• 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!

Is it Ok for Black Comedians to Bash Whites?

Is it OK for Blacks to Bash Whites for Comedy Purposes?

  • Yes

    Votes: 54 77.1%
  • No

    Votes: 16 22.9%

  • Total voters
    70
I find it rather humorous that an African American with a higher IQ than any of us could be reading this thread right now and thinking, "WTF?".
 
bull ****ing ****. if you are a failure in today's society, you have no one to blame but yourself. what? because your great great grandfather was a slave, that makes you too lazy to apply for a scholarship from the united negro college fund? because your grandmother had to ride on the back of the bus, you can't be bothered to do your homework or pay attention in class?

spare me the excuses and pity party
Okay, so then we have you on record saying that the influence of Confucianism, particularly the parts that emphasize education and elder respect, on Asian society have ZERO impact on the success of Asians today. Can we also have you go on record that the Enlightenment has ZERO effect on current American society? I'd also like to know if you could sign your name under the statement, "Older generations don't pass down values to younger generations."
 
Thank you for realizing that effort on one's own part is the most important factor in success and then actually taking action. Far too many want to make excuses for poor planning and/or lack of true effort.

It's not my fault...I was unlucky, my great great grandfather was a slave, I was born with 9 toes, the sun was in my eyes, ..... :2bigcry:
 
Okay, so then we have you on record saying that the influence of Confucianism particularly the parts that emphasize education and elder respect have ZERO impact on the success of Asians today. Can we also have you go on record that the Enlightenment has ZERO effect on current American society? I'd also like to know if you could sign your name under the statement, "Older generations don't pass down values to younger generations."

so because they were once slaves....blacks have poor values? say it isn't so......
 

Let's not muddy the waters. You imply that my question isn't even worth considering. That's unwise.
I said that your question isn't worth considering without proof that's a valid question.

Now, show me where I said I wouldn't consider the question even if there was proof. And show me where I said that I wasn't open to proof from "both sides of the question."

Word of advice: Don't try to figure out what you think people mean, just address what people actually say. I'm waiting for the proof or the retraction.
 
Last edited:
so because they were once slaves....blacks have poor values? say it isn't so......
Okay, so then we have you on record saying that the influence of Confucianism particularly the parts that emphasize education and elder respect have ZERO impact on the success of Asians today.

If you understand this sentence, then you'll understand my point. If you don't...well surprise.
 
I find it rather humorous that an African American whom is of my own ideawith a higher IQ than any of us which could be Wakecould be reading this thread right now and thinking, "WTF?".

Do you concieve the notion that said black man could be a hard-working conservative who hates the very idea of a political and educational system catering to the needs of the incompetent?
 
You tell me. Better yet, draw a line on this color chart of where yellow starts and stops:

So are you admitting that there is no such thing as the color yellow?

Do you think that you're being clever? If there is no such thing as race because the boundaries cannot be precisely defined then the same applies to the color spectrum and the color yellow. Race, like color, has fuzzy boundaries. Yellow exists and is defined within fuzzy boundaries and so too does race exist and it too exists within fuzzy boundaries.
 
The racial IQ gap does not exist because race does not exist in any meaningful scientific form.

Well, then there is a remarkable coincidence occurring where people are being randomly grouped and all sorts of correlative measures seem to clump them together.

It's odd that in all of this coincidental clustering no one has taken a red headed, blue eyed person and randomly assigned them to the social constructed category of being a black person. I wonder why that has not happened? Do you have any ideas?
 
I said that your question isn't worth considering without proof that's a valid question.

Now, show me where I said I wouldn't consider the question even if there was proof. And show me where I said that I wasn't open to proof from "both sides of the question."

Word of advice: Don't try to figure out what you think people mean, just address what people actually say. I'm waiting for the proof or the retraction.

And I'm saying I disagree with your refusal to consider such philosophical questions.

I never said you wouldn't consider the question even if there was proof. Show me exactly where I said that because I didn't. Furthermore, I never said you weren't open to proof from "both sides of the question" My prognosis is that you're trying to look too hard into things. Show me where I said that cause' as it stands you probably misunderstand something I said.
 
This is what is called a non-sequitur. I agree that the concept of race doesn't really have any substance when it comes to scientific validity. But the IQ gap is still there. What's troubling is many people seem content with the theory that this means that somehow blacks are inherently stupider.

No, all this means is that you aren't sophisticated enough to understand how to ask questions which properly identify what is going on and which lead to interesting answers.
 
Do you concieve the notion that said black man could be a hard-working conservative who hates the very idea of a political and educational system catering to the needs of the incompetent?

No, but I find it hard to believe that a hard-working conservative who happens to be black would find it comforting to know that at least 2 or 3 people on this thread think that his race is inferior and that he probably lacks the same intelligence as other races. There is an air of arrogance in this thread, where some seem to think they are clearly better than others. That was the point of my post. There are people discussing the intelligence of African Americans (negatively), and more than likely an African American who is more intelligent than any of us will read this thread at some point.
 
Do you concieve the notion that said black man could be a hard-working conservative who hates the very idea of a political and educational system catering to the needs of the incompetent?

i'm pretty damned sure she wasn't referring to you.
 
And I'm saying I disagree with your refusal to consider such philosophical questions.

I never said you wouldn't consider the question even if there was proof. Show me exactly where I said that because I didn't. Furthermore, I never said you weren't open to proof from "both sides of the question" My prognosis is that you're trying to look too hard into things. Show me where I said that cause' as it stands you probably misunderstand something I said.
Here's the quote - again. I'm over this conversation.

So you don't even consider the question?

Even if there was proof?

Odd. I thought the scientifically minded were to be open to proof from both sides of a question.
 
RiverDad said:
So are you admitting that there is no such thing as the color yellow?

