Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

2012 Election Thread


  • Please log in to reply
2253 replies to this topic

#2251 itachiitachi

itachiitachi

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:53 PM

[quote name='dohdough']If Obama isn't representative of all black people, then those Asians that "overcame" racism don't represent all Asians as a group. [/QUOTE]
Which is why I specified sub groups like Japanese Americans.



[quote name='dohdough']
Look. I'm telling you for the nth time that the way you worded it specifically means something other than what you "implied." Be pissed at yourself for being careless. Be clear or be gone. [/QUOTE]
No you just want to go of into semantic wonderland and are pissed I won't go with you.

[quote name='dohdough']
That is not your original "fact" and this is maybe the 5th time you've mentioned something of this nature in reference to me stating that they're not grossly overrepresented in higher ed. If you agree with me, then drop it. If you don't, then make your file:///C:\Users\OverLord\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtml1\08\clip_image001.gifing point instead of having me play guessing games because I'm tired of your passive aggressive bullshit. [/QUOTE]
My point is the percentage of "Asian Americans" in college is larger than percentage of "Asian Americas" in the population.


[quote name='dohdough']
The answers to those questions are that there are no Asian leading men in Hollywood, 9 CEO's in the Fortune 500, and 13 members in both houses of Congress. Again, if those people "overcame" racism and they are outliers, then Asians, as a group, cannot have overcome racism .[/QUOTE]
How does that answer what percentage of Asians peruse a career in politic?

[quote name='dohdough']
I've already said many times that outcomes are determined more by the socio-economic status of parents rather than merely being generational. What you're asserting is completely at odds with the trends of socio-economic mobility of the US. Stating a fact without any explanation is meaningless and looks like your m.o..[/QUOTE]
That's theory that can be drawn from the data, but for children to out earn their parents by 30% is extreme. Especially considering the parents are of low-middle socio-economic status.

[quote name='dohdough']
The UC system is not representative of the US.

http://dailycollegia...rmative-action/

http://www.insidehig...ate-enrollments.[/QUOTE]
Neither of those dispute the point that minorities had higher graduation rates with out affirmative actions.
If you look at colleges with affirmative actions the more emphasis placed on race the lower the graduation rates.
All those show is that schools with affirmative action have more students from at risk minorities than schools that don't, which is a point that no one is arguing.

[quote name='dohdough']
And people of color, especially black and Latinos, were discriminated against by being given sub-prime mortgages despite qualifying for prime rates. Is not getting a low interest loan not missing an opportunity?

There was a study done several years ago regarding housing discrimination that showed that people with ethnic names were either flat out ignored or being directed towards ethnic enclaves despite being able to afford more affluent and white areas. Is not being able to live where one wants not a missed opportunity if one can afford it? [/QUOTE]
So are you saying a rich black man can't get a good loan or live where he wants?
[quote name='dohdough']
What the motherfile:///C:\Users\OverLord\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtml1\08\clip_image001.gif are you talking about? At least a third of the states are actively trying to tear apart their social programs and you're trying to tell me that states can do whatever the file:///C:\Users\OverLord\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtml1\08\clip_image001.gifthey want as if partisan extremism we see on the national level doesn't exist on the state level?

A system is not a program, so stop mixing up the terms and stop trying to use terms to sound smart because you look like you don't know a goddamned thing. [/QUOTE]
1. Similar measures have already been taken some states, so I'm don't see how anyone can argue that such measures are impossible to implement.
2. Yes states can do what they want, look how many legalized gay marriage, which is far more controversial than helping poor people.

[quote name='dohdough']
Looks like I'm just going to keep repeating it because it IS true. Affirmative action is a program specifically targeted towards hiring practices and admissions in higher ed for people of color. That's it and as basic as I can make it. All your hemming and hawing about it not being a program that addresses all the social inequities of people of color is just wasted air if you can't understand what affirmative action is specifically instituted to address. [/QUOTE]
You said before affirmative action was meant to help with social economic mobility, but affirmative disproportionality help people with parents who have high social-economic status(the most important thing according to you) instead of helping the ones who are capable but have parents with low social-economic status.


[quote name='dohdough']
"Economic affirmative action" exists as tax subsidies, food stamps, welfare, housing subsidies, heathcare subsidies, loan subsidies, grants, and a whole mess of other things that again, aren't adequate enough or weren't given to address the needs of communities of color. Affirmative action is a goddamn bandaid, so stop acting like it is or should be a program to address every single problem experienced by (poor) people of color. [/QUOTE]
If affirmative action can be changed to help with economic mobility why not do that?

