Fridays Rant
If I am facing east and someone is across from me facing west and a tree falls between us, I will say that the tree feel to the left and the other person would say that the tree fell to the right. Even though the face value of our statements seems contradictory, they both are true and hence this can be seen as an example of the relative nature of truth. However, in reality, this is the improper use of language and terminology that has lead to truth seeming relative. One must use objective terminology to describe objective phenomenon. Had one of us said that the tree feel to the North and the other said it feel to the South, the truth would not be relative. This is why terms of discussion need to be made objective by agreeing upon working definitions.
There is absolutely no logical reason to agree to disagree, between two intelligent people who have complete information on the subject matter. If two intelligent people with opposing points of view cannot reach consensus as to which proposition is a greater truth than the other, it can only be from two things. Either their opposition has failed to provide supporting and demonstrative proof and or the one of the two parties has a vested emotional interest in their position to the degree that they are not willing to entertain contradictory evidence. Hence, agreeing to disagree can be and is often the product of poor demonstration or simply stubbornness, if not the product of ignorance.
When one is debating a collective concept or phenomenon, like race and the black struggle for equality, individual examples have no place in the debate. If one makes a statement about the role of white racism is the black condition, bringing up the fact that not all white people are racist or that you as a white person are not racist, is not a valid contradiction, because the scope is different. If one is tying to negate or repudiate a collective proposition, then they must retort with a counter collective proposition. What I mean by collective is the dominant or general rule for the whole.
It is invalid to attempt to negate the general rule with exceptions to the rule. If ones proposition is or was based upon exceptions to the rule, then the person whose proposition was or is based upon the dominant rule is speaking the greater truth. In light of this, one cannot use their life experience as a template for extrapolating what is true for the collective. I think that this is natural to see the world from the prism of your life experiences. However, no matter how natural, such does not make it valid when discussing collective phenomenon. Yet, people do this all the time and will agree to disagree with a collective proposition because there life has been an exception to the general rule.
The biggest problem in debates in regards to truth is the ability of one to bare direct witness. What and how is a person suppose to believe something that they cannot bare witness to? How do we then conclude what source is credible and is our decision the product of bias? When discussing a collective issue like race and black people, none have the ability to bare witness to each component part of the collective to say what is true for the whole. This is were and why people must make fundamental assumptions as the foundation or unstated premise of their proposition.
As an example, if you are a person who has risen to success and you use your life experience as a template, as most people do, you note your success as the product of working hard, making certain choices and being responsible. Quite naturally, you might conclude that those in good health who did not rise as you have did not demonstrates those traits in the same degree, even though you cannot bare witness to this. Consequently, you may see poverty primarily as the consequence of people not demonstrating or practicing certain positive character traits, not given respect to the uniqueness of everyone’s experiences. Hence, you substituted an assumption, because you cannot bare witness, based upon your personal experience, if not prejudice.
In the lack of the ability to bare witness, I believe that all humans should be given the benefit of the doubt of equality. What I mean by that is that we should not make assumptions that any groups of humans are less rationally or emotionally intelligent, less responsible, less ethical, less hardworking or inferior to other groups in any way. That assumption has to be made, lest the prejudice of bias becomes the foundation of ones argument, which most people never lay claim to being their motives. If you start out with the assumption that one group is superior or inferior to another group, the conclusion will fit the assumption.
In light of this, unless one starts out with the assumption of inferiority, there is no logical way to explain an inferior outcome or performance that is not the product of external circumstance. When the issue of black collective inequality, poverty, unemployment and other are discussed, one must make an assumption, because they have not the ability to bare witness to each individual that makes up these statistics. So people will assume based upon their own life experiences or they will assume out of prejudice, that this group inequality of statistics or outcome and performance are the resultant of flaws in black people. Black people are lazy, black people are not being responsible or black people are not this or that. This essentially is the evidence of the assumption of an internal flaw in black people which accounts for black problems.
