over the internet here recently

just

to see how it would go. Got a 137, after 12 very long hours and too

little

sleep. So go figure.


Which one did you take?
If you like, I will take the same one and report my score.


Sure. The test is www.iqtest.com, and you can take the test for free.
However, if you want the "profile" you have to pay the $9.95 to get it.
Sneaky bastards. :)
They claim to have a 5 point deviation from the standard tests. This holds
true with my own personal experience of various IQ tests. Of course it's
done via internet and depends a great deal on the honesty of the user. For
myself, it took 9 min to complete (again after about 12 hours of work), and
these are my results. -
http://www.iqtest.com/view/iqtest/profile/66.25.119.110.10587702798878
They give you a little "certificate" of completion too. Kinda cool. :)

I will take the test as time permits.

Low IQ people can hold jobs, drive cars, learn trades just like everybody
else. This might not be the same thing as e=mc^2, but it does contribute

to

society.


Yes, toilets always require cleaning.


You speak with contempt of the toilet cleaners, but without them, *you would
have to do it.

OK.

I would never do this. It's kind of arrogant to talk about a higher IQ.
People think you are looking down on them or calling them dumb.


I never discuss my test results, unless directly asked.


Or as a point of debate.

I haven't as yet, it would be classed as 'an appeal to authority', I try to
avoid such things.

We're afraid of being called racists so we do nothing, in other words.


Yes.


Why would white people care so much?


Who needs the drama or an 'in your face' uncivilized negro.


I think white people pick their dramas where it suits them. 50 yrs ago it
didn't bother whites to be called racists.

I does not bother some of us now, some take it as complementing their wisdom
and ability to see clearly in the face of a barrage of propaganda.

Black people do not bother me. So it would be irrelevant to me either

way.

As I said, maybe I"m used to it and I do not see pathogical behavior

every

where I turn.


Perhaps you have become inured to their behavior.


Perhaps.

Money is allocated by the fed gov by dint of political power and

'logrolling'.

Well, I am not sure but I don't think UAB (from the medical side anyway)

is

all about politics. The researchers here have 9 centers that are top of

the

line, some of the best in the entire country. They produce results.


All research facilities are 'all politics, all of the time'. This is just

the

way of the world.


Well they do AIDS, cancer and a few others. I think you can see why the
gov't might spend a considerable amount of money for this.

In the end, it is still political, but significant output likely helps your
local pols make their case.

But there is change in the beginning?
I can't help but think that if they were *incapable, there would be no
change at all.


The change is attributed to an early familiarity with the mechanisms of
school.


I still see it as more environment than genetics. I have known too many
sucessess in the black race.

And I have known too few.

Do the math, put your significant IQ to work.


I don't have to really. I can read the National Victims Survey put out by
the FBI every year. If these people are telling the truth, yes blacks

commit

more crime. But it still doesn't equal a majority of blacks committing
crime.


What if it were 49.9% committing crime?


I think if this were the case, white people would have ejected blacks from
the country a long time ago.

Why?

In the black, because if he did not have the ability to change, he would

not

change.
If the basic black person was, as someone said, "unevolved" sense 6000

years

ago due to *inability, then no black person alive today would be much
different from those 'uncivilized' in the afraican plains.
Sense there are many expamples of blacks who can 'appear' changed, then

this

tells me it's merely a matter of choice.
The bigger question then should be, why are they choosing not to change?


It could be cultural or it could be a genetic predilection, but in the end

it

is still the operative reality.


And as such, it is really the only thing worth addressing.

Exactly.
Your friend,
A.T. Tapman
.
User: "A.T. Tapman"

Title: Re: Ping Mr. Tapman 02 Aug 2003 11:08:27 AM
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 10:38:57 GMT, "juliekale" <me[spammenot]@juliekale.com>
wrote:

"A.T. Tapman" <s123@dellnet.com> wrote in message
news:a61jivc27s7i709lr2stemvge4cd4npnut@4ax.com...

