Well his actions speak for themselves.

Invading Iraq for no strategic reason, and the resulting outcome is:
1. The regional balance of power shifts to Iran's benefit, which is governed by religious fanatics.
2. The global balance of power shifts to Russia and China's benefit, permitting them to manipulate events in South America and Iran while our forces are entangled in two countries.
3. In addition to other activities, Bush has internationally alienated the US, even from our traditional western allies.
4. We increase our debt and financial dependency on China. The dollar also depreciates in value.

Bush's management of international affairs has proven to be very incompetent. I know we have by far the most advanced military of any nation on earth, but there is more to power than how large or advanced your military is. Using your military and national resources like a complete imbecile, in the same way Bush and Hitler did, is severely handicapping your capability.

The pragmatism of the Republican party during the period of Henry Kissinger and Goldwater has sadly faded away. Now it's been infested by fanatical ideologues who screwed up so bad that now we have to suffer at least another decade of Democrat taxes and hand outs. Had the Republicans stuck to pragmatism the Dems would be a minor power by now.

Great, another egomaniac just as bad a V.Kemp.

But welcome back Flint.

> V.Kemp wrote:

You don't think a person believing in something they know to be impossible is any indicator of intelligence? Holding irrational beliefs is the definition of irrational. Irrational and intelligence are not a common pair.>

Nope. If a person can defend that x is true with good reasoning but they choose to believe in y (an irrational belief) anyway, how does that make them less intelligent?

<You're all proud to attribute the phrase "absurd beliefs" to the word "bias" and think you've won the word game. They're just words.>

For pete sakes... My position is that to want to believe (bias) that a clearly false proposition is true (absurd/irrational belief) does not make a person less intelligent. The desire to believe in an irrational belief is rather a result of one's character - the exemplary or unexemplary behavior they tend to have.

> [TI]  The_Unknown wrote:

Morally correct by throwing insults?

Usually one resorts to insults in a debate if they feel they are getting overpowered and have nothing constructive to say anymore, realising that the one being insulted actually has far better arguements and that there is nothing he can say to disprove them.>

No it's just his personality. He's an abrasive person, and he'll insult you even if he's winning the argument.

V.Kemp,

If someone has absurd beliefs, it does not make them stupid or uneducated. []

> V.Kemp wrote:

<...No, that wouldn't be discriminating based upon race, but upon the presence of a defect which likely had contributing genetic factors. I thought you were better educated than this. Could it be more obvious?>

That was my point, lol.

<If you are a frail and defenseless human being who can't treat other individuals as individuals, then yes, perhaps you would be safest cowering away from people based upon their culture. Where did the baggy clothes and chains reference go? Now you're talking about race? You would avoid a black man in a suit but not a white guy with baggy clothes and a bandanna? You're talking about culture, not race. If the hip-hop generation is what you discriminate against and you're just not perceptive enough to tell who's in it so you just have to discriminate against all blacks because they have a higher probability of belonging to it, that's just your inadequacy. I guess I wouldn't personally fault you for being slow. It's good to be safe when you know you're not all there.>

I am definitely not going to approach those hip hop savages. Middle Class America is a safer place when they're cleaned out of the neighborhoods. Yes I would sooner trust a black who worked as a professional than I would a white who was obviously a whigger. But I spoke in such generality that such specifics are irrelevant. I said any "random black," that means any further specifics that would help identify their cultural background or personality are not to be considered. I was so general that it's like selecting any random black name off of a computer database of black citizens, with nothing else to consider other than that they are black. There is a higher probability that that person is a hip hop generation ahole. The point is that a person with black skin is more likely to be a member of the contemptuous hip hop generation, and at first glance it is sensible to place them in that box unless it's proven otherwise (such as their clothing or a track record of their behavior).

To the point:

1. I am talking about culture.
2. Sometimes members of a certain "race" also have a higher distribution of belonging to a specific culture than other "races."
3. When statistically significant, this information as well as other marks that identify the culture a person may belong to, is useful when deciding to be initially more trusting or vigilant towards someone.
4. That black people have a higher distribution as members of hip hop culture is statistically significant.

> sKoE )= wrote:

> > So if culture A conditions terrorism and 90% of its members practice terrorism, I should not judge culture A as savage and barbaric?

Thats not a culture...Thats a terrorist organization. Don't pull numbers out of your [hat]...it makes you look stupid.

Please show me a culture that 90% of its members practice terrorism please.>>

I'm talking about a hypothetical culture. And terrorists are a culture too.

> Schniepel wrote:

> any black in the US justinian... there still is the majority of black people living in africa not the US and in africa they know hip hop.. but not as extreme as in the US.

I would say if you see a middle class person and a lower class person you can say that the lower class is more likely to like hip hop.
and obviously when you think about a lower class american you get an image of a black man in your head...>

You have a point there. Our foreign exchange students (which aren't Somalis, thank goodness) from Africa have been middle class, polite and very civilized.

To be honest I see enough white trash to see a scruffy and unbathed white guy when I think of a lower class person. Though a higher percentage of blacks are poor than whites, where I'm from poor whites are much more visible. Moreover, hip hop or some other stupid culture seems to be more prevalent in members of the lower classes, true.

> A10 wrote:

> A case for racism can only be made in a society with darwinistic beliefs. If any species offspring varied through decent with modification then it would have to stand that some individuals would be better fit because of their genetics.
Taking into account that skin color is genetic, if you believed in Darwin's Ideas you would fit the definition of racist. For Darwin's ideas to be remotely feasible you would have to believe that different genes make one person and their decendents more fit then another person and their decendents.

A case could not be made for racism in a Christian society.>

You are saying the following.

If Darwinism, then there is genetic variation
If there is genetic variation, then some individuals are better fit than others.
If SIBFTO, then Racism.

Line 3 is false because then you could conclude that I'm a racist if I refuse to reproduce with a woman who was born with one arm because I intended to minimize the likelihood of that gene passing on to my offspring.

What's wrong with line 3 is that it does not consider that racism assumes that humanity can be divided in to sub species or "races" in the same way that a Polar Bear and Grizzly Bear are divided as different species of bears. But unlike these bears who are significantly distinct from each other, humans are not. Furthermore, the traditional racial taxonomy, such as white and black and asian, are inadequate because a member of one "race" may be more genetically similar to a member of another race than one of their own. If the taxonomy had any merit, then that outcome would be impossible. In every comparison, a caucasian would be significantly more similar to another caucasian than an asian. But since this comparison frequently fails, the traditional taxonomy is false. Furthermore, no taxonomy is legit because humans are too genetically similar to be divided in to sub species.

In the woman with one arm example, you could say that I'm prejudiced or selective, but you can't call it racist.

Another problem with your argument is that even if Darwinism is true, that doesn't mean we ought to do anything. An ought does not follow from a fact.

Skoe,

Ughr, but you can judge the group if the group's culture conditions a set of behaviors that are negative.

Death,

Yeah Somalis tend to be the same way here in the US too. There are exceptions as always, but there is a large distribution of those who are just parasitic.

Oh. I thought he was Swedish.

Avo, yes.

Skoe, culture causes the habits that cause the propensity for certain behaviors. Such behaviors can cause failed or inefficient means for satisfying an acceptable role in society. So yes, people can be judged by their culture.