Kids should work...

On 25 Nov 2003 19:55:51 -0800, (Offbreed)
wrote:

(Kane) wrote in message . com...

You haven't visited the worst urban slums then, have you? It's just
like a third world slum experience. No garbage service, phone,
water
and electrical service spotty. Poor police protection, and in fact
BAD
police protection.

Take a walk there white boy. I have, and I'm as white lookin' as
you
I'd bet. It's a thrill a minute.

Why is it that the Koreans and other immigrants, even starting with
worse handicaps, are still able to accrue greater wealth than
American
negroes?

Because the only oppression and suppression of Koreans, traditionally,
came from the Emperor's of China and by the Japanese occupiers prior
to WWII. Whites have different perceptions of asians vs blacks. A
Korean can walk into a bank with a business plan and get a sizable
business loan. A black has trouble walking into even a black owned
band and doing the same.

The effects of racism is NOT limited to white perceptions...All races,
including their own look down on blacks in certain ways. It's one of
insidious results of our particular brand of racisim.

"Reading be fo' whitey" and doing homework or getting a 9-5 job is
"selling out to whitey".

That is reaction to the 300-400 years of racisim and slaver and their
not ending after emancipation. In the vidoe "Blue Eyes Brown Eyes,"
the subjects, all white, that were cast without their being aware of
the exercise into the underdog role reverted in MINUTES to behavior
that is used to call blacks "******s."

In MINUTES mind you. Rowdy, confrontive, name calling, unresponsive to
commands...and those whites were being treated far LESS offensively
that blacks are in real life.

My grandparents started out as poor as any American negroes today,
and
raised my parents in spite of their abject poverty.

They were not lynched when they tried.

I have dropped
down into abject poverty, and climbed back out several times.

Been there done that. And everytime I came out it would have been far
harder for a black to do the same. I can get money, jobs, even loans
from friends than most poor blacks cannot...hell their friends don't
have any more than they do.

The
American negroes that that were right there with me and working
alongside me that gave up "black culture" made it.

They got over on you, honkey. They didn't give up black culture at
home. What you are saying proves my point. If they behavior black they
will be descriminated against. I see it constantly. Hell, I even have
a negative reaction that I have to get under control when they act
black. It's in your face for a reason. And you think it's about being
difficult.

Do you have to give up being white to get a job? Hell, you don't even
know that you act "white," with a "white" accent, with "white" dress,
mannerism, colloquiellisms, ... hell you even wear "white" shoes.

Some started to
make it, then decided that the price of giving up the way they were
raised was too steep a price,

I guess.

How would you like to have to act "black" to get a job? We are forcing
them to act "white" to.

and went back to the loser culture of
the US Black Slum.

I retreated to my "rich white ghetto" long ago. I can afford to. I
don't have to put up with having to act black to get by in society.

Some were too bigoted to accept membership in a
subculture that was mostly not US Black.

What subculture? Irish? German? Italian? British? etc.? Why should
they? I laugh out loud as I see whites adopting dress talk and
mannerism of the urban nee rural black culture. It's a gas.

This is what I have SEEN, not
what was written in some text book or claimed on talk radio, or PBS.

What makes you think the text books don't say the same thing. I have
seen it. The difference is I know what's up. You don't.

You think it's bein' a "******." Well, don't be surprized if you
aren't portrayed as you bray your bigotry of being considered a
"Honkey."

As for Africa? The whole place is crammed with ancient cultures,
seeped with very conservative practices aimed at perserving the
powers
of the local bosses and witch doctors (by whatever name you wish to
call them). Yeah, they get a "new shirt" and the tribal chieftan is
now called "President" or some such, but what has changed?

And certain, mostly non white "ancient cultures" have been
systematically exploited, and then left out of payoff for their work.

How often do such ancient cultures suddenly blossem into something
more advanced without a revolutionary change in enviornment that
forces a big change in the culture or without an influx of some
immigrant group to change the culture?

You'll have to explain that for me.

If it's what I think you mean...these cultures did just that when they
came to this country, in no more than three, and usually only two
generations: Chinese, Irish, Italian, Polish, British, Welch,
Japanese, French, Portuguese, Armenian, Dutch, German. The more white
it was the quicker, but it still didn't take many generations to
morph.

And there was no revolutionary change that took place, just whitey NOT
getting in their way as blacks have experienced.

