Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHINK
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=90660		 Page 1 of 5
Author:  FavreFan [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 12:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
Since we are just posting links and using back guys as fronts for our own opinion, a semi rebuttal, if you will...

http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archi ... ks/382022/
Author:  JORR [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 7:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
Q.Bovifs wrote:
Personal responsibility should be the goal for all.



If you do not agree, I can only say that you revel in disorder and chasing cheap thrills of rebellion.


What the fuck does "personal responsibility" even mean? It's easy for the guys who are glomming all of earth's resources to look down upon those who have less and scold them.
Author:  spanky [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
Who is Joe?
Author:  Nas [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 10:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
Panther it's far from a cultural issue and repeating that over and over again is extremely lazy. It's an economic and education issue that was created by others. It really is as simple as that.

White on white violence is a problem in this country too. Over 85% of whites are killed by other whites. A lot of those deaths come from domestic disputes. No one says that's a cultural issue. The same is true when it comes to Hispanics. Over 85% of their murders come at the hands of another Hispanic person.

I'm sure you can figure out why these things are true. Stop being so lazy unless of course you have a different agenda. Cut the liberal and conservative crap too.
Author:  long time guy [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 10:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
If you want to look at statistics you can make the argument that blacks throughout the period that Panther cited have been overrepresented in terms of unemployment rate also. The proportion of unemployed blacks far outnumbers their percentage of the overall population. Black unemployment has historically been two to three times that of whites. That figure does not account for the number of black people that have simply stopped looking for work.
Author:  long time guy [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 10:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
Black unemployment is not simply a product of African Americans not wanting to work. It is a product of a system that has denied blacks access to scarce opportunities. It is easy to look at the bum on the street and say yes he is lazy uneducated what are we going to do with him. What about the guy that works hard does mostly everything the right way and society still shuts the door in his face?
Author:  good dolphin [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 10:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
Put two people on an island with only one orange and each person's first inclination will be to lie, cheat and steal to attain the entirety of that single source of nourishment for himself
Author:  pittmike [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
Q.Bovifs wrote:
good dolphin wrote:
Put two people on an island with only one orange and each person's first inclination will be to lie, cheat and steal to attain the entirety of that single source of nourishment for himself

Unless one is a woman.

Then you give her the orange to get some ass and worry about food later.


:lol:
Author:  leashyourkids [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
Q.Bovifs wrote:
long time guy wrote:
If you want to look at statistics you can make the argument that blacks throughout the period that Panther cited have been overrepresented in terms of unemployment rate also. The proportion of unemployed blacks far outnumbers their percentage of the overall population. Black unemployment has historically been two to three times that of whites. That figure does not account for the number of black people that have simply stopped looking for work.

There are all different types of work.

Do some grunt shit, save up your money, and improve your position - BY YOUR OWN HANDS. Literally.

We, as an entire country, have become too snobby to do base labor. That is why other countries are shipping people in here to snap up those opportunities.

Pride is a great weakness in man.


All your posts are written like a motivational speaker on mescaline.
Author:  FavreFan [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
Q.Bovifs wrote:
Nas wrote:
Panther it's far from a cultural issue and repeating that over and over again is extremely lazy. It's an economic and education issue that was created by others. It really is as simple as that.

White on white violence is a problem in this country too. Over 85% of whites are killed by other whites. A lot of those deaths come from domestic disputes. No one says that's a cultural issue. The same is true when it comes to Hispanics. Over 85% of their murders come at the hands of another Hispanic person.

I'm sure you can figure out why these things are true. Stop being so lazy unless of course you have a different agenda. Cut the liberal and conservative crap too.

An economic and education issue?

So people who are poor and uneducated are excused from being civil?

Nobody in the history of mankind has risen from the state of being poor and uneducated to achieve great things?

And, speaking of lazy, don't try to box me in with that second-to-last sentence bullcrap, either.

Expect greatness. Nothing less. Anything else is a pathetic capitulation and only serves to exacerbate existing problems.

It is a mindset.

Oh... you mean be "twice as good"? Yeah, that philosophy isn't really working, and it's insanely unfair.
Author:  leashyourkids [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
I disagree with your extreme vision of Social Darwinism.

