patrick.net

Dan8267 says

One absolutely should judge groups based on the aggregated actions of the individuals in it.

So, carrying that idea forward, it's okay to judge black people this way?

marcus says

I guess you might as well resort to your usual, rather than answer the tough questions.

Ask a tough question. I'll answer it accurately and honestly, two things you can't do. But it's up to you to make it clear you really are asking non-rhetorical questions instead of just trying to be an asshole.

marcus says

What percentage of a group has to have an attribute for someone like you to generalize it to the entire group ?

For an alleged math person, you really don't seem to have a grasp on the concepts of statistics or fuzzy logic. I don't know what percentage of the Nazis were evil fucks and what percentage were conscripts just trying to keep their families alive. But I do know that the Nazis as a whole were evil and had to be stopped. It's not about percentages. It's about overall behavior.

I have no idea what percentage of heterosexual men would agree to have a one-night stand with a gorgeous woman -- it's not 100% because of religious fanatics -- but I'm going to generalize that men are interested in no-strings-attached sex.

If you're trying to make the lame-ass point that not every single Baby Boomer is the same, then sorry pal. I beat your ass to it. However, it is not necessary to quantify a property in order to qualify it. I don't know what percentage of Arabic Muslims want death to America, but I can generalize that America has a fucking PR problem in the Middle East. To argue otherwise is utterly ridiculous.

It is also utterly ridiculous to completely ignore all the harm done by the Boomers that the rest of us have to fix simply because we can't precisely measure that harm. The harm is so fucking great, it doesn't need measuring. When a typhoon is about slam in your ass, you get the hell out of the way even if you can't tell if it's 95 ft or 100 ft. You don't just stand there letting it hit you because you don't have an exact measurement.

marcus says

What did the boomers do to kill off so many species that you wouldn't have done if you were a boomer ? Be honest.

I'm always honest, you dip-shit. Deception serves no purpose to someone who believes in rationality and transparency and does not accept the philosophy that the ends justify the means.

The first thing I would have done is not pollute the Earth like it's a toilet bowl. We should have a carbon tax. We should have signed the Kyoto Protocol. We should have implemented cap and trade. We should have never subsidized oil. We should not have promoted a car culture. We should have never allowed the expansion of dirty coal plants. We should have made high gas mileage standards back in the 1970s instead of building muscle cars.

Oh, and one other thing is worth pointing out. You don't even bother to deny that the Boomers killed off half the life on the planet. You just imply that any other generation would have done the same. Well, this is empirically false. No other generation has done as much harm to the environment, not prior generations or later ones. So no, you don't get to argue that the environmental destruction was inevitable and unavoidable. It was a choice based on the values of the Boomers, and to a lesser extend, prior generations. But the selfishness and greed of the Boomers greatly increased the damage. There is no excuse for killing of half the Earth. None.

marcus says

thunderlips11 says

58,132 Deaths.

You're right 200K is the dead or wounded number. Big difference.

The number of deaths is irrelevant. The fact remains that the anti-war movement is, if not the defining aspect of the Boomer generation, certainly a central and indispensable aspect of their generation. To deny this would be ridiculous. Yet, once the Boomers themselves were no longer the ones who lives were at risk, they became a lot more enamored with war and military operations around the world. From Central American dictatorships to South America drug wars to Middle Eastern oil wars to Far East military bases, the Boomer have had no problem funding the largest and most widely used military in the history of the world.

Under Baby Boomer rule, this is how our government spends our tax dollars. Notice that the military is over half of all discretionary spending, i.e. spending that Congress and the president actually have control over, that isn't mandated by law. This represents what the Boomers, who are in control, want to spend money on.

The following graphs shows inflation-adjusted spending on the military over the past 70 years. Notice that Boomers have dramatically increased military spending even in times of peace. How the fuck do you reconcile this with the peaceful hippie philosophy? You can't. It's hypocrisy. Boomers claimed to be for peace, but really love war and the spoils of war.

Quigley says

Dan8267 says

One absolutely should judge groups based on the aggregated actions of the individuals in it.

So, carrying that idea forward, it's okay to judge black people this way?

Think about it. You should be able to apply that general principle to the specific situation of races and crime.

If you cannot, then I suggest you read my post from the thread White murder of blacks vs vice versa

There is a difference between acknowledging and dealing with the fact that blacks murder whites more than the reverse and presuming that a given black is a would-be murderer.

