• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Black unemployment: Highest in 27 years

ric27 said:
Without debating here the truth or untruth of Christianity, Josh McDowell wrote a book titled "Evidence that demands a verdict, Historical evidence for the Christian Faith". In his forward I believe, he relates an incident in which he was speaking before a college class. The professor was an avowed atheist. After putting out all of the facts, he asked the professor if he could refute any of them. The professor answered, "No." So McDowell asked him if he now believed and again, the professor answered, "No." When asked why, he said he chose not to.
Click to expand...

You can't refute a belief.

One either has faith, or they do not.
 
ric27 said:
Without debating here the truth or untruth of Christianity, Josh McDowell wrote a book titled "Evidence that demands a verdict, Historical evidence for the Christian Faith". In his forward I believe, he relates an incident in which he was speaking before a college class. The professor was an avowed atheist. After putting out all of the facts, he asked the professor if he could refute any of them. The professor answered, "No." So McDowell asked him if he now believed and again, the professor answered, "No." When asked why, he said he chose not to.
Click to expand...
Okay then.
 
ric27 said:
Without debating here the truth or untruth of Christianity, Josh McDowell wrote a book titled "Evidence that demands a verdict, Historical evidence for the Christian Faith". In his forward I believe, he relates an incident in which he was speaking before a college class. The professor was an avowed atheist. After putting out all of the facts, he asked the professor if he could refute any of them. The professor answered, "No." So McDowell asked him if he now believed and again, the professor answered, "No." When asked why, he said he chose not to.
Click to expand...

The real problem with that is someone trying to "prove" Christianity. The Bible puts the emphasis on faith, and proving the existence of God means that you've logically eliminated Him.

Every person of faith has what they see as very good reasons for believing in God. I am one of them, but I don't fool myself into thinking that these reasons constitute actual proof, or would mean anything to anybody but me.
 
theplaydrive said:
Eh, I actually get to my "state" by reading reliable sources of information, not silly rants on the internet by people who clearly don't know what the hell they're talking about.
Click to expand...

But you are unable to refute what was said. Had these "reliable sources of information" provided you with any wit or knowledge you could have demonstrated what errors there might be, but they did not and you are helpless. Hence the cut and run.
 
Grant said:
But you are unable to refute what was said. Had these "reliable sources of information" provided you with any wit or knowledge you could have demonstrated what errors there might be, but they did not and you are helpless. Hence the cut and run.
Click to expand...
Do you bother "refuting" the arguments of people who scream about Russian invasions or Armageddon on street corners? I doubt you do. Neither do I and you're the internet version of them.
 
theplaydrive said:
Do you bother "refuting" the arguments of people who scream about Russian invasions or Armageddon on street corners? I doubt you do. Neither do I and you're the internet version of them.
Click to expand...

Are people in your area screaming about "Russian invasions" or "Armageddon on street corners"?

It seems that being Left involves a lot of fantasy and not a great deal of the real world. Get back to the discussion of eugenics and it's consequences and you'll see signs of the true Left everywhere.
 
Grant said:
Are people in your area screaming about "Russian invasions" or "Armageddon on street corners"?

It seems that being Left involves a lot of fantasy and not a great deal of the real world. Get back to the discussion of eugenics and it's consequences and you'll see signs of the true Left everywhere.
Click to expand...
It seems my point went right over your head. Here's an example of how I see you - except substitute "eugenics" and "liberals" for "God":
Street Preacher - Chicago, Il. on Michigan Ave. - June 28, 2009 - YouTube

P.S. I already know the history of eugenics, it's an American one, not just a liberal one.
 
theplaydrive said:
It seems my point went right over your head. Here's an example of how I see you - except substitute "eugenics" and "liberals" for "God":
Street Preacher - Chicago, Il. on Michigan Ave. - June 28, 2009 - YouTube

P.S. I already know the history of eugenics, it's an American one, not just a liberal one.
Click to expand...

I really try to discourage the Left from flying off into directions not directly involved with the issues at hand.

Do you understand the link between Eugenics and Abortions?
 
