|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are you objective? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: I have talked to literally thousands of blacks (I am not black btw), thousands of times, on all sorts of issues and I can assure you that they are many times more anti-immigration than whites. If you ask who is the most anti-immigration in the USA, then the answer isn't even close. Whites (as a whole) are the least nationalistic people in the world - especially in western-Europe. And I only wish blacks were anti-nationalist types in the USA because it would mean the U.S. could perhaps entertain the possibility of joining the E.U. But the numerical percentage of opposition (among U.S. voters) to such would make the issue absurd to even discuss. The 28 member countries of the EU should be proud of being the driving force of the greatest engine for peace, freedom, and prosperity that the world has ever seen. And I thank God that Germany held firm against the British wanting to end the EU constitutional right for citizens of member states to immigrate freely from one member-nation to the next free of paperwork, documents, and b.s. The Brits wanted to end the right of other peoples (especially Poles) to immigrate to Britain, and they were going to hold a vote on it. Germany told Britain that they would rather have the U.K. leave the EU rather than allow such a poisonous concession. Polls, in early 2015, still showed that a majority of British supported a referendum (however illegal it would have been) which only would allow Brits to remain in the EU if the "E.U. citizenship" rights were watered down to little more than a tired-old (warmed over nationalist)recipe for segregation and stagnation. (it must be said that Brits over 65 were the ones who were against the E.U., while younger Brits were in favor of staying) Thank God The Guardian and other fine publications warned the British public that the United Kingdom of Great Britain would suffer an economic depression of gargantuan proportions if they left the E.U. (a 15% GDP shrinkage almost immediately). The facts are that the citizenship rights of Poles have allowed Poland to see it's GDP go up like 500% over the past 10 years since the European Unions "Big Bang" expansion of May 1, 2004. Poland and Ukraine had the same per capita GDP in 2004, now Poles make $10,000 per person while non-E.U. Ukraine only sees a per person wage of $3000 per year. And the added income Poles have made have contributed to the British economy when Poles purchase goods from British production and British labor. Poles are moving fast ahead in innovations based around technology and research that their higher prosperity has been able to drive. A much more educated society that will benefit the entire world. The British public then turned against leaving the E.U. by mid 2015. As nationalism and it's racist borders vanish, so too does a great deal of worldwide poverty. (The Brits were able to wrestle some unfortunate concessions from EU member states. They got the EU constitution amended to allow "welfare reform" which enables Brits to refuse "welfare" to those miserable Eastern Europeans). I only wish blacks in the USA would see the light. Blacks complain endlessly about "China taking our jobs" and "those terrible trade deals" but China bought 26% of our exports in 2012. That is up from 5% (of our exports going to China) in 2000 before the trade deal with China. China has helped life the entire African economy up as they have used their increased national wealth ($1000 average Chinese annual income per person in 2000 up to $8000 today in China) to invest in the African continent. Now the virtuous cycle of higher wages in Africa is seeing growth trickle throughout all of African society. Increased immigration raises the average wage in the world just like increased trade does. Desegregate the world and lift up wages. Lift up wages and life up research budgets in health, science, and technology. Look at the Chinese example. Black African immigrants (to the USA) and American-born blacks H-A-T-E each other. Aside from South African black-immigrants, I can assure you that black African-immigrants consider whites less racist against them than (multi-generational) African-Americans are. I'm not proud of the growing anti-immigrant views among Americans but (multi-generational) blacks are the worst. Sorry for the peeve (not pet!) but this is a big one for the world to understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
How about we worry about the 700,000 people who die every year from anti-biotic resistant bacteria? It is projected to go up to 10 million deaths per year in 2050(from anti-biotic resistant bacteria alone).