The fact is that most people, black or white, do not commit murder. So the generalization is not valid. It is that generalization that leads to paranoia and more unjust killings.

Now the information that blacks murder whites more often than white murder blacks might be useful. The immediate question that comes to mind is why? Is it the result of poverty, racism, the gap between haves and have nots, culture, lack of education, or something else?

If the goal is to minimize murders, asking the why question is what's important.

It is certainly valid to judge a group based on the aggregated actions of that group including arbitrary racial groups. However, you must actually get right the group's boundaries and the aggregated actions. If you don't, then you're just a racist imbecile.

For example, one could look at the data in the White murder of blacks vs vice versa thread and conclude that blacks are inherently more violent than whites. One would be an idiot, of course, for doing so due to several reasons. First, the group isn't "blacks". It's "African Americans", key word Americans in this case. That alone disqualifies any racial judgements as the group isn't a race, but a subset of a nation's population based on race. Big fucking difference. Concluding that people with dark skin are genetically more violent based on this is simply scientifically invalid.

Second, you have to know which groupings you are actually measuring. African Americans are disproportionately poor. Poor men commit more violence because they have more to gain and less to lose. Poverty drives violence. Actual statistics can reveal if the cause of violent crime is "blackness" or poverty or ghetto culture, or any of the three in portion. It's highly unlikely that skin pigmentation itself has any role in increasing violence, but since people with dark skin are attacked more, both physically and legally, skin pigmentation may play an indirect role. The blame, of course, lies not in the pigmentation or the person subject to it, but in the attitudes of the oppressors provoking violence.

Ghetto culture may indeed play a role in levels of violent crimes. If so, then one must then ask why does ghetto culture exist. The most apparent answer is the poverty and discrimination inherent in our society. Don't let blacks on the golf course and they start gangs instead of country clubs. It's hypocritical for whites to bitch and moan about blacks establishing a culture whites don't like after 150 years of not letting blacks assimilate into white culture.

So, of course, one can generalize on the aggregated behaviors of races, but if you do it wrong and reach an incorrect conclusion, it's probably because you're a dumb-ass racist shithead. From what I've observed of human history, the arbitrary race classifications don't mean jack diddly shit. What really matters are things like power and power distribution, culture, transparency, and respect for science and truth.

By the way, the whole race thing is bullshit. There aren't any races. The very term has absolutely no biological or objective meaning. There aren't blacks and whites. Throughout the world there are gradations of skin tones and other features that gently blend from one region to another as populations breed along their edges. And if color is so important, then why aren't blondes a different race than brunettes? Why aren't blue, green, and hazel eyes different races? Why aren't tall people a different race than short people, or fat people a different race from skinny ones? It's completely arbitrary which physical features and to what extend constitute a different race.

Some races, like Hispanic, seem completely built upon linguistic rather than physical characteristics.

For example:

Are all considered "Hispanic". If they were not Spanish Speakers, we'd say "Native American", "Caucasian/White" and "Black". Betcha Pedro uses a lot of Soul Glow.

thunderlips11 says

I can't be a racist. I wanted to fuck Shakira for 15 years!

If I were to break down Dan's argument, reductum without the absurdio, it would be that making generalizations about groups of people within a CULTURE is perfectly valid, but strict race-based assumptions are not.
This is something I've been saying for years.
I guess we actually agree.

What you call groups of people within a culture are more properly called subcultures. Yes, cultures and subcultures affect human behavior and not all cultures are good or equal. For example, a culture that stones women to death for adultery is morally inferior to one that does not.

And again, judging a culture bad is not the same thing as judging every individual in the culture bad. It is wrong to judge an individual based on a group, but it is right to judge a group based on the cumulative behavior of the individuals in it.

The generalization "men want sex with no strings attached" is true and fair even though some men consider sex outside of marriage to be a sin and an affront to their fictitious god. Such men do not want sex with no strings attached, but such men do not represent the group. Both individuals and groups can and should be judged based on their overall behavior. However, extrapolating the behavior of an individual from a group makes no more sense than extrapolating the behavior of a group based on a single individual. Both are logically flawed.

marcus says

America lost a about 200 thousand boomers in Vietnam, and very few from any other generation.

The US lost 58,000 in Vietnam. How are you calculating 200,000?

Dan8267 says

marcus says

What did the boomers do to kill off so many species that you wouldn't have done if you were a boomer ? Be honest.