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:45:35 GMT, "juliekale"

<me[spammenot]@juliekale.com>

wrote:

<snip>

You are correct, the mechanisms have not been proven. The correlations

have

been established as fact, but the scientific method requires

explainations

for

the process. Just a matter of time and continuing investigations.


That seems to me like an awfully big leap of faith on your part.


Not really, this is the direction research has been heading for the last

40

years.


The direction to prove genetics plays a part in human action, sure.
But let's look at where it goes. They are examining what makes people fat.
They are examining what makes people have a tendancy towards violence.
They are not (at least to my knowledge) examining what makes *black people
do x, y or z, in any genetic project I've ever heard of.
The reason I feel this is a leap of faith on your part is that you seem to
think one day they are going to "discover" what would essentially be called
a "black" gene(s), that would make certain peoples have a tendancy to act a
certain way. Now if this happened, then logic must dictate that we go
looking for a "white" gene(s), and an oriental gene(s).
I am not saying it's impossible, but I find it highly unlikely. There is
too much variation in behavior within every race for this to be valid.

I do not think a 'magic bullet' single gene is responsible for any single
behavioral pattern. It is likely a combination of genes, and their frequency
of occurrence within each of the races, which define each group. There will,
of course, be some overlap within the spectrum of gene combinations which will
tend to blur the margins.
How do you suppose 'stereotypes' came into being? Do you think stereotypes
are baseless?

So don't you think you ought to "think twice" before you say such things?

It

is important to be sure. History could turn around on you easily, and
suddenly now you become the scapegoat.


My philosophical outlook is not changed by what 'might' be.


I guess you have never been considered "less than" by another.

True.

Yes and well JFK wasn't faithful to his wife either. But how does

history

remember him? He was a 'good' man, yes?
Public appearance, some would say, is really all that matters.


Feet of clay.


Only the truth.


How long was this truth occluded from the general public?


I couldn't tell you. And truly, it's probably irrelevant. People have a
tendancy to love who they will love, and hate who they will hate.

So you are stating to me that you had a clean slate basically. Have

you

ever

been friends with a black person, known them deeply?


No.


And I am predicting that you would not consider it.
Let me ask you, if you hypothetically did such a thing, what do you

expect

that you would find there?


I have negroes in my employ, I do know what to expect, but I do not

consider

any of them friends. I have a fairly tight definition of 'friend'.


Okay, but still doesn't answer my question. If you got to know a black
person, what do you expect that you would find there?

If we were to build a profile of the average negro in America, and I were to
befriend him, I would find a person very unlike myself. We would share very
little common ground, we would likely have difficulty communicating in a
meaningful fashion. If you would like me to list the differences I will, but
it seems a meaningless exercise. I am sure you are aware of where I am going
with this.

A project might appear run down, but it serves it's function well. People
don't have to leave it, they want to. The question is why do they want

to.

It's a curious social statement, all this black and white moving.


It is not hard to comprehend, whites move out when negroes move in.

Negroes

move out when they have destroyed the local infrastructure.


But this contradicts your statement that people prefer to live on their own.
If blacks didn't want to be around whites, I don't think they'd care about
the conditions of their neighborhoods. I mean, if I didn't want to be around
*you, I certainly wouldn't be, no matter what the situation around me was
like. So there has to be a deeper explanation to me.

I see no contradiction, I stated that the races generally prefer to live among
their racial brethren.
Governmental interference, Section 8 housing and the like has skewed the
above. To quote Tom Shelly "No other race or no other group in the world
needs laws or forced brainwashing to get others to accept them."
You may be too young to remember the 'protests' by whites concerning forced
bussing and relocation of Low Income housing into white neighborhoods, but
they did and do continue to occur.
Perhaps you have an alternative explanations for white flight, if so, It would
interest me greatly.

Prejudice is simply a 'shorthand' version of judgement gained through
experience. It is not evil.


If I was abused by white men all my life, would you call it wrong of me

to

discriminate against them based on past experience?
(I don't btw, but hypothetically speaking here.)


I would call it common sense.


Most people might until they themselves were discriminated against.

What does a personal grievance have to do with a philosophical point of view?