I grew up with blacks that fully bought into walking and talking white
when they needed to to make a living. I watch two generations (three
really when I think of the elders) go through it to little avial. A
few made it out, movin' on up, but not many. Not like my mostly
working class forebears did. I was the only person in my maternal
lineage to graduate college, and one of one two that did so in my
paternal lineage.

Yet I have never lived, and I don't think you really have, in the kind
of third world poverty that the bottom levels of poor blacks do. We
think we know white poverty is the same as black, but that's untrue.
You have to go there. Suck up your butt tight and walk on through. Try
the ghetto's of Phoenix and Sacramento. I'm sure there are others, but
those are the two I've been in.

You can't believe it until you see it.

Nice chatting with you.

Kane

"Offbreed" wrote in message
om...
(Kane) wrote in message
. com...

You haven't visited the worst urban slums then, have you? It's just
like a third world slum experience. No garbage service, phone, water
and electrical service spotty. Poor police protection, and in fact BAD
police protection.

Take a walk there white boy. I have, and I'm as white lookin' as you
I'd bet. It's a thrill a minute.

Why is it that the Koreans and other immigrants, even starting with
worse handicaps, are still able to accrue greater wealth than American
negroes?

"Reading be fo' whitey" and doing homework or getting a 9-5 job is
"selling out to whitey".

My grandparents started out as poor as any American negroes today, and
raised my parents in spite of their abject poverty. I have dropped
down into abject poverty, and climbed back out several times. The
American negroes that that were right there with me and working
alongside me that gave up "black culture" made it. Some started to
make it, then decided that the price of giving up the way they were
raised was too steep a price, and went back to the loser culture of
the US Black Slum. Some were too bigoted to accept membership in a
subculture that was mostly not US Black. This is what I have SEEN, not
what was written in some text book or claimed on talk radio, or PBS.

Interesting observation. I'd kinda like to know more. White folks have done
the same. Not everyone aspires to the same level of sucess yet we beleive
everyone wants to be the CEO of a company or something. Our comfort level
varies and for the majority .. 9 to 5 is ideal.


As for Africa? The whole place is crammed with ancient cultures,
seeped with very conservative practices aimed at perserving the powers
of the local bosses and witch doctors (by whatever name you wish to
call them). Yeah, they get a "new shirt" and the tribal chieftan is
now called "President" or some such, but what has changed?

How often do such ancient cultures suddenly blossem into something
more advanced without a revolutionary change in enviornment that
forces a big change in the culture or without an influx of some
immigrant group to change the culture?

Africa is a continent with distinct cultures. I'm a bit familiar with the
Maasai and Kikuyu tribe in Kenya. The Maasai are more well known for the
warring factions. They still live in huts made with cow dung, leave their
dead for roaming animals, and cook on open pit fires. The 'wealthy' will
have corragated iron sheeting for the roofs of their huts. The women take
of the children, milk cattle, repair the huts, cook and carry water on their
heads. I haven't figured out what the men do but they can have many wives
and may have sex with anyone considered adult. It seems they are still
warriors in the strictist sense of the word and protect their and cattle
from raiding tribes. Boy of age 10 still practice the passage of adulthood
by being circumcised and are expected to be sexually active. Prior to age
ten they engage in same sex activites with other boys and men. An uncle is
usually a mentor who prepares the boy for his first hetrosexual experience.
I don't know how exactly.. but I could guess.

You are right... enviorment changes have an impact on current cultures but
that has mostly to do with economics, new laws, diminishing lands. All of
this has reduced the need for men being warrior's and they have taken to
selling beads and craft stuff to tourists. It seems the men (remember at age
ten) have little responsibility except for arranging parades and dances.
(The women and younger chidlren do most of the work) There is no need to
search out new lands or grazing areas but in their image of being tribal
warriors they enforce cultual laws.

My driver was a former Maasai warrior and I['d love to relate stories he
told of the old and new cultural changes... and how he was affected. It
really fasinating. Blacks tend to hold on to what they beleive are cultrual
roots but many have no idea except those related to festivities, dress and
appearance. Not unlike a lot of American's who think Chicago is a state...
I watch Jay Leno... and love ignorance.

bobb

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:14:07 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On 24 Nov 2003 19:58:43 GMT, Ignoramus3100
wrote:


Then that somehow makes slavery right??? We are doing them a
favor, right?

It does not make slavery wrong, but the present generation blacks in
the US benefited from their forefathers being imported. Who suffered
is their forefathers and not the descendants.

A not particularly politically correct question....

That's okay...we don't stand on ceremony.