I'm always honest, you dip-shit. Deception serves no purpose to someone who believes in rationality and transparency and does not accept the philosophy that the ends justify the means.

The first thing I would have done is not pollute the Earth like it's a toilet bowl. We should have a carbon tax. We should have signed the Kyoto Protocol. We should have implemented cap and trade. We should have never subsidized oil. We should not have promoted a car culture. We should have never allowed the expansion of dirty coal plants. We should have made high gas mileage standards back in the 1970s instead of building muscle cars.

You gotta love the way Dan starts off his answer with what a dip shit I am and how awesome he is.

I was asking what you would have done personally. Since after all the boomers are by and large a collection of individuals. Put yourself in the baby boom. The voting choices you would have had would have been the same. The corporate power structure, the military industrial complex, big oil, these were all around throwing their weight around long before the boomers came to power. Eisenhower was warning us about the military industrial complex when I was a toddler. Corporate America learned that big labor and the people in general could have great political impact, back in the 40s and 50s, and started planning how they were going to avoid that in the future, again, way before the boomers came to power.

Did a lot of boomers get MBA's and join the club, that was being run by the previous generation, as they rose through the ranks, yes. Should they have overthrown the old power structure ? Sure it would have been nice.

Who were the boomers ?

Well, there were people that were trying to be groomed for upper management, and there were people that intended to rise through the political ranks, and people in the media. These are primary people that MIGHT have been able to make a big difference in ways you suggest.

But other boomers included: artists, academics, scientists, and most of "labor," pilots, forest rangers, nurses, doctors, law enforcement, legal professionals of various types, dentists, psychologists, social workers, clergy, librarians, clerks, bankers, investment advisers, traders, early computer scientists, technicians and trades people of various sorts, including carpenters, electricians, plumbers, heating and AC specialists, contractors etc. Then there is retail, advertising, sales of many kinds, including realtors and mortgage brokers, education (teaching children). People in entertainment, radio or TV, or movies, writers of books, TV, or movies, the list goes on and on.

IF you weren't in the first category, it means you were given your political choices by people in politics, affected by media and the big money that back politicians, which can be traced back to the influence of the "owners" (that the famous boomer comedian George Carlin often referred to), way before boomers came of age.

So what would you have done personally ? Since after all, what the boomers are/were is a bunch of humans born in specific time interval, living their lives. Most of them in that second category, mostly focused on getting by, some were engrossed in their work, maybe they were raising a family, all the types of things humans have been doing for many centuries. Boomers aren't particularly different.

You measure them as different and blame worthy based on cumulative consequences of population growth, our free market capitalism run amok, and our political system not serving us well. The time that the shit hits the fan, doesn't mean that things are so simple that you can hold an entire generation responsible, because they didn't prevent it.

What would you have done different than most boomers ? I'm talking at the individual and personal level.

...and the growth of the Christian Right is also a Boomer phenomenon.

http://patrick.net/?p=1250907&c=1141620#comment-1141620

And there's no evidence from exit polls that Boomers are generally progressive, if anything they lean Right and have since 1984.
http://patrick.net/?p=1250907&c=1141023#comment-1141023

'88 is also interesting: The Silents/Greatests who supposedly wrecked America were evenly split Bush/Dukakis. The Boomers went big for Bush the Elder.

thunderlips11 says

The Boomers went big for Bush the Elder.

The religious right, and the right wing propaganda machine were already in full swing by then, and yes, just like Fox news now, they are effective.

They got a lot of mileage out of one "hippy" that supposedly spat on soldiers coming back from vietnam.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/february252008/vietnam_protest_2-25-08.php

We know that propaganda works, especially with certain segments of the population. That whole family values meme and the republican takeover of the a large swath of voters that were previously "southern democrats" started well before 1980 (actually it had been in full swing since the Nixon era), and was orchestrated by members of the greatest and silent generations. This continued to grow in to the 80s and after.

A solid 54% is a significant majority in an election, but in my view, it's not a very effective metric upon which to base generalizations about the entire poulation.

We are talking about what ? 5 to 8 percent of the population voting one way versus another, as the result of huge money and propaganda campaigns. And you want to draw conclusions about everyone from that ?

I would be the first to agree that there are a lot of stupid Americans, and there are a lot of gullible Americans. And I could tolerate you generalizing that Americans are stupid and gullible. But you won't do that, because you're an American. So instead, you pin it on the boomers, to let yourself off the hook.