Do you think that if a person cannot afford food or otherwise survive in society, they should be left to die?

This is not a question of government intervention or charity. It is a more general question.
Author:  FavreFan [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
Q.Bovifs wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Q.Bovifs wrote:
Nas wrote:
Panther it's far from a cultural issue and repeating that over and over again is extremely lazy. It's an economic and education issue that was created by others. It really is as simple as that.

White on white violence is a problem in this country too. Over 85% of whites are killed by other whites. A lot of those deaths come from domestic disputes. No one says that's a cultural issue. The same is true when it comes to Hispanics. Over 85% of their murders come at the hands of another Hispanic person.

I'm sure you can figure out why these things are true. Stop being so lazy unless of course you have a different agenda. Cut the liberal and conservative crap too.

An economic and education issue?

So people who are poor and uneducated are excused from being civil?

Nobody in the history of mankind has risen from the state of being poor and uneducated to achieve great things?

And, speaking of lazy, don't try to box me in with that second-to-last sentence bullcrap, either.

Expect greatness. Nothing less. Anything else is a pathetic capitulation and only serves to exacerbate existing problems.

It is a mindset.

Oh... you mean be "twice as good"? Yeah, that philosophy isn't really working, and it's insanely unfair.

We make our own fairness. As long as you keep trying to get better at something, you most likely will get better at it.

DEMAND fairness by building up your own temple - don't just ask for it.

The first and last sentence in this post don't make any fucking sense.
Author:  FavreFan [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
leashyourkids wrote:
I disagree with your extreme vision of Social Darwinism.

Do you think that if a person cannot afford food or otherwise survive in society, they should be left to die?

This is not a question of government intervention or charity. It is a more general question.

Of course it is. Don't be disingenuous.
Author:  leashyourkids [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
FavreFan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
I disagree with your extreme vision of Social Darwinism.

Do you think that if a person cannot afford food or otherwise survive in society, they should be left to die?

This is not a question of government intervention or charity. It is a more general question.

Of course it is. Don't be disingenuous.


It is absolutely not. It is a philosophical question.

Let me word it differently:

If a person cannot afford these things, do they deserve to die.
Author:  FavreFan [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
leashyourkids wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
I disagree with your extreme vision of Social Darwinism.

Do you think that if a person cannot afford food or otherwise survive in society, they should be left to die?

This is not a question of government intervention or charity. It is a more general question.

Of course it is. Don't be disingenuous.


It is absolutely not. It is a philosophical question.

Let me word it differently:

If a person cannot afford these things, do they deserve to die.

That question makes more sense. And I think the obvious answer is no.

It is impossible to remove government or charity from your original question.
Author:  leashyourkids [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
Q.Bovifs wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
I disagree with your extreme vision of Social Darwinism.

Do you think that if a person cannot afford food or otherwise survive in society, they should be left to die?

This is not a question of government intervention or charity. It is a more general question.

Of course it is. Don't be disingenuous.


It is absolutely not. It is a philosophical question.

Let me word it differently:

If a person cannot afford these things, do they deserve to die.

Now that is entirely inflammatory.

That is YOUR offensive conclusion, not mine.


:lol: I didn't draw any conclusions. I just asked you a question. I'm not judging either way. What is your answer? Just curious.
Author:  FavreFan [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
Q.Bovifs wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
I disagree with your extreme vision of Social Darwinism.

Do you think that if a person cannot afford food or otherwise survive in society, they should be left to die?

This is not a question of government intervention or charity. It is a more general question.

Of course it is. Don't be disingenuous.


It is absolutely not. It is a philosophical question.

Let me word it differently:

If a person cannot afford these things, do they deserve to die.

Now that is entirely inflammatory.

That is YOUR offensive conclusion, not mine.

:lol:

That's not inflammatory at all Q. R-E-L-A-X.
Author:  veganfan21 [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
Q.Bovifs wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
I disagree with your extreme vision of Social Darwinism.

Do you think that if a person cannot afford food or otherwise survive in society, they should be left to die?

This is not a question of government intervention or charity. It is a more general question.

Of course it is. Don't be disingenuous.


It is absolutely not. It is a philosophical question.

Let me word it differently:

If a person cannot afford these things, do they deserve to die.