If Whites

Whites don't owe. All those that profit by the labors of millions of
slaves owe.

owe black descendants of slaves reparations...

Many blacks will not participate in the outpay, but will in the taxes
to make them. Blacks too have profited, some of them, but their own
ancestors contributions to this nation.

I wonder if we
can get a refund on all the Welfare and entitlement payments we have
given them?

Nope. Most that are in that state of poverty wouldn't be there without
the help of the controlling majority.

Seems to me the Asians and other who have landed here most recently seem to
do quite well... in spite of the controlling majority. I made a comment
earlier about Jay Leno's 'street walking' and I laugh at the ignoance of
those he interviews. Could it be blacks are 1) ignorant (not much of an
excuse these days when white folk pay for the school) 2) unable or not
willing to learn (possible because of the propagana they are exposed to)
3) or as a product of their culture and expectations they live up to
sterotypical behaviors which have been in-bred since their african days.
Black women in today's africa (Kenya) and the U.S.. are the care-takers, at
least to the extent of their abilities. In both countries the men do as
little as possible except father children. Those who have crossed the
cultural borders do quite well... those who refuse, fail.

Black society doesn't dwell on black sucess stories for they still hue and
cry about how badly they are being treated.

I can relate many stories about how white men have been treated unfairly by
white men... but that's life. Fact is, a lot of blacks are far more
sucessful than some whites. Slavery is over.. get over it.. move on and
get a life.

bobb


What society pays for is maintainence of a cheap labor pool. It just
happens that one of the largest at present, and for a considerable
time historically, has been black.

Or do we credit them the balance? When agreed amount of reparation
money is set..can we compare it with those monies already paid?

Nope. That was rent payments for the use of their ancestors labors and
production. Or lease, if you like. Or consumption of.

And whom owes whom more?

Those with owe those without. Not too difficult a question really.

Been in any REAL ghettos lately?

What is needed goes beyond simply money. It has to be addressed at the
damage done. Many black people came out of the experience of slavery
just fine. Some were more injured and haven't really recoved.

That was explained to me by a young black women...obviously with the
mentallity of a genius if she hadn't discovered it yet. In 1991 she
and I were discussing reparations (yep, been around for quite some
time now) and she wanted a major focus on psychological services for
healing and recovery.

Seems to make sense to me. Many people that are in a shooting war come
out with memories of things that are disabling. And a few hundred
years of it generation after generation would, I think, cause some
disabilities to be planted.

Gunner

When you go to visit the ghetto, as I suggested, you certainly should
carry. I can't really guess what you might run into. And I'm not going
to rely myself on the extraordinary patience ordinary black people
have shown for so long.

I mean, after all, some of them are actually like you and I...r r r r

I don't think Bakersfield has a respectable sized one. Try Pheonix.
Hey, better and closer, try South Sacramento....it's a pip.

"The British attitude is to treat society like a game preserve where
a
certain percentage of the 'antelope' are expected to be eaten by the
"lions".
Christopher Morton

Say, did Chris ever out himself one way or another? I always loved how
he drove the anti gun loons out of their tiny little heads about his
race one way or another.

What's your bet? I say he's black. You?

Swing low, sweet chariot.........

Kane

"toto" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:36:50 GMT, "Stephanie and Tim"
wrote:


"Ignoramus22857" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doan
wrote:
If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in the 50's?
Why is it so low in Singapore?

Do not forget people, US crime rate is to a very large extent a "race
issue". 53% of the offenders were black and only 45% white in 1996,
according to the FBI statictics. That's even though blacks are a small
fraction of the population.

In 1950s, blacks were not liberated as much, did not have easy access
to weapons, etc. Liberation of them, while it had a lot of desirable
effects, unfortunately had a great effect on black crime rate.

A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well reported in
1950s, either.


I wonder what percentage of blacks are living at or below the crime rate
compared to whites? I wonder what the conviction rate of blacks is
compared
to whites.

I assume you meant poverty line, not crime line above.

And as to the conviction rate, note that the research into the death
penalty in Illinois showed that 13 innocent men were on death row.
Most of them were black.

Apart from the fact that I totally agree that black innocent men are
arrested and are jailed for minor crimes with a higher frequency than white
men there still remains an unexplained racial crime rate.


I strongly suspect that if you break crime down well, the difference
between 1950s and now would not be as huge for, say, white middle
class people.