That's pathetic, and it's what makes crybabies like you and Dan worse than boomers.

marcus says

The religious right, and the right wing propaganda machine were already in full swing by then, and yes, just like Fox news now, they are effective.

The religious right is the outgrowth of the 70s Jesus Freaks. The population of the Right Wing exploded with 20 and 30 something boomers - and it's been declining since the late 90s/early 2000s as Gen X'ers and Millenials grew up and left it behind.

Boomers left their moderate religions behind in droves, at the same time that the Christian right grew (but not so much movement from one to the other).

The so called Jesus freaks were a miniscule contributor to the religious right.

marcus says

You gotta love the way Dan starts off his answer with what a dip shit I am and how awesome he is.

You are a dip-shit, but where exactly did i brag about being awesome? You're just making up shit again.

marcus says

I was asking what you would have done personally. Since after all the boomers are by and large a collection of individuals.

Oh, my fucking god, you are such a fucking moron.

You are actually saying that because a single individual in a group does not have significant power over tens of millions of people, it is invalid to judge a group. Let's apply that logic to actual history. What would you have done, as a Nazi in 1935, to stop the Holocaust and prevent WWII? Oh, shit, a single Nazi could not alter history that much because he doesn't have that much power, therefore all criticism of Nazis is invalid. It is wrong to negatively judge the Nazis because no individual is 100% responsible for the Holocaust.

Fuck man, you're an idiot!

marcus says

What would you have done different than most boomers ? I'm talking at the individual and personal level.

I would have convinced your mother to have an abortion.

thunderlips11 says

...and the growth of the Christian Right is also a Boomer phenomenon.

That alone constitutes more harm done than good by the generation.

Ironman says

So adult of you!

Says the guy who's always bitching about bestiality insults hurled at him and then makes one himself. Hypocrisy much?

Ironman says

Dan8267 says

bestiality insults

Another one of your finer adult traits..

Like I said, hypocrisy much?

Ironman says

Dan was hoping for some other type of animal/human interaction, the typical videos he watches on youtube.

That was a really stupid move. Now I can refer to this comment every time you call any of my insults immature. You're really fucking stupid.

Ironman says

Would you like to show where I specifically reference bestiality in my quote. Oh that's right, you can't!! Who's stupid?

Ironman says

Dan was hoping for some other type of animal/human interaction, the typical videos he watches on youtube.

Ironman says

Who's stupid?

That would be you.

Dan8267 says

Oh, my fucking god, you are such a fucking moron.

Dan8267 says

Fuck man, you're an idiot!

It's easy to tell when Dan knows he's wrong.

Dan8267 says

You are actually saying that because a single individual in a group does not have significant power over tens of millions of people, it is invalid to judge a group.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm asking what you would have done differently as a boomer, for that matter what are you doing now, that's making a difference ?

You would have done nothing different than the many 10s of millions of boomers who were living their lives and going along with the political choices they were given by a ruling elite. Maybe you would have been a liberal, okay. That doesn't effect the impact that the owner class has on the voting choices of the typical idiot.

marcus says

I would be the first to agree that there are a lot of stupid Americans, and there are a lot of gullible Americans. And I could tolerate you generalizing that Americans are stupid and gullible. But you won't do that, because you're an American. So instead, you pin it on the boomers, to let yourself off the hook.

That's pathetic, and it's what makes crybabies like you and Dan worse than boomers.

marcus says

It's easy to tell when Dan knows he's wrong.

If I were actually wrong about something, it should be easy to demonstrate with evidence. Just because you keep surprising me with higher and higher levels of stupidity, does not make me wrong. Frustrated at your intellectual impotence, maybe, but not wrong.

marcus says

I would be the first to agree that there are a lot of stupid Americans, and there are a lot of gullible Americans. And I could tolerate you generalizing that Americans are stupid and gullible. But you won't do that, because you're an American. So instead, you pin it on the boomers, to let yourself off the hook.

That's pathetic, and it's what makes crybabies like you and Dan worse than boomers.

Dan8267 says

If I were actually wrong about something, it should be easy to demonstrate with evidence. Just because you keep surprising me with higher and higher levels of stupidity, does not make me wrong. Frustrated at your intellectual impotence, maybe, but not wrong.

When Marcus goes to this line, It's his version of the Black Knight: Declaring "You know you've lost" or "Can't you admit to being wrong for once?"