Now that is entirely inflammatory.

That is YOUR offensive conclusion, not mine.


What's offensive is your simplistic assumption that everyone is born with a fair shot at success.
Author:  leashyourkids [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
"de·serve


/dəˈzərv/


verb

verb: deserve; 3rd person present: deserves; past tense: deserved; past participle: deserved; gerund or present participle: deserving

do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment)."

By that definition, I would argue that a zebra killed by a lion deserves to die.

I feel differently about social Darwinism. I'm just asking if you do. Don't get so bent out of shape.
Author:  FavreFan [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
Why are you afraid to answer the question Q?
Author:  FavreFan [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
leashyourkids wrote:
By that definition, I would argue that a zebra killed by a lion deserves to die.

I would argue that you are wrong, but I still would not advocate committing resources to save the zebra.
Author:  leashyourkids [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
FavreFan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
By that definition, I would argue that a zebra killed by a lion deserves to die.

I would argue that you are wrong, but I still would not advocate committing resources to save the zebra.


You don't think the zebra has qualities worthy of death? I would disagree in the animal world. It's not a question of morality, IMO. It's a question of the characteristics of the zebra (slow, small, old, etc.) that are worthy of death in the animal world. Evolution is based on such principles.
Author:  FavreFan [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
leashyourkids wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
By that definition, I would argue that a zebra killed by a lion deserves to die.

I would argue that you are wrong, but I still would not advocate committing resources to save the zebra.


You don't think the zebra has qualities worthy of death? I would disagree in the animal world. It's not a question of morality, IMO. It's a question of the characteristics of the zebra (slow, small, old, etc.) that are worthy of death in the animal world. Evolution is based on such principles.

I would think that the zebra being incapable of changing it's situation would lead me to believe that deserves is not the appropriate word.

But going by your line of thinking, the starving guy obviously deserves to die if not for the efforts of... government and/or charity. So you should at least see the reason behind my objection to the way you phrased your original question.
Author:  long time guy [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
Q.Bovifs wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Q.Bovifs wrote:
long time guy wrote:
If you want to look at statistics you can make the argument that blacks throughout the period that Panther cited have been overrepresented in terms of unemployment rate also. The proportion of unemployed blacks far outnumbers their percentage of the overall population. Black unemployment has historically been two to three times that of whites. That figure does not account for the number of black people that have simply stopped looking for work.

There are all different types of work.

Do some grunt shit, save up your money, and improve your position - BY YOUR OWN HANDS. Literally.

We, as an entire country, have become too snobby to do base labor. That is why other countries are shipping people in here to snap up those opportunities.

Pride is a great weakness in man.


All your posts are written like a motivational speaker on mescaline.

It doesn't matter.

We all want everything given to us on a platter.

Nobody wants to work for it, and there's always another excuse.

Drugs? Don't do 'em!

Uneducated? Do some studying! Ask some questions!

Can't afford school? Wash some dishes, dig some ditches, and save up until you can!

Discriminated against? Bust that apart by proving to the interviewer that you are too good at what you do to pass up. Life is all about SALES.

There are studies that show that an African American has a better chance of being an NBA player than he does a hedge fund manager. That is not about working hard it is about being denied access to scarce resources. Racism is far more pronounced with the types of African Americans that you are referring.Contrary to popular believe there are hard working African Americans that will not have much of a shot at anything. When you talk about handouts you are also wrong because the single biggest welfare racket is corporate welfare. It has been that way for decades.
Author:  Nas [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
Q.Bovifs wrote:
Nas wrote:
Panther it's far from a cultural issue and repeating that over and over again is extremely lazy. It's an economic and education issue that was created by others. It really is as simple as that.

White on white violence is a problem in this country too. Over 85% of whites are killed by other whites. A lot of those deaths come from domestic disputes. No one says that's a cultural issue. The same is true when it comes to Hispanics. Over 85% of their murders come at the hands of another Hispanic person.

I'm sure you can figure out why these things are true. Stop being so lazy unless of course you have a different agenda. Cut the liberal and conservative crap too.

An economic and education issue?

So people who are poor and uneducated are excused from being civil?

Nobody in the history of mankind has risen from the state of being poor and uneducated to achieve great things?