[quote name='dohdough']
First off, what the file:///C:\Users\OverLord\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtml1\08\clip_image001.gifis a second generation immigrant? [/QUOTE]
The descendant of a fist generation immigrant.


[quote name='dohdough']


Secondly, your point still doesn't refute mine, so why the file:///C:\Users\OverLord\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtml1\08\clip_image001.gifare you treating it like it does? And thirdly, stop using terms incorrectly because it's annoying as file:///C:\Users\OverLord\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtml1\08\clip_image001.gifto see you butcher them. [/QUOTE]
The data shows the second generation earning much more despite similar education levels, which would suggest the pay difference is due to adapting to the culture.



[quote name='dohdough']
That entire sentence is a goddamn strawman. You're (misre)presenting outliers as if they're significant and that their mere existence makes them statistically significant. I'm not even close to saying that they don't exist. So file:///C:\Users\OverLord\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtml1\08\clip_image001.gifing what if women make more money in porn than men? Does that mean as a group, there isn't wage disparity between the sexes?

This is also the third time I've literally said that some women make more than men, which is the exact opposite of what you think I'm asserting. [/QUOTE]

Really, in which part of that sentence was I misrepresenting your argument?

See, right there you are stawmanning, show me where I said that outliers where statistically significant .
You implied that the only way a women could earn more than a man was in a field such as porn, which you did again here. I simply pointed out there are more technical fields where women earn more than men.

Saying "some women earn more than some men" is not the same as in some fields requiring advanced education women earn more than men"



[quote name='dohdough']
Yeah, the file:///C:\Users\OverLord\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtml1\08\clip_image001.gifing Economist has a feminist agenda! [/QUOTE]
How does special interest groups suppressing studies and findings that they view unfavorably = " Economist has a feminist agenda"?



[quote name='dohdough']
http://www.economist...2012/04/focus-3

And the WSJ!

http://blogs.wsj.com...han-many-think/

And even the BLS!

http://www.bls.gov/o...ed_20110216.htm

You wouldn't know "fair and true" if it was curbstomping you. [/QUOTE]
An article on a website is not the same as publishing new research data.

but since you brought it up how do you refute the finding that.
[QUOTE]
“Economists Eric Solberg and Teresa Laughlin applied an index of total compensation, which accounts for both wages and benefits, to analyze how these benefits would affect the gender gap. They found a gender gap in wages of approximately 13%. But when they considered total compensation, the gender gap dropped to 3.6%,” the authors write. [/QUOTE]
[quote name='dohdough']
I DID answer it. The insult was for you not understanding it.

First you asked me why there were more homeless and incarcerated men than women, and when I sarcastically gave your interpretation, you file:///C:\Users\OverLord\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtml1\08\clip_image001.gifing said that there were more homeless men than women as if it was a goddamn explanation! Like seriously??? [/QUOTE]
Your answer was the justice system was harder on men, which makes little sense for the homeless question. Nor did you answer why the justice system was harder on men than women.

[quote name='dohdough']
The lower case "e" in "english" was intentional and rhetorical just like how I use a lower case "c" in "christian." But I challenge you to run that post through a goddamn spell checker to see how numerous they are. Here's a hint: they're not. If you want me to start pointing out every single error though, I can certainly start if you insist on picking on minutiae. [/QUOTE]
You are the one who started the nit picking for not apparent reason and now you're throwing a fit because it's been pointed out you make mistakes also? By the way there are at least 5 mistakes in this post of yours.
[quote name='dohdough']
Because you're asking a loaded file:///C:\Users\OverLord\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtml1\08\clip_image001.gifing question that implies that society is not biased in favor of men. And for the record, I already answered it. Hell, you don't even answer your own goddamn questions! Turning a question into a statement isn't a file:///C:\Users\OverLord\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtml1\08\clip_image001.gifing answer. [/QUOTE]
In order to be a loaded question there would have to be a false assumption, unless you believe that either "men are favored in our society" or "more men are homeless" are false, then it was not a loaded question.

You answered why more men are in jail, but not why more men are homeless.

