Plan to Attract Free Agents

[northeast]

V, You mean my being honest and truthful and honorable?
That must be really annoying for people like you.

You repeatedly led me to believe that you wanted us to agree to a mutual ignore status.
I see now that you were being deceptive.
Only now you tell me that you had no intentions of making a fair agreement or treating me with the same respect that I give to you,
after making me waste my time with your BS over several days.

 

[Fishsticks]

V, You mean my being honest and truthful and honorable?
That must be really annoying for people like you.

You repeatedly led me to believe that you wanted us to agree to a mutual ignore status.
I see now that you were being deceptive.
Only now you tell me that you had no intentions of making a fair agreement or treating me with the same respect that I give to you,
after making me waste my time with your BS over several days.

Sorry, but ROFL

 

[One Brow]

It seems like being a multi-millionaire pro athlete opens a few doors as well. Doors that aren't open to me no matter how straight and white I am.

On that we are in full agreement.

 

[northeast]

1. Any line that is in place is not there because of some administrative mandate. The line is there because both sides acknowledge and recognize it..

This is what you have asserted with no substantiation.
I submit to you that there are administrative mandates such as Census Laws and other laws too ,(forgive me for not wasting a year researching all of them), that have placed the line. The fact that there are implications of the line that did not cause the line is irrelevant.

If I was Stoked , I would have said here that you seem to have forgotten what you are arguing about.

I am not Stoked , so i have provided some clarification here instead of just mocking you.

 

[Stoked]

This is what you have asserted with no substantiation.
I submit to you that there have been administrative mandates such as Census Laws and other laws too ,(forgive me for not wasting a year researching all of them), that have placed the line. The fact that there are implications of the line that did not cause the line is irrelevant to the point in question, the relationship between ad. mand. + the line.

Stoked would mention here only that you seem to have forgotten what you are arguing about, while refusing to say what he means.
Note that I have given you the courtesy of saying what we are arguing about, instead of playing games.

If you complain that no one is arguing your arguement then maybe your arguement is not the arguement that is being argued. Can you argue with that?

 

[northeast]

You could make such a guess, or you could read the thread, but I am not talking with you, and am talking with Bronco.
Perhaps he has more integrity than you, and will stay on point , instead of always bringing in more distractions.

 

[Stoked]

You could make such a guess, or you could read the thread, but I am not talking with you, and am talking with Bronco.
Perhaps he has more integrity than you, and will stay on point , instead of always bringing in more distractions.

Stop trying to distract me with your inability to multi task. Focus your arguements to the arguement that you are arguing please.

 

[Bronco70]

This is what you have asserted with no substantiation.
I submit to you that there have been administrative mandates such as Census Laws and other laws too ,(forgive me for not wasting a year researching all of them), that have placed the line. The fact that there are implications of the line that did not cause the line is irrelevant.

I'm not sure why I'm even dignifying your straw men, but what the hell...

You keep insisting that your "line" is administrative, yet the examples you cited are ALL about personal prejudice. No administrative body implemented these prejudices. This is my point, has been my point, and hasn't wavered as my point. You suggesting that I have forgotten what I'm arguing about is just a sad tactic, I guess. A distraction from the fact that you don't seem to know what you're position is.

Consider the following scenario: A racist white employer interviews a light skinned, yet traditionally featured, african american man. As the "line" now stands, the employer would automatically dismiss the man as a candidate. Are you suggesting that if the government recognized the applicant as caucasian, rather than african american, the employers attitude and prejudices would automatically be different?

Also, I wonder how, if you started reclassifying, you would determine the cutoff.

If I was Stoked , I would have said here that you seem to have forgotten what you are arguing about.

If you were Stoked, you would have just explained your position in a reasonable fashion, rather than just countering anything I say with "That's your opinion".

 

[Bronco70]

The saddest part about this whole discussion is, I KNOW I'm being trolled, yet I just can't seem to let it go.

 

[Stoked]

The saddest part about this whole discussion is, I KNOW I'm being trolled, yet I just can't seem to let it go.

If nothing else know that I enjoy your replies.

 

[northeast]

No administrative body implemented these prejudices.

Incorrect, as I have stated, because our census laws and other laws implemented these prejudices.
We have laws (aka an administrative body) that say that someone with mixed black and white heritage is black.
It is your assumption that if the law (and other administrative bodies) was different, people would not think differently, but this is incorrect.
As further evidence, I will submit to you that there are South American countries in which people of mixed black and white heritage are not thought of as black, because they do not have laws and other administrative bodies stating that they are black.