It is certainly valid to say that there is lazy, irresponsible, bad choice making black people and that such black people need to get their act together. However, to say that in the context of socioeconomic racial discrepancies, such as poverty, unemployment and educational performance, among others, is to suggest that these traits are more endemic to black people than others. Noting these things in the context of black inequality is out of place, because they have nothing to due with the cause of black inequality, if one assumes that such are human traits that appear in 10 out of 100 people, regardless of race. It could be true that certain races of people are superior or inferior to others, which lead to inequality of outcome, but if that, is ones belief and or assumption, and then they need to be honest about it.
In conclusion, if people want to challenge the assertions and proposition made on this blog, in regards to the collective plight and condition of black people, please present a valid, objective methodology of disproving or repudiating our propositions and do not use logical fallacies and subjective verbiage.
posted by Noah TA @ 6/03/2005 01:59:00 PM
17 comments
17 Comments:
Noah,
In all hegemonic states: meaning a state whereby one group oppresses another, the dominant constituency defines the subordinate group. It has been proven since the 1940s that African-American’s are not genetically inferior to other groups. That has been proven scientifically. However, regardless of these facts, the dominant culture continues to ideologically define us as inferior. Several hundred years of legal oppression have left us stunted, scarred, and rife with dysfunction. On top of that, the suppression of education for generations of black American’s has left us far behind whites. In the wake of successful civil resistance movements, the African-American community is struggling to catch up. We are also struggling to reconcile our new freedoms and access to arenas of the culture industry once off limits. These changes have contributed to varying degrees of wealth and prosperity amongst a community formerly held back by legal means.
In addition to struggling for our rights, we must now contend with a nasty inter-cultural class conflict, engendered by new prosperity. There is now an ever-growing class rift between blacks; and this rift is not going to go away. With wealth, often comes conservatism, so many prosperous blacks are becoming conservative. Of course, this was bound to happen, because with freedom comes individuality. Historically, black political leaders, intellectuals, and activists have never agreed with each other when it came to our plight in this Nation. However, these men and women were all firmly on the Left politically. Today things are different. Now this divisiveness is beginning to manifest itself in partisan politics.
Not only do blacks disagree in regard to the path that we should take as a people, now we are beginning to divide ourselves between the two parties. This is disturbing because there is no historical precedent for such behavior. Hence, as American citizens, we are heading into uncharted territory.
I don’t think that agreeing is the point. The point is for us not to become divided. It’s not even intelligent to assume or demand agreement. Regardless, of our political leanings we must work together as black people, and keep our lines of communication open.
My point is that we are a diverse people. Freedom means that we can now be what we want to be. Despite the dominant cultures lurid definition of us, we must now redefine ourselves through our actions. Despite what you think, you are free; and now you must exercise that freedom to achieve your goals.
I would begin by purchasing a dictionary…
OK, now that I have that behind me, I have to get on your ass a bit. You need to pay attention to this. You often say silly things like as quoted below, but I’ve just grown sick of it, because it offends my love of the English language.
NOAH SAYS: “In conclusion, if people want to challenge the assertions and proposition made on this blog, in regards to the collective plight and condition of black people, please present a valid, objective methodology of disproving or repudiating our propositions and do not use logical fallacies and subjective verbiage.”
Let’s take a closer look at Noah’s choice of words. I find it to be quite revealing. Aside from the split infinitives, double negatives, run-ons, split verbs, and his general avoidance of punctuation – Noah doesn’t appear to know the definitions of the words he chooses.
He says that, in the process of disagreeing with his “ASSERTIONS” and “PROPOSITIONS” we should present a valid, objective methodology. Why should we do this when he and his lackey’s have not done the same? It’s not even possible! All they do is talk out of their asses. There is no logic, or methodology to be found, only “ASSERTIONS and “PROPOSITIONS.”
Let’s look at the definitions of these two words, shall we?