I believe it is more along the lines of everting one's eyes and

attention.


Don't want to get involved, type of thing?


Yes, more and more I see people becoming hermit-like, the indications of

this

are all around us. We attempt to keep the world at bay.


I think we all just want to get along, really.

And pretend not to notice what is occurring around us.
Notice the silly slogans like "diversity is our strength", how many really
believe such nonsense? How many pretend to believe?

How did they stifle 'everyone else'?


How does any group stifle any other?
They made the laws and kept the power.


In the face of _what_ resistance?


You will have no resistance if you are very good at crushing it.
The american indian resisted as long as they could.
And when the black person tried to assert their rights historically they
were not treated very well because of it.
As for the women, we have been taught for centuries not to resist. It was
the "natural" order to let the man have all the power. When women did
challenge this, there was a good deal of social resistance for a very long
time.

I take it you do not acknowledge a 'natural order'?

Political power must be seized.


Why would you say this? You live in a democrasy.


Actually, a representative republic.


Okay have it your way. Still why would you say this?


One does not wait for power to seek them out, it must be pursued.


I see.

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but would not a white male in similar
situation say the exact same thing?

Perhaps.


Perhaps he wouldn't say "I didn't do anything wrong?" LOL. You know he

would

say this.


Likely.


So why make it a black thing, when it's more a criminal thing?

It is far more common among negroes, it is far less common among the other
races.

The consistency of this particular response indicates a racial or

cultural

component.


It looks to me more like your typical criminal denial, regardless of what
race he is.


True, they share much, culturally and mentally.


Ah, so blacks by default have a criminal mentality? Can you prove this?

In light of the frequency of criminal activities of this group, as indicated
by the statistics published by the Justice Dept, what other plausible
conclusion exists?

To find a scapegoat within a society and look down on them, blaming them

for

most of your social difficulties? Yes, you are right. This is my point.

Men

have done it with women, whites have done it with blacks. Republicans do

it

to democrats (and vise versa), conservatives and liberals do it to one
another, christians do it to...just about everybody, and hell, atheists
sometimes do it to christians. But just because you point the finger

doesn't

make you right. It only means you've found your scapegoat. We are all too
human, indeed.


I was going to write "in the west men do not blame women for their
circumstance", but I have reconsidered, men sometimes do blame women for

their

circumstance. I believe this works both ways.


That's not what I mean.
Think about the history of judeo/christianity and it's treatment of women.
Who is to blame for the fall of man?
Check the bible - the answer is women. One example about the need for the
scapegoat. We have been the scapegoat in this manner for thousands of years.

Interesting.

I believe as western society becomes more and more technologically

advanced,

the negro may find his own reasons for segregation.


Perhaps so. But right now I personally don't see it. As long as "white"
society conforms to "black" culture, there is really no reason for blacks

to

seek any kind of segregation whatsoever.


Backlash.


When do you think this is going to happen?

One never knows, perhaps never, but history and human nature indicate
otherwise. We are on uncharted territory.

<snip>'

They claim to have a 5 point deviation from the standard tests. This

holds

true with my own personal experience of various IQ tests. Of course it's
done via internet and depends a great deal on the honesty of the user.

For

myself, it took 9 min to complete (again after about 12 hours of work),

and

these are my results. -
http://www.iqtest.com/view/iqtest/profile/66.25.119.110.10587702798878
They give you a little "certificate" of completion too. Kinda cool. :)


I will take the test as time permits.


Cool.

Low IQ people can hold jobs, drive cars, learn trades just like

everybody

else. This might not be the same thing as e=mc^2, but it does

contribute

to

society.


Yes, toilets always require cleaning.


You speak with contempt of the toilet cleaners, but without them, *you

would

have to do it.


OK.


Thus, can you honestly say they do not contribute to society?

If that is the criterion for societal contributions, a pet dog, who fetches
the paper, is also a contributor.

I would never do this. It's kind of arrogant to talk about a higher

IQ.

People think you are looking down on them or calling them dumb.


I never discuss my test results, unless directly asked.


Or as a point of debate.