[quote name='dohdough']
It'd surprise me if it wasn't your question in the form of an answer. You've done this numerous times in numerous posts. But I have a crazy file:///C:\Users\OverLord\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtml1\08\clip_image001.gifing idea, just make your file:///C:\Users\OverLord\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtml1\08\clip_image001.gifing point. I know you have difficulty understanding, so "make your file:///C:\Users\OverLord\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtml1\08\clip_image001.gifing point" means plainly state your conclusions. ?[/QUOTE]
It's called the Socratic method, it's great for pointing out contradictions in people's views. The interesting thing is how hard you are fighting to avoid answering the questions.
[quote name='dohdough']

Yeah, but I'm not the one strawman-ing, making false equivalencies, misusing terms, answering with reworded questions, using circular logic, and concern trolling amongst a few other things. One of your biggest offenses is high word count with low content. How the file:///C:\Users\OverLord\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtml1\08\clip_image001.gifdoes that even happen unless you're a special kind of idiot?[/QUOTE]

Examples of you strawmanning:
1. Special interest groups suppressing studies and findings that they view unfavorably -> Economist has a feminist agenda
2. Percentage of "Asian Americans" in college is larger than percentage of "Asian Americas" in the population. -> Asian grossly overrepresented
3. Exceptions exist -> Outliers are statistically significant.

Examples of your false equivalencies,
Political gridlock on national level = political gridlock on the state level.
Disproportionality = racism.
Problems of rich minorities = problems of poor minorities.
Terms you misused.
Loaded question, overcome and circular logic.

There are a lot more than that, but I'll leave it there for now.




[quote name='EdRyder']Part of this whole discussion really sticks in my craw : That Men are more likely to be homeless than women is presented as a fact , but the reasons why are never explained.
1 , Its a indisputable fact that Women represent the highest percentage in poverty between the genders. They're more at risk for homelessness than men.
2. The reason why men make up the brunt of the homeless population can be explained in several factors. Men are more likely to be veterans. Men are the gender thats unlikely to seek help for substance abuse or mental health issues. Men are more likely to be felons.
And lastly , Women are more likely to engage in survival sex for housing[/QUOTE]
Look someone gave an answer, would be so hard to do dohdough?

In addition to those factor's I'd add that, men are more likely to take risks, difference in typical social circles (small and tight knit, vs large and loose), greater genetic variance in males.
Also psychopaths are more likely to be felons and men are much more likely to be psychopaths.

My points with this are
1. That pinning an explanation of disproportionality on some form of discrimination is simply a convenience to not look at the problem in more details.

2. That many of those risk factor also have positive sides, large lose social circles makes it easier to get jobs, being a veteran(higher rank the better) or being a psychopath makes you more likely get a leadership positions in a company. Variability, risk taking/willingness to break laws are believed to useful traits from employment especially higher paying jobs, though I don't know of any thorough testing of the links.

3. Many of the correlations are untested, rely on a sexual biased to begin with or fall into sexual stereotypes. Though I'm sure it would hold up I've seen no research on it to demonstrate the disproportionality has nothing to due with discrimination, which in itself seems to demonstrate that society only values certain types of men.

Forgive me if I have a little nuance to my worldview, and am not a black/white ideologue who can't grasp complexity.

 

This is perhaps the most ironic thing I have ever seen on CAG.

 

#2252 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 November 2012 - 12:50 AM

[quote name='itachiitachi']Which is why I specified sub groups like Japanese Americans.[/QUOTE]
Explain why other Asian ethnic groups and nationalities haven't "overcome" racism then.

[quote]]No you just want to go of into semantic wonderland and are pissed I won't go with you.

My point is the percentage of "Asian Americans" in college is larger than percentage of "Asian Americas" in the population.[/quote]Words have meanings especially since you're punching above your intellectual body weight in attempting to engage in a deeper discussion. Language matters and your new point is completely different from your original point, of which you've changed 3 times already. Do you need me to start finding your quotes for you too?

[quote] How does that answer what percentage of Asians peruse a career in politic?[/quote]It doesn't because that wasn't my original question. Are you the only one that can ask questions here? Do I have to answer all your questions while you absolutely refuse to answer mine and refuse state your own conclusions?

[quote]That's theory that can be drawn from the data, but for children to out earn their parents by 30% is extreme. Especially considering the parents are of low-middle socio-economic status.[/quote]Kids of immigrants tend to earn more than their parents because?