 

[northeast]

Stoked and Verlin, I am not looking at your posts, because my experience tells me that you waste my time with BS. You are both on my ignore list. Feel free to reciprocate.

 

[northeast]

The saddest part about this whole discussion is, I KNOW I'm being trolled, yet I just can't seem to let it go.

I am not trolling you. I made a statement, you said I was wrong, so I am just defending what I said.

 

[Stoked]

Incorrect, as I have stated, because our census laws and other laws implemented these prejudices.
We have laws (aka an administrative body) that say that someone with mixed black and white heritage is black.
It is your assumption that if the law (and other administrative bodies) was different, people would not think differently, but this is incorrect.
As further evidence, I will submit to you that there are South American countries in which people of mixed black and white heritage are thought of as white, because they do not have laws and other administrative bodies stating that they are black.

Provide proof of that please. Also what other countries do is of no relevance in this discussion on the lines of who is what race in America. Personally I think the whole thing is stupid. Be proud of who you are and where you came from but keeping tabs on who is what race at all is idiotic.

 

[northeast]

I'm not sure why I'm even dignifying your straw men, but what the hell...

You keep insisting that your "line" is administrative, yet the examples you cited are ALL about personal prejudice.

No, you keep conveniently ignoring my initial statement regarding the US Census, as well as the implications that many administrative bodies that are based on the census and other laws.
You are the one fixated on the issue of "administrative" causing or not causing lines. I never said it was an important issue, I said exactly the opposite.

 

[northeast]

Consider the following scenario: A racist white employer interviews a light skinned, yet traditionally featured, african american man. As the "line" now stands, the employer would automatically dismiss the man as a candidate. Are you suggesting that if the government recognized the applicant as caucasian, rather than african american, the employers attitude and prejudices would automatically be different?

In general, yes they would, if the law was different, public behavior and thinking would have been impacted. Of course, the results would not be universal, but to say that things like laws, decrees, language, public relations, rules, administrations, and organizations over hundreds of years have no influence is incorrect.

also, your scenario is not based in reality, employers today do not automatically dismiss black candidates unless they want to go bankrupt, but I went along with your scenario for the purposes of answering your q.

 

[northeast]

Also, I wonder how, if you started reclassifying, you would determine the cutoff.

I have addressed this previously.
I believe that there would not be a clear cutoff, which is why this proposal might lead to a reduction of racial prejudices, as people realize that we are all just different shades, not black and white.

 

[northeast]

If you were Stoked, you would have just explained your position in a reasonable fashion, rather than just countering anything I say with "That's your opinion".

No, in several previous arguments with Stoked, he would spend countless hours refusing to answer a question directly, and repeatedly say things like "I already told you that" or "you seem to have forgotten what you are arguing about" or "conjecture" use any of a number of other devices for the purpose of obfuscation and annoyance. He stated that he was doing this on purpose to annoy me.

This is the second time that a mod has taken my trademark annoyance with Stoked, the use of the "conjecture" argument , and used it against me in a very strange and ironic fashion.

I should have just said "this is your opinion", this is a huge waste of time, but it was so important for you to challenge me to go into more detail, and since you are a mod I did what you wanted. I have answered all of your questions.

 

[northeast]

PS. I don't much care about the importance of proving whether the "line" is set by an "administrative body". You are the one who seemed to think that everything in the world and my reputation hinged on proving otherwise. You are the one who brought it up.

 

[Bronco70]

This is the second time that a mod has taken my trademark annoyance with Stoked, the use of the "conjecture" argument , and used it against me in a very strange and ironic fashion.

I used "If you were Stoked..." as a reply to your statement that began "If I were Stoked...".

In two instance that I have pointed out conjecture, it has been because you were actually using conjecture.

Am I supposed to respond differently because I'm a mod?

I should have just said "this is your opinion", this is a huge waste of time, but it was so important for you to challenge me to go into more detail, and since you are a mod I did what you wanted. I have answered all of your questions.

That's odd. Did you feel there might be a penalty for not responding to me? Look, we can agree on one thing: It is a huge waste of time. But I was into it. Sometimes a good pointless argument is reinvigorating. This board has been pretty dry lately.

Obviously you are just scanning my posts, because you seem to have only a tenuous grasp on what I'm trying to convey. That's alright. I'm getting a little tired of it myself. I can hardly blame you for not wanting to put a lot of energy into it.

But just one last thing, more for me than you; I'm not talking about prejudices that would exist if laws were different. I'm talking about the impact on prejudices if the law were suddenly changed. There's a big difference there. Prejudices don't adjust overnight because of some rule. They adjust over generations because of increased understanding.

Anyway, that's it for me. Thanks for the "ear".