I haven't as yet, it would be classed as 'an appeal to authority', I try

to

avoid such things.


It only becomes such when another person makes it such.
This is why I find the argument about IQ rather stupid. My own is high
enough that I could concievably look down on 98% of the populace, but I
don't. A high IQ does not make you better or worse than another individual,
and it never will.

It simply indicates you are capable of more complicated tasks. You find this
worthless?

Who needs the drama or an 'in your face' uncivilized negro.


I think white people pick their dramas where it suits them. 50 yrs ago it
didn't bother whites to be called racists.


I does not bother some of us now, some take it as complementing their

wisdom

and ability to see clearly in the face of a barrage of propaganda.


Otoh, I am of mind to think that firstly nobody is really that simple. But
we want to be that simple because that makes life simpler. We go from this
extreme to that, and think it all must be this way or that, and it isn't. In
the real world, the issue is, to be called a racist when you are merely
trying to do the right thing - such as disicpline a black employee or the
like - that I think is what whites are running away from, because it's
simple. But it's not real.

Usually it is just that simple, the majority of racists of AFN are 'guilty' of
little more than benign neglect. I doubt many of them go out of their way to
harm negroes.

All research facilities are 'all politics, all of the time'. This is

just

the

way of the world.


Well they do AIDS, cancer and a few others. I think you can see why the
gov't might spend a considerable amount of money for this.


In the end, it is still political, but significant output likely helps

your

local pols make their case.


I'm sure it does. Plus, the UAB health system (hospitals, schools, research
centers) create a great many jobs for the city. So there is economic reason
as well.

Governmental jobs do little positive good for the economy as a whole.
Remember, that money comes principally from the productive sector of society,
tax them too heavily and the 'golden goose' dies.

But there is change in the beginning?
I can't help but think that if they were *incapable, there would be no
change at all.


The change is attributed to an early familiarity with the mechanisms of
school.


I still see it as more environment than genetics. I have known too many
sucessess in the black race.


And I have known too few.


Well...and this means what? Only that the explanations are not so simple.
But simplicity is what makes you comfortable, so you are going to stick with
it.

The simple explanation works in the vast majority of cases, usually the
questions which deal with cases about the margins are the only ones which
require a more complete picture.

What if it were 49.9% committing crime?


I think if this were the case, white people would have ejected blacks

from

the country a long time ago.


Why?


Because, 49.9% of anything starts acting up such manner, people will take
measures to restor equalibrium.
That would mean (for the white person) that you basically have a 1 out of 2
chance of being robbed, raped, beaten or murdered every time you run up on a
black person. I do not think white people would endure such. We have no
reason to.

Why is 49.9% significant? Why not 40% or 30%?

In the black, because if he did not have the ability to change, he

would

not

change.
If the basic black person was, as someone said, "unevolved" sense 6000

years

ago due to *inability, then no black person alive today would be much
different from those 'uncivilized' in the afraican plains.
Sense there are many expamples of blacks who can 'appear' changed,

then

this

tells me it's merely a matter of choice.
The bigger question then should be, why are they choosing not to

change?


It could be cultural or it could be a genetic predilection, but in the

end

it

is still the operative reality.


And as such, it is really the only thing worth addressing.


Exactly.


But once you find this answer, then you have to find the solution to effect
change. Otherwise, there's no point in even looking.

But what if the solution makes the general public uncomfortable? Should a
good leader forge ahead for the good of society?
Your friend,
A.T. Tapman
.
User: "juliekale"

Title: Re: Ping Mr. Tapman 03 Aug 2003 02:03:11 AM
"A.T. Tapman" <s123@dellnet.com> wrote in message
news:8jiniv4t9338511p0nehtsk4ir4f4jsrjh@4ax.com...

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 10:38:57 GMT, "juliekale"

<me[spammenot]@juliekale.com>

wrote:

"A.T. Tapman" <s123@dellnet.com> wrote in message
news:a61jivc27s7i709lr2stemvge4cd4npnut@4ax.com...

<snip>

The reason I feel this is a leap of faith on your part is that you seem

to

think one day they are going