I would also be very surprised if trash criminals were grown in
nonviolent homes. I am too lazy to look for it, but my sense is that
these criminals grow up amongst drunk, drug abusing, wife beating,
child beating retards, and not paragons of respectful, attentive
methods of child rearing.

i

Interestingly, if the crime rate is an indicator, it would seem to
indicate the ineffectiveness of punishments particularly spanking,
but other punishments as well. This may also explain why more
men commit crimes than women do also.

We, as a society, have developed strange and inappropriate punishments for
'crimes'. Our only answer is jail. Men, in all societies, are seen as
law-breakers and women are more conforming . Jail, as a punishment often
serves little purpose. Jail was supposed to protect society from dangereous
people. I've forgotten the percentage of truely dangerous people in jail
but it's quite low.

I wrote about the black kid in jail for 8 years for having sex with a girl 2
years younger than himself. Society is destroying a person with the
potential of living a very productive life. High grades, athletic, good
family, etc. There have indications that it is a race issue but other
examples were given of white being tretated similuarly.




http://slate.msn.com/id/2075217/#ContinueArticle

racial differences are more pronounced for spanking than
for allowance denial: In both cases blacks punish the most,
then whites, then Hispanics, but the gaps between racial
groups are much bigger for corporal than for financial
punishment.

My note: Historically, this is a leftover from slavery when
black parents felt they had to be very harsh with their
children so the children would not be harmed by the
slavemasters. It was a way of teaching the children
how to get along in a society controlled by white people
who considered them to be less than human.

Interesting thought...

Boys are punished more than girls, with substantially more
spankings and a bit more in the way of allowance withdrawals.
Single mothers spank a little less, and withdraw allowances
quite a bit less, than other parents. Older and better-educated
parents are a bit less likely to spank and a bit more likely to
withdraw allowances. Bigger families spank less and
withdraw allowances more. But Weinberg's study finds
that the poor spank more even after you've accounted for
all of these effects. The question is why.

Here's one good alternative to the economic explanation:
University of New Hampshire sociologist Murray Straus
has published multiple studies concluding that children
who are spanked are less successful as adults. If the link
is causal-that is, if being spanked actually lowers your
earnings potential -and if spanking runs in families, then
we have an alternative explanation for Weinberg's numbers:
Low-income parents are more likely to spank their children
because low-income parents are more likely to have been
spanked themselves. Or maybe it's as simple as this:
Poverty breeds frustration, and frustrated parents lash
out at their kids. Does any reader have a better story?

The common thread is lower in-come and poverty which suggests , as a group,
they are not the brightest light bulbs. Spanking occurs at all social
levels so I'm left to beleive it cannot be used as a criteria for bad
behavior in later life. It's all too easy to associate a common behavior
with something we find unacceptable.

For a while there was a cry because too many kids read comic books, then it
was television, now it's playing video games.. and, of course, spanking.


My note: the child then learns that lashing out at someone
smaller and weaker is the way to deal with his frustration
and anger.

What about learning respect for both people and property. Of the lower
income people I've known there seems to be a sense of irresponsibility. Walk
into a house cluttered with toys and junk and you'll find kids who are a bit
beyond control. Christmas toys are broken before New Years... and generally
there is a lot of fighing, yelling, and disorder. The one who screams the
loudest gets their way. You know the old adage... but it seems to me to be a
learned behavior. To be denied his way develops into that sense of
frustration and anger you allude to. Everything anyone needs to know can be
learned in the sand box... and it's all about getting along with others and
learning limitations. It would be senseless to attack someone larger and
bigger... which is a learning experience in itself.



bobb



--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:03:45 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 22 Nov 2003, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 07:03:50 -0600, toto
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 01:18:51 -0800, Doan wrote:

Yep. This is exactly so because all punishments are
essentially
the
same, but positive methods allow for the differences that
parents
see.

Then it should be easy to prove. Again, just put the
alternatives
to
same statiscal scrutiny as with spanking.

Time outs used as punishment are not positive discipline.
Nor is lecturing or scolding or any of the *other* methods that
were studied.

Doan's only argument, of course, will be asking you to provide
citations and data from peer reviewed studies that support:
lecturing;
scolding; *other* methods not working.

Wrong! I am asking for NON-CP alternatives, any non-cp alternative!

And when offered you lie.

If spanking is as bad as you and the anti-spanking zealotS claimed,
why
is it so hard to find an alternative that stood the same statistical
scrutiny???

Because what works does not have to studied. It is far too obvious.
The observations of child behavioralists for the past century has show
repeated the how punishment, and most especially CP is a dead end.