No, I already defined yellow for you on the RGB spectrum.

If there is no such thing as race because the boundaries cannot be precisely defined

There is no such thing as race because the boundaries do not exist; any boundaries that could be set up to denote a "race" would be purely arbitrary and therefore made up.

Race, like color, has fuzzy boundaries. Yellow exists and is defined within fuzzy boundaries and so too does race exist and it too exists within fuzzy boundaries.

Except for the fact of course that such a thing as a "race spectrum" doesn't exist at all, "fuzzy boundaries" or not.

It's odd that in all of this coincidental clustering no one has taken a red headed, blue eyed person and randomly assigned them to the social constructed category of being a black person.

"Black" people can have red hair and blue eyes.

Is Campanella black or not?
 
Last edited:
Okay, so then we have you on record saying that the influence of Confucianism particularly the parts that emphasize education and elder respect have ZERO impact on the success of Asians today.

If you understand this sentence, then you'll understand my point. If you don't...well surprise.

okay, so we have you on record throwing in strawmen and avoiding the real issue. is anyone surprised?

liberal debate policy 101.

step one: bleat "you just don't understand"

step two: try to divert the discussion to an unrelated issue

step three: call your opponent either a racist or bigot, or both

step four: throw your hands over your head and squeal "I win"
 
Yes I agree. Race as a social construct can be used to make such statements; race as a biological classification, however, cannot.

This is the stupidest leftist trope I've ever heard. You're using a social construct to invalidate the biologic construct.

This is like arguing that height doesn't exist as a biological feature and only exists as a social feature and then sorting people by height into different groups but saying that those groups don't represent anything to do with biology, only how we perceive people to be tall or short or in between.
 
This is like arguing that height doesn't exist as a biological feature and only exists as a social feature and then sorting people by height into different groups but saying that those groups don't represent anything to do with biology, only how we perceive people to be tall or short or in between.

It would be similar, yes, if height wasn't biological or scientific. The ability to "sort" different people into races depends entirely on the social environment.
 
okay, so we have you on record throwing in strawmen and avoiding the real issue. is anyone surprised?
"
Okay, so we have you on record that blacks are the only group of people whose actions are completely uninfluenced by their history?
 
A clustering of populations that does correspond to classical continental "races" can be acheived by using a special class of non-functional DNA, microsatellites. By selecting among microsatellites, it is possible to find a set that will cluster together African populations, European populations, and Asian populations, etc. These selected microsatellite DNA markers are not typical of genes, however, but have been chosen precisely because they are "maximally informative" about group differences. Thus, they tell us what we already knew about the differences between populations of the classical "races" from skin color, face shape, and hair form. They have the added advantage of allowing us to make good estimates of the amount of intermixture that has occurred between populations as a result of migrations and conquests.

The every-day socially defined geographical races do identify groups of populations that are somewhat more closely similar to each other genetically. Most important from the standpoint of the biological meaning of these racial categories, however, most human genetic variation does not show such "race" clustering. For the vast majority of human genetic variations, classical racial categories as defined by a combination of geography, skin color, nose and hair shape, an occasional blood type or selected microsatellites make no useful prediction of genetic differences. This failure of the clustering of local populations into biologically meaningful "races" based on a few clear genetic differences is not confined to the human species. Zoologists long ago gave up the category of "race" for dividing up groups of animal populations within a species, because so many of these races turned out to be based on only one or two genes so that two animals born in the same litter could belong to different "races."



Confusions About Human Races
 
No, but I find it hard to believe that a hard-working conservative who happens to be black would find it comforting to know that at least 2 or 3 people on this thread think that his race is inferior and that he probably lacks the same intelligence as other races. There is an air of arrogance in this thread, where some seem to think they are clearly better than others. That was the point of my post. There are people discussing the intelligence of African Americans (negatively), and more than likely an African American who is more intelligent than any of us will read this thread at some point.

Philosophically, what if it's true? Science hasn't proven it impossible. Being scientifically-minded, I consider everything and if there's no proof for a belief, I leave it as a philosophical question. Though in terms of credibility I'd say the possibility that evolution DID touch the general IQ of all races to be more credible than ugly trolls who live in caves. Ha hah.

Furthermore, I never ever stated ALL of one race were intellectually inferior. Not ever. Look at Obama... or not. But really, there are many blacks that are quite intelligent, and I'm sure some of them even got that status on their own merits.

Why do you think it's negative? What if it's a scientific fact? Obviously, anything pondering such a notion will strike upon sensitivities. But wouldn't you want to know for sure? What if the Chinese were of a higher general intellect than, say, the Aboriginees? Should you follow science wherever it may lead or stick to your own beliefs in order to cling to the notion that we're most certainly all equal in terms of evolution, and that we're all equal in general physical capability, etc.

If that "African-American", as you put so ploitically correctly, takes offense to the mere question, then too bad. Either you accept scientific proof, if there is and it's not muddied by the scum of bias, or you don't.


i'm pretty damned sure she wasn't referring to you.

Oh, hello.

I'm pretty sure you're being too serious and trying to find a soft spot to strike.

Hey, why so serious?

EDIT: You got "she" wrong, too. Whysoserious is a "he" as indicated on his profile.


Here's the quote - again. I'm over this conversation.

1st sentence: You said my belief that evolution couldn't have left all races equal was not worthy of consideration.

2nd: Then as an added question I asked if you'd still consider it if there was proof.

3rd: That's in general terms, dude.

Yes, you're "over".
 
Last edited:
That isn't exactly true (re: my above post).

From your link:

"This imprecision in assigning the proportion of variation assigned to differences among population within ”races” as compared to variation among “races,” arises precisely because there is no objective way to assign the various human populations to clear-cut races. "
 
Back
Top Bottom