"Come back here Sir Dan, I'll bite yer leg off! Coward!"

thunderlips11 says

When Marcus goes to this line, It's his version of the Black Knight: Declaring "You know you've lost" or "Can't you admit to being wrong for once?"

So true.

CIC is no better. Ironically, these two trolls probably have a lot in common.

You think climate change is a hoax, so your opinions don't count.

I've never had anything against other generations or felt overly compelled to compare one generation against the next, other than maybe for music or fashion.

But you guys are convincing me to change. I'm going to start collecting reasons and rationalizations to hate those asshole genxers and millenials.

I can play. What the hell, if this is America's new low, I might as well join in. I hate you guys. Well, not you personally, just your stupid, lazy, self centered, entitled, cry baby generation. I'm now realizing that everything I heard about you assholes is true. Especially the way you blame others for your problems.

GenXers and millenials are the biggest loser generations in the history of the U.S.

these old farts should not be allowed to retired until the national debts are paid off.

Ironman says

marcus says

GenXers and millenials are the biggest loser generations in the history of the U.S.

For once, Marcus is right!

thunderlips11 says

You mess with the bull you get the horns

CIC is about to show Marcus just how horny he is.

exactly what I've been saying about baby boomers for ages. They were the spoiled brat generation who were given everything by our ww2 gen grandparents, understandably perhaps after the horror they endured, but it turned their kids in spoilt little "I want, I want's" They got houses dirt cheap, jacked up the price on us, the inheritance they received they squandered, or are squandering now, they made it so fucking difficult to get jobs, the same good, well paying jobs they just walked into straight out of high school, we now need a fkn masters degree for. No, the baby boomers didn't just fuck up the economy, they fucked up the price of living, they fucked up getting jobs, they made it virtually impossible to survive because the baby boomer gen are mostly, not all, mostly, self entitled money and real estate hoarders who mostly do nothing for their own children or their generation.

Indiana Jones says

Baby Boomers

www.youtube.com/embed/N-z05l12WX4

KILL THE DEAD BOOMFUCKS! DIG THEM UP, AND KILL THE BOOMFUCK GOLEMS ALL OVER AGAIN! KILL THEM ALL!

Just another sign that hate is destroying this country.

Why should I be surprised that a Trump supporting racist xenophobe with daddy issues also wants to generalize blame for his problems on to boomers..

It's true that boomers had it great. But that's not a reason to blame them or to hate on them. Unless mindless hate is your thing. Try to get a little more specific with your blame. Who knows, maybe you could be someone who makes a minute difference yourself. Unlike too many typical Americans that were born during any specific window of time you want to consider.

Were a larger percentage of boomers self involved and only concerned about themselves than younger generations ? Probably not. Precisely because they had it better economically. That gave more of them the freedom to take other paths. In fact, way more boomers thought that making money should not be the priority of career than those born a couple decades later.

But sure it's also true there are just a lot of them, and some are now Trump supporters with views of the world not unlike Thunderlips. It takes all kinds.

bgamall4 says

So, congress is Zionist, and that trumps their being boomers. Being boomers actually has nothing to do with it. Being globalists has everything to do with it.

This is not an either/or situation. You can blame the zionist all you want, it doesn't make the "me" generation any less selfish and greedy and a major part of the problem.

marcus says

In fact, way more boomers thought that making money should not be the priority of career than those born a couple decades later.

Maybe when they were teenagers. Maybe it was just the drugs talking. Boomers are the Original Yuppies and espoused "Greed is good" as they came out of their psychedelic haze into their careers.

Millennials need a tattoo on their asses reading in supremacist gothic "I ATE A BOOMFUCK".

Indiana Jones says

Maybe when they were teenagers. Maybe it was just the drugs talking. Boomers are the Original Yuppies and espoused "Greed is good" as they came out of their psychedelic haze into their careers.

You don't get what I said. I'm not generalizing. And such generalizations are silly. Yes, boomers were the original me generation. What I'm saying is that there were a higher percentage that chose career paths that were not about money. And I'm not giving them credit for that. I'm saying it was economically possible.

But only a total idiot would blame boomers for the way the economy has changed. Its primarily a combination of 2 factors. The natural tendencies of capitalism when unchecked, and globalization. I guess add women joining the workforce as a third. I don't blame boomers as a group for any of these. But sure, the times were better for them in some ways.