He has used the infamous logical fallacy for years here (to the
point
he has bored his opponents to the point of ignoring him) of
"slanting," that is picking only the evidence that supports his
argument (the declaration by Straus) and ignoring all mass of other
evidence that buries him.

Which are????

Read below the next comment.

You meant like Straus et al (1997) in which the "no-spank"
group turned out to be a group that were spanked???

And then you've gone on, taking his honesty, and lying, and cited that
this SPANKED group in fact showed worse behaviors. You are a liar,
Doan, which people are tired of humoring.

"We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood
that our
no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that
this is
the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for
children in
the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of
children whose
parents spank, but do so only infrequently."

Are you so blind? ;-)

Not in the least. Are you? In an obviosly punitive parent group, where
ALL actually spanked, as Strauss found, the LEAST SPANKED HAD THE BEST
BEHAVIOR.

How many times has this been pointed out to you?

Is it too hard to understand that if you have a downward trend line
correlated to a single constant you have obvious growing evidence of
causality. The less spanking the better behavior.

I've never seen him, for instance, respond to the Embry Street
Entry
study with anything but the usual blind hysteria neurotic responses
of
all his pro spanking buddies, his phony declarations to neutrality
notwithstanding.

I have! I have asked Chris when he mentioned this study to post the
details of this study so we can learn from it. HE REFUSED!!! I
wonder
why. I am now asking you. Can you post the relevant information of
this study so we can all take a look at it? Can you tell us how many
kids were studied? What the methodology is? What confounding
factors
were controlled for? Come on, Kane. Show us who the real "phony"
is?
:-)

I invited you before to contact professor Embry. He is available at
Dr. Dennis D. Embry
P.O. PAXIS Institute, 31475, Tucson, AZ 85751
520-299-6770
520-299-6822


I am not challenging his study YOU are. You tell him his study is not
adequate for your purposes.

And all "positive discipline" really is is just teaching to the
needs
of the child, and her actual capacities at developmental level.

The devil is in the details.

That's right and until you can show us the details, beyond, "It's
history" aren't you bit embarrassed to be making such demands?

I am a pragmatic person,

Bull****. You are an emotional blind man from your childhood
experience of shame from being whipped by your parents.

show me how
your theory work in real life situations.

You will have to come here and accompany to treatment centers I've
worked at. I await your arrival.

We have a large population
of kids in juvenile halls.

Yes, though juvenile crime is somewhat down these days and has been
dropping the rising tide of parenting methods that do no rely on CP as
a threat.

Let's try your "positivie discipline" there
first and see how it go.

About half the mentally ill teens I worked with were adjudicated, that
is assigned to treatment by the court in lieu of encarceration. I not
only got to "see how it go" I made it go myself. Punitive methods of
any kind showed that they were next to useless with hardcore teens and
mentally ill teens.

As more and more of the staff adopted my methods (other practitioners
were of course knowledgable so the methods were spreading everywhere
even as I was demonstrating them) the rate of success with moving
children back into their homes and our of encarceration with lower
ricidivism rates it was enough to convince us that no punishment
methods worked, and as you say below, were we were CP was not allowed.

However I'll tell you how the stupid such as you managed to do CP
anyway and get away with it.

BTW, corporal punishments are not allowed in
juvenile halls! ;-)

R R R R ... very funny. Pain can be applied, blindman, by many means
outside the usual definition of CP. Being made to wait inordinately to
go to the bathroom. Refusing to allow one to visit with parents.
Forcing to stand or sit in painful uncomfortable positions (and no,
I'm not giving a laundry list with pigs such as you reading my post)
for long periods of time.

THOSE are allowed.

Then there is that infamous "safety holds" issue. Watch some of the
cop shows on TV. You'll see demonstrations of how much pain can be
applied without striking.

In my case what instituted a major change in the agency I worked with
was my refusal to teach holding techniques, especially those that took
the client to the floor, and after a month of rangling with the board
of directors I won the argument. Immediately behaviors improved.

Doan seems to think that because those that spank also use SOME
rational means of teaching their children then spanking somehow is
a
positive factor in learning. Talk about Cargo Cult Mentallity.

I want to use the same measurements that anti-spanking zealotS like
Straus used!

Then, asshole. DO IT. who's stopping you?

Funding might be a bit hard to come by. There is very little for the
social sciences that can be directed to and funded that address nice
nice issues. Monies come to study harm.