ASSERTION: “SOMETHING ASSERTED POSITIVELY, OFTEN WITH NO SUPPORT OR ATTEMPT AT PROOF.”
PROPOSITION: “ A PLAN OR SCHEME SUGGESTED FOR APPROVAL.”
–The American Heritage Dictionary
Yes Noah, you and your lackeys make many “ASSERTIONS and “PROPOSITIONS” and like the definition states, you make no attempt at support or proof. What you are saying is not objective; it’s not science or mathematics. Furthermore, one cannot employ a valid methodology in opposition to an “ASSERTION,” which by definition has no methodology.
Now you may attempt to get yourself off the hook by conceding that you simply have a poor vocabulary – which is obviously the case. But why should we even respect the unfounded ranting of someone who obviously needs to enroll in a remedial English course?
The unfortunate cycle is definitely in full effect!
With love,
Nat Turner Jones
NmagiNate,
I suggest that you read about the construction of race in America from a historical and scientific perspective. I would start by researching pseudo-scientific models like phrenology and physiognomy: which were created as a means to separate the races based on their cranial structures and facial features.
These scientific models were created during Modernism (i.e. early 19th Century), but they were still being utilized up until the middle of the century. In fact, there are still some idiot scientists trying to revive these models.
I'll have to leave you with that, because I don't have time to explain it all. But I encourage you to visit your local public library and do some research of your own – it's all out there for your consumption. There’s no shortcut to gaining knowledge.
Warm regards,
Nat Turner Jones
If you want facts, read "Being Black, Living in the Red: Race, Wealth, and Social Policy in America"
http://tinyurl.com/bm9a4
"Being Black, Living in the Red demonstrates that many differences between blacks and whites stem not from race but from economic inequalities that have accumulated over the course of American history. Property ownership--as measured by net worth--reflects this legacy of economic oppression. The racial discrepancy in wealth holdings leads to advantages for whites in the form of better schools, more desirable residences, higher wages, and more opportunities to save, invest, and thereby further their economic advantages.
Dalton Conley shows how factoring parental wealth into a reconceptualization of class can lead to a different future for race policy in the United States. As it currently stands, affirmative action programs primarily address racial diversity in schooling and work--areas that Conley contends generate paradoxical results with respect to racial equity. Instead he suggests an affirmative action policy that fosters minority property accumulation, thereby encouraging long-term wealth equity, or one that-while continuing to address schooling and work--is based on social class as defined by family wealth levels rather than on race.
Dalton Conley is Assistant Professor of Sociology and African and African American Studies at Yale University."
This study showed one main thing first that racism of the PAST has a direct effect on where black people are today because they have less family wealth.
Notice racism of the PAST, and that by increasing family wealth we can end the majority of the effects of racism.
And we should advocate policies that allow black families to build wealth.
Social security privation that is inheritable is one of the possible policies. And that why I am against public housing because below market price housing helps you short term but hurts your family long term because they don't increase family wealth by buying a home.
And that is why I care so much about not giving my wealth to the government.
There are people who are much better than I in regards to proficiency with the English language. There are people who are less proficient than I am with the English language. However, A valid and logical argument is not bound by the accuracy of the grammar, unless what is being graded is ones English proficiency.
One can present the most grammatically correct demonstrations of English, while also producing a totally inaccurate thesis. Form is no substitute for substance, unless one is dealing with the shallow and superficial or grading form as opposed to substance.
What I have said in my essay is that objective working definitions need to first be defined. English terminology is not an exact science. Nearly every term in the English vocabulary has multiple working definitions or usages based on context. You presented a subset of the superset of possible definitions for the terms assertion and proposition. I am sure you picked from the superset, that which you calculated would have the maximum impact of making my usage seem out of context as your goal is to discredit the substance, by discrediting the form.