[quote] Neither of those dispute the point that minorities had higher graduation rates with out affirmative actions.
If you look at colleges with affirmative actions the more emphasis placed on race the lower the graduation rates.
All those show is that schools with affirmative action have more students from at risk minorities than schools that don't, which is a point that no one is arguing.[/quote]Actually, that was exactly the point when YOU specifically said that STUDENTS OF COLOR SEE INCREASED ACCESS ON THIS VERY FUCKING GODDAMN PAGE.

The UC system is NOT representative of the US, so why the Fuck are you treating it like it's the fucking baseline by repeatedly parroting studies pointing to it?


[quote]So are you saying a rich black man can't get a good loan or live where he wants?[/quote]Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.:roll:

Since you seem to not catch sarcasm, I was being sarcastic. At no point did I say that it was impossible, but that there are still societal road blocks regardless of how much money one has.

[quote]1. Similar measures have already been taken some states, so I'm don't see how anyone can argue that such measures are impossible to implement.
2. Yes states can do what they want, look how many legalized gay marriage, which is far more controversial than helping poor people.[/quote]What programs are you fucking talking about? And how are programs that are meant to more effectively help poor people of color going to be implemented when a majority of states aren't even remotely interested in giving LGBT's equal rights under the law? You think that you can just throw away the reality of the political landscape just because it sounds good in your head?

[quote]You said before affirmative action was meant to help with social economic mobility, but affirmative disproportionality help people with parents who have high social-economic status(the most important thing according to you) instead of helping the ones who are capable but have parents with low social-economic status.[/quote] I said that affirmative action is meant to help with socio-economic mobility. You're the one that asserts that it only helps those higher on the socio-economic ladder, not me.

[quote]If affirmative action can be changed to help with economic mobility why not do that?[/quote]And here we come full circle. Like I already said, society is not really interested in helping them.

[quote]The descendant of a fist generation immigrant.[/quote]Then they wouldn't be a second generation immigrant, you dumb ass.

[quote]The data shows the second generation earning much more despite similar education levels, which would suggest the pay difference is due to adapting to the culture.[/quote] Hmmm...it's almost as if you're suggesting that there's very little difference in earning potential between someone that didn't graduate highschool and someone that did, but more a factor of culture? I don't think you really understand what you read in that abstract.

[quote]Really, in which part of that sentence was I misrepresenting your argument?[/quote]How about the next bolded statement you made...

[quote]See, right there you are stawmanning, show me where I said that outliers where statistically significant .
You implied that the only way a women could earn more than a man was in a field such as porn, which you did again here. I simply pointed out there are more technical fields where women earn more than men.

Saying "some women earn more than some men" is not the same as in some fields requiring advanced education women earn more than men"[/quote]So you didn't say that there isn't a gender gap in pay and that women actually get paid more than men in some fields as if that's the actual trend of pay in terms of gender AND race?

[quote]How does special interest groups suppressing studies and findings that they view unfavorably = " Economist has a feminist agenda"?[/quote]You're the one that fucking suggested it, you goddamn loon! ON THIS VERY GODDAMN PAGE.

[quote]An article on a website is not the same as publishing new research data.[/quote]Yet abstracts are sooo much better.:roll:

[quote]but since you brought it up how do you refute the finding that.[/quote]Why the Fuck would I need to refute it when YOU ARE THE ONE SAYING THAT THERE IS NO PAY GAP BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN!

[quote]Your answer was the justice system was harder on men, which makes little sense for the homeless question. Nor did you answer why the justice system was harder on men than women.[/quote] The original question was whether or not those statistics indicated a societal bias against men. I specifically said that only against homeless men and (men) in the justice system. Reading comprehension is not your strong point. Perhaps it's something you should work on.

[quote]You are the one who started the nit picking for not apparent reason and now you're throwing a fit because it's been pointed out you make mistakes also? By the way there are at least 5 mistakes in this post of yours.[/quote]I explained the reasons. You're making clumsy and futile attempts to make yourself sound smarter than you are and the more you stumble around with bigger words and concepts, the more you show how little you actually know about anything. If it's a language barrier, I wouldn't care about taking the time to disseminate it for you, but if it's just because you're a dumbshit that doesn't realize how dumb they are and refuse to learn, then I'm going to tell you how dumb you are.

[quote]In order to be a loaded question there would have to be a false assumption, unless you believe that either "men are favored in our society" or "more men are homeless" are false, then it was not a loaded question.[/quote]What.the.Fuck. Are you saying that we live in a matriarchal society? I mean you already said that women tend to get paid more than men. You might as well spill it.