You know that, I know that, and I know that you know, so your
disengenuous crap of asking for what cannot be produced because it
generally is NEEDED RESEARCH in the eyes of the public or the funding
agency officers is an escape hatch when YOU are asked to prove your
contention.

If the reduction antisocial behaviors is a benefit than
Straus et al (1997) showed that spanking less than once a week is a
benefit!
The cargo-cult mentality is not subjecting the non-cp
alternatives to the same statistical scrutiny.

No, it is not. What IS cargo cult mentality is claiming the NO
spanking is less effective then a little spanking.

The only reason children turn out as well as they do (and I notice
more than a few don't) is that humans are so resiliant and can
survive
a lot of trauma. I don't consider that parenting, of course; for
the
child to just survive.

The problem with your "reasoning" is that few of the non-cp cultures
"survived"! Can you you name a non-cp culture? ;-)

Yep. Several. The Senoi, SE Asian culture. The exist peacefully in a
sea of brutality among people that DO use punishment. Not only don't
they but they have custom of reviewing dreams each morning to see if
they will influence the days decisions. The children's dreams are as
important to the process as the adults.

I understand they haven't had a murder or suicide in over a hundred
years.

Now it's your turn. Provide me with a culture that SPANKS and punishes
that is peaceful by nature, has low rates of violent crime and murder,
and low child abuse rates.

There's a good boy.

And for the edification of those with more reading comprehension and
in the spirit of educational responsibility for the ignorant I offer
this interesting history of child rearing that helps explain some of
the compulsive slavish support of violence on children.

Some of that wonderful, "but parents have spanked their children for
centuries and it worked" bull****.

http://www.nopunish.net/PWP.pdf



Doan


{-]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:59:10 -0800, Doan wrote:

And I why wonder what kind of parents can't tell the difference
between
spanking and beating!!! ;-)

Those that are unable to define it exactly to the point for THEIR
particular child when it changes from spanking to abuse...a beating.

No, oh Doofus one, all too often spanking already as beating with a
special name to excuse the brutatily, ignorance, and viciousness of
the parent.

And this marks, I think, post number three where I have recently
challenged you to define spanking vs beating so that one can be
distinguished from the other.

I believe I did many months ago as well with similar results..you
ignoring the question.

Diversions of the "if you don't know I'm not going to tell you"
variety, and deflecting the question with questions no longer are
standing you in good stead.

You obviously desparate and thrashing about with all your old
bull****.

And you know that it's you that is the Cargo Cult Mentality dimwit.

Come on. Doan. Should be simple for you to give us a definition or
better, come up with a study that clearly defines.

It is a very important issue now that spanking and it's abusive nature
are becoming more and more the subject of state scrutiny.

Besides, Doan, you have a kindly heart I know, and after all, it's for
the children.


Doan

{-]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 05:28:03 -0600, "Donna Metler"
wrote:


"ChrisScaife" wrote in message
...
How would he a better person if I was beating him (the animal
society
way) instead of teaching him interaction according to modern
principles of human society.

I don't know of animals that beat their young.
Only degenerate humans could be that base.
;-)

Mama cats swat kittens on the nose for misbehavior, along with a
hiss.

Whose "children" then grow up to be compulsive torturers and
indiscriminate killers.

Sows routinely eat their young when streesed or from having a dietary
imbalance. Yet pigs are supposed to be very bright animals.

Apes and chimpanzees routinely rape their immature young.

Bringing up animals when discussing human behavior is irrelevant. We
have, though I rarely find any evidence here in these ngs, greater
intelligence, hence a greater range of choices than animals.

Kane

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:12:02 GMT, strabo wrote:

On 28 Nov 2003 12:28:14 -0800,
(Kane) wrote:

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 08:14:02 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:33:58 GMT, "Rosemarie Ventura"
wrote:

(snips)

Second we subtract out the wealth created by the transcontinental
railroad. It's the Chinese (working from the west) and the Irish
(working from the east) that got the shaft on that one. We
certainly
can't give African American's reparations from wealth built by
Chinese slave labor!

The Chinese railroad builders were not slaves. They came to the
U.S.
voluntarily. They worked on the railroad for agreed upon wages.
They
were not even the employers' first choice of a work force, but
their
superior skills and habits won them the job.

(rest snipped)


In response to all the wonderful logic, and adroit misplacement and
artful reframing of what I've actually said, let me point out the
following:

Nothing in my proposal suggests levying against "whites."

No money would come out of the pocket of those of us taxpayers,
(outside the extremely wealthy...all of them) who are NOW PAYING FOR
VARIOUS PROGRAMS FOR REHABILITIATION, but would instead shift away
from us to the beneficiaries of our economy based on it history
foundation of slave labor for 300 years, give or take.

I do appreciate that I've inspired such vigorous exercise, no matter
how willfully resistant to the facts I've given, and such wonderous
avoidance of said facts.

Now, what do you say to the proposal as I've once again posted it
above?

Do something useful. Scratching your asses and opinin' that you
think
it's all a plot to give the blacks your pocket change is starting to
look a little supid, don'tchathink?

Any transfer of wealth within a given economic system effects
all components of the system. However, given your proclivity
toward fairness, I suggest that you should devote your life to
making things right for the downtrodden by giving a portion
percentage of your goods and labor to the effort.

God will like it and so will I.

I am pleased to know that I find favor with you and "God."

I routinely pay taxes and have for many decades. And I not only know
that some of my taxes go to social programs (you didn't know that?)
and I very much approve.

However, in keeping with the great American tradition of being a pain
in the ass about how my taxes are used I come with these notions I
sometimes foolishly post to Usenet (Pearls before Swine?) to see how
they fly before sending yet another of my vicious letters to my
legislators insisting they consider MY proposals for funding.

Isn't that just ducky?

Kane

"bobb" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:14:07 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On 24 Nov 2003 19:58:43 GMT, Ignoramus3100
wrote:


Then that somehow makes slavery right??? We are doing them a
favor, right?

It does not make slavery wrong, but the present generation blacks in
the US benefited from their forefathers being imported. Who suffered
is their forefathers and not the descendants.

A not particularly politically correct question....

That's okay...we don't stand on ceremony.

If Whites

Whites don't owe. All those that profit by the labors of millions of
slaves owe.

owe black descendants of slaves reparations...

Many blacks will not participate in the outpay, but will in the taxes
to make them. Blacks too have profited, some of them, but their own
ancestors contributions to this nation.

I wonder if we
can get a refund on all the Welfare and entitlement payments we have
given them?

Nope. Most that are in that state of poverty wouldn't be there without
the help of the controlling majority.

Seems to me the Asians and other who have landed here most recently seem to
do quite well... in spite of the controlling majority.

I'm not sure what you mean by "landed here most recently." I know the
Chinese community on the west coast very well. I know their history.
You might look it up. Look for ["chinese" massacred]. That should
offer you a bit of history.

You'll also note that though there are certainly a great many chinese
who have integrated the Chinese ghetto still exists. They do put a
face on for tourists though. There is a great deal of hidden poverty.

And mainstream America, just as you, has a reverse bigotry that modern
chinese americans find enrages them...the expectation is that they
will do more work for less money better than any other race of
employee. Some Chinese Americans have written freely about it in
recent years. Same is true for other Asian Americans.

Finally...if you think recent Asian immigrants are doing so great you
haven't really followed their progress. Ever hear of Asian Gangs? So
much for on more bigots ranting.

I made a comment
earlier about Jay Leno's 'street walking' and I laugh at the ignoance of
those he interviews.

Of course they kept all the interviews in where the subject was bright
and knowledgable even if it would have sacrified the point of the
'street walking' bit. He is not a comedian, he's a social
reseacher....right?

Could it be blacks are 1) ignorant (not much of an
excuse these days when white folk pay for the school) 2) unable or not
willing to learn (possible because of the propagana they are exposed to)
3) or as a product of their culture and expectations they live up to
sterotypical behaviors which have been in-bred since their african days.

I noted recently with another ignorant racist bigot that the answer
then would equate with blacks being bad. In fact, as a shorthand and
in the spirit of economy I coined a term to describe how you ignorant
racist bigots (IRBs) define such blacks that haven't been able to make
it yet as "BADBLACKS!"

Work for you, asshole?

Black women in today's africa (Kenya) and the U.S.. are the care-takers, at
least to the extent of their abilities. In both countries the men do as
little as possible except father children.

You are an expert of Kenya and africa then? An anthropoligist and
sociologist?

Those who have crossed the
cultural borders do quite well... those who refuse, fail.

You have an acute inability to see anything you don't wish to,
interpreting in little self comforting isolated bundles of bull****
what you think you are seeing.

In both Kenya and the US (I've been to both) there is also a long
tradition among various black communities of male present families.

But then, oddly enough I've seen reports that white families in the US
have rather a large number with single female heads of household. Are
we then to call them "BADWHITES!" ?

Black society doesn't dwell on black sucess stories for they still hue and
cry about how badly they are being treated.

Your extremely clumsy and incorrect use of a trite phrase shows
something of the level of knowledge you bring to the issues of race
and social problems.

"Black society," something you know little of beyond the lifetime of
conditioning you have absorbed and cling to so desperately to preserve
your white privelege without having to admit to it communicates little
to the larger world.....because of poor access to and control of the
media.

What they learned long ago though was how to get heard by reactive
behaviors.

YOU don't know what goes on in black society, asshole. And no matter
my interest or intense examination of such issues, neither do I. So
instead of running my mouth off every time I have a negative feeling
experience related to black people I find it useful to listen or even
better, ask and listen.

You'd be amazed what you could find out starting sans stereotype and
asking instead of declaring the nonsense you do.

I can relate many stories about how white men have been treated unfairly by
white men... but that's life.

This has to be going somewhere, or it's a typo.

Fact is, a lot of blacks are far more
sucessful than some whites.

Yah noticed, didjah?

From the end of the civil war, when a small nation of freed black
slaves, unlettered, illiterate (it was illegal to learn as a black or
teach a black to read), unskilled in commerce, finance, were suddenly
on their own the first thing they did...even when they still had
nowhere to live, was gather together and learn to read and write.

By 1900 less than fifty years after the end of the war and their
freedom began, they had college professors (DuBois) schools of higher
learning (GW Carver), and as many as 40 black members of congress,
doctors, lawyers, bankers, and successful black townships built from
scratch.

The southern response was Jim Crow...the systematic legal (well, there
were laws passed) stripping of the vote from them, 4500 lynchings of
blacks, about a 100 a year average, no longer allowed to sit in the
same public buildings as whites, drink from the same fountains,
excluded from business establishments.

By way of loss of the vote, by 1900, only one black congressman was
left, who, when announcing to his collegues his decision not to run
again pointed out that it was impossible for him to be elected in his
state due to Jim Crow.

He did give an impassioned presentation though, promising that though
the "American Negro" was down he would rise up again. His name was
White, and I've a hunch MLK Jr. was more than a little inspired by
him.

It would be 28 years before another black served in the US congress.
What does THAT tell you about what you say below.

Slavery is over..

No, the formal institute is over. The informal institutionalized
suppression of a race is NOT. And that IS a form of slavery. Your
blatherings are testament to the continuing nature of "slavery."

get over it..

When YOU get over it and recognize you have priveleges as a white the
problem will move further toward resolving itself.

During most of your working life you were employeed where black men
and women with your skills or more were not. You could freely go
places without even the thought of being hassled or arrested for your
race.

You rarely had to look in the mirror and wonder if, when you left to
enter the work world that morning, what you looked liked might get you
anything from insulted, cheated, to injured or killed that day.

move on and
get a life.

bobb

....the IRB has spoken.

Kane

I'm not an advocate of spanking.. and never have.. but I fail to see how a
slap on the butt harms any child. I do take exception to those who
repeatedly slap a child which I view as a way for a mother to vent her
frustration and anger. There is a context problem when it comes to
spanking.

I find it unreal that anyone can associate spanking with later adult
behaviors. The 'experts' take a common behavior and twist it into something
that fits their mindset.

That being said, I did a little search on spanking and found that many
parents resort to bare-ass spanking and schools have ordered kids to drop
their pants while being spanked with paddles.. both of which I suppose
found it's roots in the old woodshed.

It might sound terrible but I've told a few kids if they did something
really out-rageous, and using one of their friends as behavior an example,
it would be just cause for a bare-assed spanking. It was just my way of
showing distain for certain certain behaviors I wouldn't approve or
tolerate. Of all the posts I've seen here none have alluded to bare-ass
spanking so in that context I see nothing wrong.

I also found there is a sexual content to spanking. Dumb me... I never
gave a thought about S & M associations. There are adults who get off on
spanking their kids.

Parents also use bare-ass spanking as a way of imposing further humilation
on a child by forcing him/her to undress and not alway in private but
rather an example to others.

What I also didn't give a thought to is there an age appropriate time not
to spank. My sense of spanking was usually that of a child younger than say
6 as an attention getter.. not a punishment. You don't touch the hot stove
or run out into the street.

I now understand there there are many contexts of spanking I was not aware
of.

bobb