I am not here to satisfy your love for the English language, because I share no such love. English is simply the language of my birth, which is the product of being a descendant of African slaves. Why should I love that which is a symbol of my ancestor’s oppression? It is certainly your prerogative to love the symbols of the master, but that is one of the things that separates you from me. If you love the English language as much as you claim and I assault the language by my usage, what keeps inspiring you to read it? Your reasoning does not coincide with your actions.
You say that there is no logic in what I or we are saying; if you need it broken down mathematically, to see the logic, let me map our or my assertions and propositions mathematically. By they way, mathematics represents the most objective proof. Hopefully you have not put all your eggs in the basket and learning and loving English to the degree that you know little about basic logic and mathematics.
Lets take a basic algebraic rule. Given the equality such as X = Y, In order for the equality to hold true, whatever is done on one side of the equal sign must also be done to the other side for the equality to continue to hold truth. Thus, if X is multiplied by 4 and Y is multiplied by 2, you create the inequality of 4X = 2Y.
This relates to black and whites in America where one can replace the variables X and Y with White and Black. Assuming the genetic equality of the races in the factors necessary for economic success creating the given equality (X = Y), we have whites = blacks. What transpires is over 3 centuries of unequal treatment that manifest in the social and economic inequality of whites < > Blacks. You can map this to 4X = 2Y unequal treatment that produced this inequality.
Now, how does one solve this inequality using the logic and principles of mathematics? Well, it is certainly not solved logically by what is considered a conservative methodology born from a conservative ideology. The logical or mathematical solution to restore the equality is to reverse the unequal treatment! One can thus restore the inequality of 4X = 2Y, to equality by going forward with multiplying 2Y by 4, while only multiplying 4X by two…. hence producing 2(4X) = 4(2Y). Simply substitute the variables X and Y for any number and you will see the logical proof.
In light of this, the logical and mathematical solution to correct an inequality created from unequal treatment is to reverse the unequal treatment or favoritism. In regards to the black and white inequality, that would mean having policy that favor blacks over whites as aggressively as whites promoted policy for centuries to promote whites over blacks. This is certainly not the conservative’s platform or the platform of Negroes who have risen as the result of such policies but who now want such policies removed before the collective racial inequality is restored, due to them now being more concerned with CLASS INTEREST.
If Algebra does not suffice in demonstrating the logic of my and our propositions…how about physics. Hopefully you did not spend all your time loving and learning English to the point that you ignored Newton’s laws. How about Newtons law of motion that states that any object in a state of equilibrium that is subsequently removed from that equilibrium by a force, will thus require AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE FORCE TO RESTORE IT TO EQUALIBRIUM.
Even the logic of physical law maps in agreement with the propositions and assertions of authors of this blog. What logical models, natural laws or mathematic rules supports your obviously conservative position or the position of those affluent blacks who are now more concerned with supporting their CLASS than their race?
Regardless of what you say, MR Jones or whatever fictitious and counter intuitive name that you ling to your words, your ideology is one that is in support of black inferiority theory, as well as keeping blacks in a state of perpetual inequality.
As I asserted and now have proven, good grammar is not a substitute for logical reasoning and truth. If you are more interested in good grammar, rather than logical truth, then you need to visit a literary blog.
So what you’re saying Noah, is that your poor vocabulary and grammatical skills are cultivated: that you intentionally write like a dummy in protest of the white man’s language?
That’s one of the most colorful, albeit pathetic rationalizations for black underachievement I’ve encountered yet. It really sums up this forum.
You have hit rock bottom my friend; this is a new low.
God Bless You,
Nat Turner Jones
My commentaries are not meant to be an English term paper in which I am to be judged on the veracity of my grammar. My commentaries are meant to communicate truth about the black condition. The only people who are distracted by inaccuracies in grammatical construction are people who want to distract from a substance that they cannot discredit, so they attempt to discredit form with the hope that it will discredit the substance. Your tactic is one of many tactics of people who have a vested interest in the suppression of the truth.
If my grammar and vocabulary is that terrible one would think it would be a bigger impediment upon my standard of living. If I pursued perfection in English proficiency there would not be a corresponding increase in my standard of living. Thus, given return on investment, I simply do not see the need to make such an investment so that I can satisfy those who majored in English or who feel assaulted and insulted, when the find a comma spice, dangling modifier, double negatives or a misspelled word.
However, this is simply obfuscation on your part, as well as an attempt discredit. If I were some Negro Con or scared to death Negro forwarding a conservative upper-class ideology, you would simply overlook any grammar imperfections and focus on the substance.
That having been said, your pointing out the science that proves blacks are not inferior does not mean that you believe this or that your line of reasoning does not imply this. The truth is that the current state of science cannot prove or disprove inferiority, because there is much more that science does not know, about the human mind, than it does know. There are major areas of the brain that science does not even understand or know its function. Hence, no one can make a claim of superiority or inferiority until all variables are understood and accounted for.
Noah,
Please blowhard, everything you’ve said since your initial post has been invalidated by your complete ignorance of the words you chose. Your own lackey’s can’t even defend you this time. Poor NmagiNate is trying, God bless his soul! He sincerely wants to help you out.
It’s clear that you really don’t know what you’re saying blowhard, so stop trying to salvage some dignity. Just cut your losses and post a new topic.
You’re out of your depth…
Nat Turner Jones
Well. Mrs Jones, language proficiency is not a demonstrating of intelligence. Language proficiency is simply a demonstration of how one has been trained in language, or what one has naturally emulated from their environment.
The truth is, Mrs Jones, is that your goal was to attempt to invalidate the substance of my argument, by invalidating its imprecise form. In a superficial world, among superficial peoples, that goal would play out very well. Do you actually believe that you are the FIRST person who came to this blog and pointed out my grammatical flaws?
What you are attempting to employ is a logical fallacy my dear. You want to forward the proposition that if a person is wrong about one thing, or does not know something, then it logical follows that they are wrong about everything and don’t know anything. LOL. That would be akin to an instructor grading a 100-question test and finds the first answer wrong, then assuming all other answers are wrong without grading them on their individual merit. LOL. That is the fallacy MR. Jones is trying to pull….find something wrong….then use that something to discredit the veracity of everything else, without judging conclusions on their individual merits.
Well, Mrs Jones, if there are people who visit this blog that are that superficial, then yes…. your mission was accomplished with them.
I will give your credit though. That was one of the most impressive displays of grammatical masturbation, for the purpose of misdirection and obfuscation that I have seen presented thus far. I bet you smoked a cigarette after that one. LOL.
OK blowhard, I'll give it to you...You articulate yourself like a dummy, but you're really "not" a dummy. That seems to be what you're concerned about.
Are you happy now... is that going to boost your self-esteem?
Nat Turner Jones
Oh….. I am not done with you Mrs.Jones. It is obvious what has gotten your little panties all wedged up your butt. It is my proposition correlating conservative ideology and beliefs of racial inferiority and superiority. This is what has got your panties up your crack.
You came right out the box attempting to prove that this is not your belief, that you do not believe such presenting some supposed studies that are supposed to convince me or readers that you indeed do not believe this. Well, if you don’t believe this, yet harbor and promote a social conservative philosophy, you are heading East while attempting to go West. Your compass is all screwed up….sister. Because your personal compass is all screwed up….you don’t know who is heading in the right direction and who is not.
My proposition so screwed you up, that you then had to find a way to discredit it, so you chose to attack my grammatical skills and English proficiency. This is a classic courtroom maneuver of an attorney to discredit the witness, in order to discredit the truth. This is why so many lawyers are seen in a negative light. They will take a woman who was raped and try to discredit her claim because she lied or embellished her resume when she was hired for a job. The fact that she demonstrated a falsehood in her life should therefore bring the shadow of doubt to her claims of being raped, when one thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
You are like that snake in the grass, unscrupulous, win at all cost courtroom attorney. You would have the jury believe that if a person is wrong about one thing that totally unrelated other propositions are therefore also discredited. You would have the jury believe that if a person was not an A student in English, that the person could not be an A student in any other subject matter. You would have the jury believe that a flaw in grammar represents a flaw in logical reasoning. You would have the jury believe that a misspelled word or an un-dotted “i”, discredit premise, inference and conclusion of a thesis.
The thing about it is this…sister. I would much rather sound like a dummy, while being intelligent, than to sound intelligent while being a dummy. You have perfected the latter with your grammatical masturbation. Its kind of like the joke that I rather be fat the ugly, because I can lose the weight but you can never lose the ugly. By the same toke, I can correct flaws in grammar and spelling and still produce the same logical conclusion. On the other hand, you cannot change your illogic to logic, without destroying your conclusion. Ergo, you will always be ugly.
Noah,
I can’t believe that you’re still trying to pull yourself out of this one. All you had to do was admit your error, but instead you had to rationalize it. In the process, you made it worse by isolating yourself with needless bullshitting. Face it; you lost some credibility in this debate, so just let it go. Let’s move on shall we.
If you don't use words correctlly, no one can trust what you're saying. Furthermore, we don't know if you mean what you're saying, or you're saying what you mean. It's that simple.
You may not be a dummy blowhard, but your writing makes you look like one. How else can we determine your intelligence or credibility, aside from your grammar and the quality of your words? That's how you communicate with the world via this blog. All you have to do is be more attentive to your writing: choose your words with care so you can meticulously craft what you want to convey. If you don't, you're going to continue looking like a sucker.
People often tell you that they don’t like how this forum is so aggressive and nasty. I’ve seen this articulated time and time again. But all you have to say to them is: “You’re too sensitive,” or “That’s how we get down.” Some people can only communicate through aggression. So that’s fine… I’ll get down your way. If you can’t respect others, I will not respect you. Let’s see if you can handle it.
You had better pay attention to your words because I will be on your ass blowhard. I don’t want to see any more “assertions.” Bring a credible book to the table next time. Let’s discuss something real: something beyond opinions and “conjecture” (I suggest that you look this word up, it’s important for you to understand what I’m saying).
Come correct my friend, otherwise I’m going to discredit everything you say… And it won’t be difficult.
Nat Turner Jones
First of all, who is your audience? You can discredit me in your eyes, but who else’s? I don’t see anyone else joining ranks with you in your ASSERTION and CONJECTURE that you have discredited me. As I noted before, you are not the first person who has pointed out flaws in my grammar. My grammar was never accredited for you to discredit.
You can make the argument that YOU did not understand and that I failed to communicate with YOU…but that is the only argument that you can make as you cannot and do not speak for others. You see, if I am up Down South and someone ask what “What time it is”, as opposed to “what time is it”, I have enough pattern recognition skills to understand that they want the time. I am not going to say “I don’t understand what you are asking me because of your incorrect sentence structure”.
If I don’t use words correctly, and a person was/is INTERESTED in what I am trying to say THEY WOULD ASK FOR CLARIFICATION. You see, how people respond is dependant upon what their goal and attitude is. If a person’s goal is to understand…then they will seek understanding via clarification. If a person goal and attitude is to not understand or accept a proposition counter to their own…. they will search and find ways not to (you are a case study in the latter).
Secondly, you need to understand my target audience. My target audience is not the superficial. I am not looking for fame or to be published. I am simply here to speak to my target audience who believe in placing substance before form. Believe me, I know very well that many learned and well read people are pompous and turned off by written or spoken communication that is not grammatically correct. But they are not my target audience. My target audience is not intellectuals and English majors.