Grant said:
I really try to discourage the Left from flying off into directions not directly involved with the issues at hand.

Do you understand the link between Eugenics and Abortions?
Click to expand...
That's interesting because eugenics and abortion have nothing to do with black employment being the highest in 27 years. I'll talk to you seriously when you stop talking in generalizations - until then, you get about as much serious discussion out of me as those street preachers get.
 
theplaydrive said:
That's interesting because eugenics and abortion have nothing to do with black employment being the highest in 27 years. I'll talk to you seriously when you stop talking in generalizations - until then, you get about as much serious discussion out of me as those street preachers get.
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact Eugenics and Abortion have a great deal to with prejudices against Black people. You apparently don't understand the connection between Eugenics, Abortion, Black people and don't want to learn about it.

Self censorship appears to be the only way the Left can maintain their views and yet still have them make any sense to them.
 
Grant said:
As a matter of fact Eugenics and Abortion have a great deal to with prejudices against Black people. You apparently don't understand the connection between Eugenics, Abortion, Black people and don't want to learn about it.

Self censorship appears to be the only way the Left can maintain their views and yet still have them make any sense to them.
Click to expand...

Eugenics in the U.S. had its roots in social darwinism -- the darling of today's right wing. We could argue for days about who started it, but IMO there's no question that rhetoric used to support eugenics is anathema to *today's* liberal/progressive, but mirrors the rhetoric used by some of today's extreme right wingers.
 
AdamT said:
Eugenics in the U.S. had its roots in social darwinism -- the darling of today's right wing. We could argue for days about who started it, but IMO there's no question that rhetoric used to support eugenics is anathema to *today's* liberal/progressive, but mirrors the rhetoric used by some of today's extreme right wingers.
Click to expand...

Your use of the term "social Darwinism" is quite unclear and contradictory because Sanger and her supporters were not allowing Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' idea to play itself out. Instead they were interfering in the natural process.

Where is "the rhetoric used by some of today's extreme right wingers" regarding Eugenics, birth control, abortion , etc. If you take a look at the "pro life" movement I doubt you'll find many who support Eugenics, or abortion. It is not the Left who has traditionally been against any of this; quite the opposite in fact.
 
Grant said:
Your use of the term "social Darwinism" is quite unclear and contradictory because Sanger and her supporters were not allowing Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' idea to play itself out. Instead they were interfering in the natural process.

Where is "the rhetoric used by some of today's extreme right wingers" regarding Eugenics, birth control, abortion , etc. If you take a look at the "pro life" movement I doubt you'll find many who support Eugenics, or abortion. It is not the Left who has traditionally been against any of this; quite the opposite in fact.
Click to expand...

Eugenics was basically seen as a sciencey way to speed up natural selection, coupled with white supremacist beliefs. Whites were thought to be superior, but not breeding fast enough. Today's white supremacists are right-wing extremists.

"The concept of the feeble-minded menace provided a way to make the rural families, who were neither institutionalized, foreign, nor "colored," into people who were "different" from the eugenicists. Underlying the family studies and the myth of the feeble-minded menace was the theory of Social Darwinism, which assumed the existence of a struggle between the individual and society, and of an adversarial relationship between the fit and unfit classes. Eugenical family studies and social Darwinism both involved a transmutation of nature into biology and the eugenics movement frequently acknowledged its debt to Social Darwinism.

The deeply conservative implications of such philosophies included the rejection of government welfare programs or protective legislation on the grounds that such reforms as poorhouses, orphanages, bread lines, and eight-hour days enabled the unfit to survive and weakened society as a whole. From the beginning, the eugenics movement accepted the regressive implications of Social Darwinism. Karl Pearson believed that "such measures as the minimum wage, the eight-hour day, free medical advice, and reductions in infant mortality encouraged an increase in unemployables, degenerates, and physical and mental weaklings."