And, speaking of lazy, don't try to box me in with that second-to-last sentence bullcrap, either.

Expect greatness. Nothing less. Anything else is a pathetic capitulation and only serves to exacerbate existing problems.

It is a mindset.


Let's not pretend poor people are the only people that aren't civil.

A lot of people have risen from awful conditions. It's not that simple though. You've created an environment of dependency and now you're wondering why I am dependent on you. That's insane.

You simplify things in a way that makes me wonder if that is true at times.
Author:  Brick [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
Whenever we have these discussions I wonder how many Americans would be employed if illegal immigrants didn't hold a single job here.

Those jobs have to be done by someone.
Author:  SpiralStairs [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
Quote:
Black people are not shooting each other at these alarming rates in Chicago and other urban areas because of our gun laws or our drug laws or a criminal justice system that has it in for them.


Really, if not that than what is the problem?

Quote:
The problem is primarily cultural — self-destructive behaviors and attitudes all too common among the black underclass.



Slavery was like 100 years ago or some shit, and my ancestors didn't own any slaves and they were Irish so they were discriminated against too. Also, I don't hate black people, I hate black culture!

Quote:
The problem is black criminal behavior, which is one manifestation of a black pathology that ultimately stems from the breakdown of the black family.


I'm not going to explain why black families have broken down, I'm just going to let you reread my second sentence and have you draw your own conclusions.

Also WTF differentiates "black criminal behavior" from white criminal behavior? Holy shit this guy... BTW I know that the author of this piece is black, so you don't need to point that out to me.
Author:  Chus [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
long time guy wrote:
There are studies that show that an African American has a better chance of being an NBA player than he does a hedge fund manager. That is not about working hard it is about being denied access to scarce resources. Racism is far more pronounced with the types of African Americans that you are referring.Contrary to popular believe there are hard working African Americans that will not have much of a shot at anything. When you talk about handouts you are also wrong because the single biggest welfare racket is corporate welfare. It has been that way for decades.


Why are you picking on job creators? :wink:
Author:  leashyourkids [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
FavreFan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
By that definition, I would argue that a zebra killed by a lion deserves to die.

I would argue that you are wrong, but I still would not advocate committing resources to save the zebra.


You don't think the zebra has qualities worthy of death? I would disagree in the animal world. It's not a question of morality, IMO. It's a question of the characteristics of the zebra (slow, small, old, etc.) that are worthy of death in the animal world. Evolution is based on such principles.

I would think that the zebra being incapable of changing it's situation would lead me to believe that deserves is not the appropriate word.

But going by your line of thinking, the starving guy obviously deserves to die if not for the efforts of... government and/or charity. So you should at least see the reason behind my objection to the way you phrased your original question.


Well, I'm just taking the literal definition of the word "deserves". I'm not referencing it in any sort of emotional or punitive way (i.e. someone deserves the death penalty). I just mean that someone possesses qualities worthy of death. In the animal world, deserving death or having qualities that should lead to death is not the same as in the human world, since we are higher-thinking creatures with moral compasses who can relate and show empathy to our fellow man. Maybe it's semantical... I don't know - just throwing it out there.

I'm just trying to stay away from the whole charity/government thing because it tends to blur things into a political argument. Maybe it's impossible to do. I do understand the perspective of someone who doesn't believe in government welfare (even though I disagree) because there is an assumption that a charity or a friend or a family member would nearly always help someone out. What I'm asking Q is, in lieu of those things, would he be okay with someone dying because they could not find the resources to continue living.
Author:  FavreFan [ Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SIR CHARLES: REFUSES TO BE BULLIED BY MEDIA AND GROUPTHI
leashyourkids wrote:

I'm just trying to stay away from the whole charity/government thing because it tends to blur things into a political argument. Maybe it's impossible to do. I do understand the perspective of someone who doesn't believe in government welfare (even though I disagree) because there is an assumption that a charity or a friend or a family member would nearly always help someone out. What I'm asking Q is, in lieu of those things, would he be okay with someone dying because they could not find the resources to continue living.

I don't really understand this question though. In lieu of those things, that dude is dying regardless of what you and I think about it.
Page 1 of 5 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/