Mrs jones, you are welcome here anytime. You are not a threat…..you simply give me new idea for topics….My next topic will be about how people use logical fallacies….I am sure to have some comma splices, dangling modifiers, run-ons, double negatives and a few misspelled words and I am sure that you will be there to discredit it all (in your eyes) LOL
Louise, I did indeed tell Mrs Jones that there are multiple definitions for nearly every term in the English language, including “assertion” and “proposition”. It was her goal to pick from the list of usages that was most counter to the context in which I used them. You see, her goal on this forum is akin to a heckler at a comedy show or an obnoxious fan at a ball game trying to get “in the head” of the opposing team. Her goal is not to seek the greater truth….her goal is to attempt to discredit by logical fallacies to create the impression of victory for her point of view.
"if people want to challenge the assertions and proposition made on this blog,"
assertion -- : the act of asserting; also : DECLARATION, AFFIRMATION
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=asserting
assert ---
to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively
2 a : to demonstrate the existence of - assert his manhood -- James Joyce - b : POSIT, POSTULATE
- assert oneself : to compel recognition especially of one's rights
synonyms ASSERT, DECLARE, AFFIRM, PROTEST, AVOW mean to state positively usually in anticipation of denial or objection. ASSERT implies stating confidently without need for proof or regard for evidence - asserted that modern music is just noise -. DECLARE stresses open or public statement - declared her support for the candidate -. AFFIRM implies conviction based on evidence, experience, or faith - affirmed the existence of an afterlife -. PROTEST emphasizes affirming in the face of denial or doubt - protested that he really had been misquoted -. AVOW stresses frank declaration and acknowledgment of personal responsibility for what is declared - avowed that all investors would be repaid in full -
proposition ---
1 a (1) : something offered for consideration or acceptance : PROPOSAL (2) : a request for sexual intercourse b : the point to be discussed or maintained in argument usually stated in sentence form near the outset c : a theorem or problem to be demonstrated or performed
2 a : an expression in language or signs of something that can be believed, doubted, or denied or is either true or false b : the objective meaning of a proposition
3 : something of an indicated kind - getting there is a tough proposition -the farm was never a paying proposition -
- prop·o·si·tion·al /-'zish-n&l, -'zi-sh&-n&l/ adjective
Louise, the given X and Y in the formula is the genetic capacity to produce a given socioeconomic output. The literals being multiplied against X and Y are environmental stimuli and experiences. The rationalization being that the human condition is the product of the binary option of nature or nurture or the combination there of. Consequently, X and Y are the NATURE component, while the literals of 4 and 2 represent NURTURE. I am using a working definition of nurture to be synonymous with external influences and forces.
In light of this, although X and Y are variables, in this time period they really represent constants. The rationalization being that the science of evolution and natural selection believes that it takes 20,000 years before a mutation can manifest and spread as a superior trait. Consequently, I do not see X and Y as having varied in the given time window from blacks arrival as slaves to today.
Given my working definition, such a suggestion would be akin to racial superiority doctrine. However, given that I may not have established my working definitions of variable and literals and what they represent, I am not suggesting that is your position. That having been said, I would like to know, now that the working definition has been established, is this your position?
Louis (no e) thanks for your temperament in this discussion. It is refreshing. In all honesty, I do not really know what you are asking me. How are the expressions related? I think the expressions are related because of X and Y represent the HUMAN CONDITION and the literals in the expression represent a shared national environment, but under a differing set of environmental forces, depending on whether ones humanity manifest as an X or Y.
Louis, go back to my original essay about ability to bare witness. Of course X = Y is the basic assumption of the whole thesis. What that represents is the assumption that black humanity is equal to white humanity in the relevant capacities to produce social and economic success. Again, X and Y represents the genetic component and the numeric literals represent the external component. You hit the nail right on the head is saying that X = Y is not a proven. But to assume that it is not true is to assume genetic racial inferiority.
I have said this all along. The fact that we cannot bare witness to the vast majority of phenomenon that we have an opinion on, means that the premise of those opinions is based upon unsubstantiated premise. I have long argued that all arguments are rooted in the school of thought (assumptions/prejudgments) of racial equality of capacity (genetics) or racial inferiority of capacity.
Post a Comment
<< Home