Pearson's friend, Havelock Ellis, known as a sex radical and free thinker, shared Pearson's elitist views, writing in his 1911 eugenicist book, The Problem of Race Regeneration, "These classes, with their tendency to weak-mindedness, their inborn laziness, lack of vitality, and unfitness for organized activity, contain the people who complain they are starving for want of work, though they will never perform any work that is given them." Ellis suggested in the same book that all public relief be denied to second generation paupers unless they "voluntarily consented" to be surgically sterilized.

One American eugenicist said harshly:

"The so-called charitable people who give to begging children and women with baskets have a vast sin to answer for. It is from them that this pauper element gets its consent to exist. . . .So-called charity joins public relief in producing stillborn children, raising prostitutes, and educating criminals."

PublicEye.org - The Website of Political Research Associates


Hmmm, sound familiar?
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Eugenics was basically seen as a sciencey way to speed up natural selection, coupled with white supremacist beliefs. Whites were thought to be superior, but not breeding fast enough. Today's white supremacists are right-wing extremists.
Click to expand...

Actually, you'll find that it is the Left who feel Blacks are inferior and in need of special programs to help them along. It s the right who feel they are quite capable of standing on their own and any help they might need can come from a helping hand, rather than more government programs institutionalizing them as second class citizens.

Abortions, which are obviously supported by the Left, has decimated the Black community, just as the surely as LBJ's Great Society programs contributed so much in breaking up Black families.

There are no doubt right wing supremeists, but the Left wing's 'soft' racism has done more damage to the Black Community than any knuckle dragging white supremacist can ever do. The Black community can handle these guys easily, but the institutionalized racism of the Democrats is harder to overcome, and far more destructive over the long term/.
 
Grant said:
Actually, you'll find that it is the Left who feel Blacks are inferior and in need of special programs to help them along. It s the right who feel they are quite capable of standing on their own and any help they might need can come from a helping hand, rather than more government programs institutionalizing them as second class citizens.

Abortions, which are obviously supported by the Left, has decimated the Black community, just as the surely as LBJ's Great Society programs contributed so much in breaking up Black families.

There are no doubt right wing supremeists, but the Left wing's 'soft' racism has done more damage to the Black Community than any knuckle dragging white supremacist can ever do. The Black community can handle these guys easily, but the institutionalized racism of the Democrats is harder to overcome, and far more destructive over the long term/.
Click to expand...

Actually the left makes no racial distinctions in standing for a strong social safety net. Why would they when most welfare recipients are white?
 
Grant said:
Actually, you'll find that it is the Left who feel Blacks are inferior and in need of special programs to help them along.
Click to expand...

Yes... in the demented psycho fairy lala land of your political conceptions all of which are entirely illusory.
And BTW when I taste your mind I can...
room26_1266026615.png
 
AdamT said:
Actually the left makes no racial distinctions in standing for a strong social safety net. Why would they when most welfare recipients are white?
Click to expand...
Most because the population is more, percentage-wise it's just the opposite.
 
AdamT said:
Actually the left makes no racial distinctions in standing for a strong social safety net. Why would they when most welfare recipients are white?
Click to expand...

Actually, if you watch the usual campaign rhetoric, you'll often see members of the Democratic Party making their political pitch along racial lines. Have you never really notice this?
 
Grant said:
Actually, if you watch the usual campaign rhetoric, you'll often see members of the Democratic Party making their political pitch along racial lines. Have you never really notice this?
Click to expand...

Yes, their constituency happens to be diverse... but Im sure that its that all the coloreds are hooked on the government handouts. :coffeepap
 
American said:
Most because the population is more, percentage-wise it's just the opposite.
Click to expand...

Nonetheless, approximately two-thirds of welfare recipients are white -- not black. Welfare is not a program for blacks, and of course liberals aren't trying to keep white or black people down.
 
AdamT said:
Nonetheless, approximately two-thirds of welfare recipients are white -- not black. Welfare is not a program for blacks, and of course liberals aren't trying to keep white or black people down.
Click to expand...

Why do Libbos constantly harp about cutting entitlements being racist?
 
apdst said:
Why do Libbos constantly harp about cutting entitlements being racist?
Click to expand...

And I'm sure you have proof the majority do? Or is this just another one of your gross generalizations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom