schools must allow for minority students to speak in ebonics

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

No. I'm pretty sure there is not one smart person on the list who would disagree.

There's not a whole lot of hoarding going on. That's just a myth.

PLEASE prove this. Provide some evidence for that statement because all the studies I've seen indicate consolidation and centralization of wealth around the board. The evidence I've seen points to massive amounts of hoarding...

In a world with 7 billion people in it, you will inevitably end up with a genuine resource shortage. There is not a huge percentage of farm land being kept off the market. Some is, sure. But not enough to make the global food supply change dramatically. It's not profitable to keep it off the market anyway. So even an infinity greedy person, would still not hoard it.

In a world with 7 billion people in it, there are enough resources to maintain TRILLIONS. Population size isn't the problem, it's greedy people who think their "hard work" earns them the right to hoard resources.

If you seriously think that farmers aren't facing a massive gentrification-esque problem, in the form of being pushed out by the government, you've got a lot of research to do. Seriously.

In war torn areas a lot of it is wasted, but that's not hoarding. That's just chaos.

We face stuff like global warming because people simply will not accept the finite nature of our world. They keep trying to cram a (borderline) infinite amount of people into it.

Human vanity is the problem.

All the statements you've made in this last quote are subliminal, maybe even subconscious, shots at POC. I find it hilarious that White society is discussing the problem of population growth, while they have a negative birth rate and are facing extinction because they can't increase their population enough.

That being said, I agree that human arrogance regardless of race is causing most of the world's problems. My angle is, instead of blaming the "developing nations", let's look at the nations that can only afford their perspective at the expense of destroying those developing nations.

Anyway.......... chemical engineers are the ones working to extend those resources. That's their biggest job.

NOBODY IN ANY FIELD does more than they do to extend resources.

My qualms are aimed at chemical engineers. It's aimed at the upper echelon of society that makes us believe that they are necessary, all the while hoarding the results.

originally posted by: prepared4truth
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

No. I'm pretty sure there is not one smart person on the list who would disagree.

There's not a whole lot of hoarding going on. That's just a myth.

PLEASE prove this. Provide some evidence for that statement because all the studies I've seen indicate consolidation and centralization of wealth around the board. The evidence I've seen points to massive amounts of hoarding...

Money is not wealth. Wealth is not money.

Understanding that is the core to understanding macro-economics.

Money can be printed. Wealth cannot.

You may see a lot of people hoarding money, and even gold right now. But nobody is hoarding wealth. Like farmland, or energy generation infrastructure, etc... Arguably the Saudis are hoarding some oil fields, but they only get away with that because international laws don't exist against their form of collusion. (If they were based in the USA, they would have been hit with anti-trust legislation by now.)

When you hoard wealth and leave it unused, it does nothing for you. You can't earn interest on it. But when you hoard money, you pretty always earn interest on it.

Farm land is the key to the food supply. It's not being hoarded, yet people are still starving. It's producing day and night as much as it can produce. Just about everything it produces is being eaten.

Yet people are still starving.

If you want to argue that redistributing the money would end starvation, you're left with a problem: where is all the missing food at?

In a world with 7 billion people in it, you will inevitably end up with a genuine resource shortage. There is not a huge percentage of farm land being kept off the market. Some is, sure. But not enough to make the global food supply change dramatically. It's not profitable to keep it off the market anyway. So even an infinity greedy person, would still not hoard it.

In a world with 7 billion people in it, there are enough resources to maintain TRILLIONS. Population size isn't the problem, it's greedy people who think their "hard work" earns them the right to hoard resources.

If you seriously think that farmers aren't facing a massive gentrification-esque problem, in the form of being pushed out by the government, you've got a lot of research to do. Seriously.

Pushed out of where? The areas around major cities? There is quite a lot of farm land far away from the cities that nobody is threatening.

You just hear about the few that are getting pushed.

In war torn areas a lot of it is wasted, but that's not hoarding. That's just chaos.

We face stuff like global warming because people simply will not accept the finite nature of our world. They keep trying to cram a (borderline) infinite amount of people into it.

Human vanity is the problem.

All the statements you've made in this last quote are subliminal, maybe even subconscious, shots at POC. I find it hilarious that White society is discussing the problem of population growth, while they have a negative birth rate and are facing extinction because they can't increase their population enough.

In other words: they understand the problem and are doing their part to solve it.

But nobody else is (except the chinese).

That being said, I agree that human arrogance regardless of race is causing most of the world's problems. My angle is, instead of blaming the "developing nations", let's look at the nations that can only afford their perspective at the expense of destroying those developing nations.

Anyway.......... chemical engineers are the ones working to extend those resources. That's their biggest job.

NOBODY IN ANY FIELD does more than they do to extend resources.

My qualms are aimed at chemical engineers. It's aimed at the upper echelon of society that makes us believe that they are necessary, all the while hoarding the results.

That's because you only look at money. Not wealth.

Chemical engineers create solid, physical, wealth. That's why we pay them so much.

There are some other professions, such as banking, which could be argued to be parasitic. Maybe they're the "upper eschelons" you worry about?

Believe me, the white people around you are worried too.

originally posted by: prepared4truth
a reply to: bloodymarvelous


How did I know you'd say that? Many people defend this unjust system with blanket statistics without factoring in other evidence obtained by controlled experimentation on multiple communities (e.g. the effect of poverty on motive). I argue that Black people have always been targeted, not just by law enforcement but by the law itself, resulting in high criminal numbers among the Black population.

It's possible (indeed very likely) that that is what caused it. But it's not what perpetuates it.

I think what is happening is similar to when black people take ownership of the word "'n-word'" and start saying it to each other. It's a worthless word. Owning it is nothing to be proud of. But it can make a person feel empowered in a perverse sort of way.


Similarly, I think some black people are taking ownership of the thug stereotype. With disasterous effects. Teens who would have been smart enough to make good money in the mainstream waste their lives trying to dream up the perfect way to smuggle drugs. Considering it to be a kind of sick heritage of theirs to live up to.

Meanwhile white people stand by and laugh.

The fact black people commit more crime on average does not imply they are inherently criminal.

It implies they are being taught different ideals in their communities.

It's one reason ebonics needs to be abolished. It's one more barrier to the free exchange of ideas between cultural groups that have previously been isolated from each other.

Without that barrier, more black people would have white friends. White friends who could help them get jobs in higher paid professions.

Then, after a while, once black people are statistically more well represented in those high paid jobs, they can help other black people get those same jobs.

Networking has to start somewhere.

The belief that Blacks are inherently criminal is not a result of crime statistics. That belief has been held since before Blacks were even considered human.

Just because something is self fulfilling prophecy, doesn't mean it isn't true.

Your position about networking with White people as the SALVATION of Black people is a very arrogant one at its core. The people you are referring to really want to manipulate Black society in their own image - people such as yourself who may mean well, but won't allow Blacks to have their own culture or system. They must be led and watched over by the White "friends" that those "cultured" Blacks have.

Suppose we choose an imaginary race. The Purple people. There is a big economy, and many job opportunities to become a plummer, but the majority of people already working in that profession are purple people.

If I want to become a plummer, I will need to get used to the idea that my coworkers will be purple people. Just a blunt fact of the profession.

After a while, if I stay on, I can help other (insert your own race here) get jobs, and as our numbers surge, it won't be a "purple people" work place anymore. But change has to start somewhere.

You want it to just skip to the end.

No matter who is in charge, chemical engineers will always be highly paid. You're chasing a red herring.

And you're making a lot of assumptions. Depending on who's in charge, NOBODY could get "paid". Depending on who's in charge, an industry which greedily creates lavish lifestyles for the rich and famous at the expense of the all other people, would never be given credence.

They get paid because of the value of their work. Even athletes get paid because people appreciate the entertainment they provide.

But in the case of chemical engineers, please try to understand what they do is not just fluff. It's not just creating a nicer smelling champoo.

Think about food production world wide. 2 major technologies have enabled world wide farming to keep up with the now 7 billion mouths that must be fed world wide every day.

1 - The "Haber Process", which is a chemical process that synthesizes fertilizer using Nitrogen from the air, and Hydrogen from water. Applies electricity to create those little yellow pellets you may see getting sprinkled on lawns.

Because there is a virtually unlimited supply of air and water to get those chemicals from, there is basically no limit on how much synthetic fertilizer can be manufactured this way. Unlike cow manure, which has limits.