Every time the media rants and raves over the gun issue (or terrorism), how about we all with one (rational) voice say "shut the hell up" and then change the subject to flesh-eating bacteria. 10,000 homicides per year in the USA? Kindly ignore that one, then get to the real issues. What about the 700,000 per year (worldwide) that die from anti-biotic resistant bacteria? What about the 100,000 that die from medical mistakes in the U.S. alone? "Terrorism"? Only 3,790 people in North America died from terrorist attacks from 1968-2007. No objective, rational person should even care except that the media shoves the issue in our face not to report but to distort. What about real issues like brain-degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and dementia. It costs us $200 billion per year today in the USA and will go up to $1 trillion per year in costs to the USA by 2050. And over half of that will be paid by (the much maligned)Medicare and Medicaid. Congress has been stuck at about $700 million (per year)in research funding for a long time and only finally are there talks of increasing the budget to around an even $1 billion per year. Why not spend $10 billion per year researching possible cures? It would pay for itself many times over. (nevermind the fact that people with Vitamin D levels over 50 compared to the average American's much-lower levels shows a 56% reduction in development of the disease provided they have consistent levels high enough long before the typical age of onset) I in 3 Americans (and 1 in 2 females) will get these brain degenerative diseases, so why isn't nutrition (like vitamin D levels, Omega-3 fatty acid levels, etc.) a constitutional right? Why aren't we discussing that one? Our media is selling an agenda and is not simply reporting on actual issues relevant to our lives.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: If I live in a city (or a small town), then I worry about cancer, heart disease, and the 30,000 Americans who die in automobile crashes every year. I admit that I do worry about ferocious lightening striking me at times. (it happens but not too often) Can't say that I care who owns a gun and what they will do with it. (I do care that poor kids are disqualified/stigmatized for life from military jobs, prison guard jobs, trucking jobs, and yes gun rights simply because a greedy doctor diagnosed them with "bi-polar" or whatever. I am outraged by that stigmatization and think that all kids should have the constitutional right to have an ERASURE LAW which expunges their "mental records" from existence. Infact, I think every adult should have the right to have a mental-record erasure every January 1 of every year)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: You left something out when you said "Person A peripherally mentions, in a neutral fashion, that race can influence political views." He was specific about which "race". Not simply that "race can influence" views on immigration. That triggered my response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
I didn't look too hard but here are some things I found
quote: quote: At least one of these might be outdated. The Gallup poll does show that fewer blacks think immigration is good for the country than whites. I don't see race having a large amount to do with things, according to the polls. I know from personal conversations that blacks are very anti-immigration. Perhaps they are being missed in polls. I don't know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
People are put into a box on issues they don't want to be bothered with like the gun issue. Gun control isn't just some benign issue that it's supporters make it out to be (and they often do so while calling those they disagree with "rednecks" or something like it).
I do think a little perspective is needed on the gun issue. Especially when people are pin-holed as "irrational" or members of the non-objective community.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
But it was the OP who made a comment that strongly suggested that whites were the ones who opposed immigration, while non-whites supported it.
Honestly, I bet most blacks reading this thread wouldn't disagree with me saying that they oppose immigration. It has to be one of the top issues in the black community. I could give you examples of black people I talked to in the last few days (and specific details). Just go and talk to any black males you see (the males are very friendly and won't shut you up if you talk about serious issues) on the street lol. Heck I just loaned a book to one I work with (and live near). I wasn't even slightly shocked when he sharply disagreed with me when I expressed pro-immigration views. He started telling me that immigration is a part of a "white plot" to make blacks suffer or something like that. Most blacks wouldn't disagree at all with my description (as long as I don't call anti-immigration views "racist"). I admit that polls make it sound like over 50% of blacks are pro-immigration but that can't be true (I'd like to see how many agree with Trump on immigration. I bet most would agree). I admit that the polls contradict much of what I say, but they sure don't back up the OP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Section 8: Values About Immigration and Race | Pew Research Center
quote: I attempted to past this chart here but it wont paste6-4-12 V #92a | Pew Research Center |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: I made 1 post on the racial views on immigration OP comment. I didn't expect people to argue with me (perhaps I should have). The OP used three examples in the OP and this racial view on immigration issue was 1 out of 3 (33.33%). People have been arguing with me ever since. Now you say I shouldn't even respond at all to the OP on the issue? And I think the issue of what people choose to cover (or conversely what not to cover) is an issue of objectivity and bias. Thank you very much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
I think I might know how to respond to you on the specific issue. Let me check back later. I have other threads to read for now.
(if the OP was only offering the 3 examples as an aside, then I hope I didn't disrupt any of the "real topic" discussion) Carry on folks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
I don't have it presently, but he had a very interesting chapter on Global Warming. Here is the Guy Harrison book 50 Popular Beliefs That People Think are True.
50 Popular Beliefs That People Think Are True - Guy P. Harrison - Google Books The Global Warming chapter showed polling that about 80% of Democrats accept it and 75% of Republicans doubt it. However he noticed that the respective (self-identified) party members only took the position because it was a partisan political-party issue, NOT because of scientific evidence. He was critical of all sides for turning it into a Red/Blue political issue which ensured a wedge right down the middle of our nation when the issue shouldn't be so polarizing. I agree with him. Like, Harrison, I think the scientific evidence is very clear in support of man-made global warming. But I also can't stand the tone of most global-warming supporters. They seem to be angry if anybody even asks questions and quickly ridicule people. I appreciate all the discussion that right-wing radio brings to the climate issue, and it gives a rare opportunity for science to be a topic brought to tens of millions of radio listeners. If the supporters of mainstream scientific evidence would just be polite and non-political, then much education would be possible. I accept global warming but I respect people asking questions about just how much man contributes to the issue. I also respect those who say that the economics of controlling fossil fuel emissions might be worse than doing nothing. The human cost to increasing energy prices can hurt human progress in many areas-including scientific research. The path to more efficient fuel cells requires energy-sucking computer simulations (especially at the Exaflop level). How quickly one advances technologically depends on how fast economic growth is. A robust world-economy fuels much higher research and development budgets. I was listening to C-SPAN after Obama announced tough new regulations for the power plants everybody currently uses. Callers called in and said that while they accept global warming (so many callers had to put in a disclaimer "I accept global warming" so they wouldn't be called morons or idiots), "we have to work with the technology we have now," "we can't afford solar panels," "these regulations on existing power-plants really will hurt poor people," etc. Those who make fun of those asking tough questions about the global warming issue need to respect the full spectrum of concerns and issues at play. Strawman "responses" and arguments are far too common. I'm not saying anybody at EvC does this, but it does happen a lot. And lets understand that every side ("left" or "right") is full of lemmings who just follow their leader(s). Everybody (in every place) engages in group think. People rarely think for themselves and are quick to use issues as a political football.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: Fine but his example was based on a faulty premise. I'm sure he could have reworded it so that the words matched what his logic was trying to indicate. I'm reminded on a 2003 Smithsonian article I read about how the 1840s and 1850s immigrants (like Irish) considered the c. 1900s immigrants (like Italians) "invaders" because they (Irish) got here first. You don't have to be the majority group to feel "invaded". You don't even have to be here very long. People were arguing with me about blacks being the most anti-immigrant racial group, but my Pew linked study settled that one. I am amazed people picked a fight with me on that one. Blacks have long been known to have strong anti-immigrant feelings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: All "races" don't poll exactly the same. There are at least slight variations. 61% of blacks says immigration and immigrants are a threat to traditional American values. 34% do not. Whites are split about 48% on both sides. Around 71% of Hispanics say the immigrants are not a "threat" to traditional American values. Why is the most balanced group presented as some sort of dichotomy between everybody else in the OP (and by you)? I want 100% of whites to feel no "threat" mind you, but whites look like a "balanced" group and thus don't have exceptional views. Pretty much exactly in-line with the overall national feeling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: This question (from 2006 btw) is not specific as to HOW to make them go back. (remember the "self-deportation" stumbling block Romney had to deal with) When it comes to deportation, the response is different. Ted Cruz is going to have trouble explaining how he is against "amnesty" when he seems to be against forced-deportation. Also, it is well known that blacks don't always tell pollsters the truth when asked about immigration. Here is an article that references my (much more recent) Pew Poll (the one you slammed as "You're picking and choosing what data to present the EvC audience.")
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote:Whites have views in-line with the overall national public-opinion. The OP indicated otherwise. quote:Then why was my quote from Pew and just a few years ago while you had to use one from 2006? quote: Percy admitted that he was thinking of certain whites as anti-immigrant types when he rush-typed the comment in (something you constantly deny). Pew found that blacks by a 27% spread consider immigrants a threat to traditional American values while whites had virtually no spread one way or another. Only 34% of blacks said they weren't a threat. That seems more in-line with the general idea the OP had when he typed his brief example of peoples views (except he indicated whites were the ones who perhaps held these types of views more than non-whites).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024