And yes, your question was a loaded piece of shit.

[quote]You answered why more men are in jail, but not why more men are homeless.[/quote] [quote]It's called the Socratic method, it's great for pointing out contradictions in people's views. The interesting thing is how hard you are fighting to avoid answering the questions.[/quote]That's what you call what you're doing? Cause you're doing a piss poor job of it and haven't revealed any contradictions. Maybe if you kept track of what you were saying instead of merely being contrarian, you'd notice how you've been arguing with yourself with your questions. At first, I thought I was imagining it because there hasn't been someone that stupid or as big of a troll in a long time, but once we got a few posts deeper, we can all see that I wasn't.

[quote]Examples of you strawmanning:
1. Special interest groups suppressing studies and findings that they view unfavorably -> Economist has a feminist agenda
2. Percentage of "Asian Americans" in college is larger than percentage of "Asian Americas" in the population. -> Asian grossly overrepresented
3. Exceptions exist -> Outliers are statistically significant.

Examples of your false equivalencies,
Political gridlock on national level = political gridlock on the state level.
Disproportionality = racism.
Problems of rich minorities = problems of poor minorities.
Terms you misused.
Loaded question, overcome and circular logic.

There are a lot more than that, but I'll leave it there for now.[/quote]I'd like see specific examples and explanations of how I misused terms and used circular logic. You can also point out those 5 errors as well. I could use a joke.

If you understood what you were reading and writing while keeping track of it, you'd see how your list is literally the ramblings of an insane person. And since I'm starting to get the sense of there being a deeper problem with you, I'm going to pull away from this tete-a-tete after this post. So unless you start giving something of substance, I'm going to end with this:

[quote]Look someone gave an answer, would be so hard to do dohdough?

In addition to those factor's I'd add that, men are more likely to take risks, difference in typical social circles (small and tight knit, vs large and loose), greater genetic variance in males.
Also psychopaths are more likely to be felons and men are much more likely to be psychopaths.

My points with this are
1. That pinning an explanation of disproportionality on some form of discrimination is simply a convenience to not look at the problem in more details.

2. That many of those risk factor also have positive sides, large lose social circles makes it easier to get jobs, being a veteran(higher rank the better) or being a psychopath makes you more likely get a leadership positions in a company. Variability, risk taking/willingness to break laws are believed to useful traits from employment especially higher paying jobs, though I don't know of any thorough testing of the links.

3. Many of the correlations are untested, rely on a sexual biased to begin with or fall into sexual stereotypes. Though I'm sure it would hold up I've seen no research on it to demonstrate the disproportionality has nothing to due with discrimination, which in itself seems to demonstrate that society only values certain types of men.[/quote]LOLZ

#2253 EdRyder

EdRyder

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 November 2012 - 05:16 PM

Seriously. That whole response was astonishingly stupid. If Veteran males make up one of the largest groups in the homeless population , how in the Fuck are you equating it with any sort of positive position?

"being a psychopath makes you more likely get a leadership positions in a company" Is the lolz quote of the century.

"society only values certain types of men"

Apparently , the psychopaths,...

You're out of your depth buddy. The fact that you even asked was a signal. Next time, bother to find out why. You know , that thing people do when they're interested in a topic

#2254 itachiitachi

itachiitachi

Posted 25 November 2012 - 09:05 PM

Seriously. That whole response was astonishingly stupid. If Veteran males make up one of the largest groups in the homeless population , how in the Fuck are you equating it with any sort of positive position?

"being a psychopath makes you more likely get a leadership positions in a company" Is the lolz quote of the century.

"society only values certain types of men"

Apparently , the psychopaths,...

You're out of your depth buddy. The fact that you even asked was a signal. Next time, bother to find out why. You know , that thing people do when they're interested in a topic

1. 8% of CEOs are veterans(officers) v.s. 3%(officers) of the population.
2. 4% of tested CEOs turned out to be psychopaths, v.s. 1% of the general population.
Both of those look like positives(for the veterans and psychos) to me.



@dogh

If you want to continue talking when you get back show which part of "If society favor men then why are more me homeless?" is a false, or admit you where wrong about labeling it a loaded question.

Edited by itachiitachi, 27 November 2012 - 04:07 AM.
adding details

Forgive me if I have a little nuance to my worldview, and am not a black/white ideologue who can't grasp complexity.

 

This is perhaps the most ironic thing I have ever seen on CAG.