2 - Genetic engineering of plants. Makes them grow bigger, and more pest resistant.

Ok..... both of those require chemical engineers.

Billions would starve, if not for the efforts of those chemical engineers.

As I stated earlier, if your whole "people get paid simply because of hard work" theory was correct we wouldn't have all these systemic problems like corrupt politicians and college athletes that DON'T GET PAID (even though they are appreciated as much as any other athlete, look at college campuses' coffers for proof).

I didn't say hard work.

The "hard work" story is a myth. A total lie.

The value of your work has perfect zero to do with how hard it is. No correlation at all.

There are many easy jobs that pay well because they're valuable, and for some reason too few people want to do them. Sometimes they're dangerous, like outdoor electricians (I've met electricians who make more money than doctors.) Or plummers.

There are also many hard jobs that pay virtually nothing.

It all depends on how much your job contributes to the pool of wealth, and how few of you there are.

The technologies that you speak of have also risen amidst record numbers of famine and starvation, so maybe there are other factors about these processes that cause unforeseen problems.

That's revisionist history. There has never been less starvation world wide than there is now.

All previous eras had it just like this one does. Only all of them had it worse.

Another use for them that comes to mind is Fracking, which enable the USA to harvest more natural gas. We need the electricity to produce synthetic fertilizer.

Ukraine's whole housing infrastructure is based on natural gas. If they don't get enough of it every year they'll die of the cold in their homes.

But maybe you don't care about that...

Are you actually citing FRACKING as a good development that comes from chemical engineering? Seriously? There's so much corruption involved with that practice that I really should make a new thread about it.

I cited it as an example of how even a corrupt industry gets its power from genuine need for its product.

Not some magical unicorn's flight of fancy. Real, people needing it.

I don't want people in the Ukraine to die and that's a various ingenuous attempt at demonizing me.

Regardless, natural gas is an antiquated fuel source so why do we still rely on it? I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with hard work, humanitarianism, and other feel good ideals about humanity.

It's because on a per unit basis, it is cheaper than all the alternatives. Everything else has to be created.

With fossil fuels, the only cost is pumping/extracting them. Solar/Wind requires building something that will only last for a finite duration, and give you a slow return.

Those things will become more attractive when the price of fossil fuels goes up.

If everything that is wrong with a culture can be blamed on colonization, oppression, or not being invited into the mainstream, then why isn't Mongolia a paradise? At one time, that country had conquered nearly all the known world.

Why isn't Mongolian the international language of aviation? Or the international language used in most computer programming languages?

If not being oppressed automatically guarantees you will achieve everything "mainstream" or "white" America has achieved, then why didn't all the other non-oppressed nations do it? Or like Mongolia, which at one time was the one doing all the oppressing?

It's a big non-sequitur.

It's true that some groups never got a chance, but the way I see it, it looks like they only ever had about a 1% chance to begin with. For every one un-oppressed group like ours that does this, there are about 99 others who don't.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Again, my problem isn't with chemical engineers but with Western society at large, a society which does not acknowledge the sacrifices being made in order to achieve "progress". The population is being isolated from the dangers of its decisions.

I believe that modern Western society, which strives toward a kind of perfect objectivity, will fall the same way that the ancient Romans did on their quest to perfection. Absolute vacuums and unbiased research do not exist except in the fantasies of scientists - context will always be key.

I appreciate the discourse we've had so far but I realize that we're not going to get anywhere, at least not on this thread. I hope that the next time we exchange ideas it isn't in the midst of another extremely racist, inflammatory circle jerk.

Peace.

a reply to: paraphi

you are right

ASSIMILATE. Oh, wait. That's meant for people coming to America from other countries.
America has got to stop letting anyone and everyone just do and be whatever they want to be.
I know that sounds harsh, but we cannot be united unless we all at least UNDERSTAND each other!!!

The LANGUAGE in AMERICA, is ENGLISH. Like it or not, that is what it is. IF YOU CHOOSE NOT to learn, understand, read, write, and speak it, you most likely will not get to where you want to be or think you should be here.

That's it, period.

a reply to: crazyewok

I work in schools and have been for years and I have NEVER seen teachers allow Ebonics. I think that’s a myth