Larry's double standards

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Colin Priest, Mar 17, 2006.

  1. Colin Priest

    Colin Priest Guest

    Larry doesn't want to be called racist. No one (including me) has said
    he is racist. The closest I've got is to say that his arguments are
    unintentionally racist (which means that I don't think that he is
    racist but that what he says has implications that are racist*).

    Yet Larry has no problem labelling me as racist with no justification
    provided at all.

    That's a double standard if I've ever seen one.






    *
    1. Larry states that individual Americans get the health care that
    they choose.
    2. African Americans have poorer health than the USA average (source:
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5401a1.htm )
    3. Given 1 and 2, Larry's arguments imply that African Americans have
    poorer health because they choose/deserve it.
    4. according to msn encarta, racism is "the belief that people of
    different races have different qualities"
    5.given the definition in 4 and the implication in 3 I would label
    Larry's argument as racist - note that this does not mean that Larry
    is racist, just that he doesn't think through the implications of what
    he says
     
    Tags:


  2. Colin Priest

    Colin Priest Guest

    Woops - forgot to relate my post to swimming. Larry's demonstrated
    inability to apply basic reading comprehension skills and to
    understand the implications of concepts should call into doubt the
    usefulness of the many posts he has made about the effectiveness of
    different stroke styles.


    On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:01:56 +1100, Colin Priest
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Larry doesn't want to be called racist. No one (including me) has said
    >he is racist. The closest I've got is to say that his arguments are
    >unintentionally racist (which means that I don't think that he is
    >racist but that what he says has implications that are racist*).
    >
    >Yet Larry has no problem labelling me as racist with no justification
    >provided at all.
    >
    >That's a double standard if I've ever seen one.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >*
    >1. Larry states that individual Americans get the health care that
    >they choose.
    >2. African Americans have poorer health than the USA average (source:
    >http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5401a1.htm )
    >3. Given 1 and 2, Larry's arguments imply that African Americans have
    >poorer health because they choose/deserve it.
    >4. according to msn encarta, racism is "the belief that people of
    >different races have different qualities"
    >5.given the definition in 4 and the implication in 3 I would label
    >Larry's argument as racist - note that this does not mean that Larry
    >is racist, just that he doesn't think through the implications of what
    >he says
     
  3. Colin Priest

    Colin Priest Guest

    and why would this be? don't you understand the problem with trusting
    evidence presented from someone who demonstrates little ability in
    reading comprehension?

    On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:42:45 -0600, "Pat in TX" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    ><plonk>
    >
     
  4. Michael Edey

    Michael Edey Guest

    On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:28:03 +1100, Colin Priest wrote:

    > and why would this be? don't you understand the problem with trusting
    > evidence presented from someone who demonstrates little ability in
    > reading comprehension?
    >
    > On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:42:45 -0600, "Pat in TX" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >><plonk>


    I'm not terribly fond of purely private medicine. Some things are too
    important to leave to the market. Even if that was the route one wanted to
    go I don't see how private medicine serves the consumer. Economies of
    scale would suggest that anything required by all the people should be
    purchased collectively.

    The above is not meant to present reasons or justifications to take one
    side or the other they are simply there to ensure that the next statement
    is made rationally and not because it supports a point of view mired in
    one particular political bias or another: I really don't think you've
    presented, here, a very strong case for (in)direct racism.

    I believe that what we've got here is a sort of false dichotomy. It's
    certainly possible that Americans can choose their own health care (though
    I suggest that their wallets do. Not the same thing esp for those with,
    say, a 30th percentile earning power) but even if this is true you can't
    say that blacks haven't chosen poor health care even if they don't get
    it. People simply aren't that one dimensional. Is it not possible that the
    American people might be sliced by all sorts of Axis resulting in all
    sorts of demographics who are, apparently, under served.

    After all in any scenario where everything is not absolutely identical
    some 50% of the population will receive less than average service. The
    only information gleaned from such a statement is that some do
    better than others. So generic as to be hardly useful.

    --Mike
     
  5. Colin Priest

    Colin Priest Guest

    <snip>
    >one particular political bias or another: I really don't think you've
    >presented, here, a very strong case for (in)direct racism.


    Where is the weakness in my case that Larry's statements have racist
    implications? Larry has said that individual Americans get the health
    care they choose (I note below that you disagree with Larry's
    statement). You haven't denied that Africans have poorer health than
    the average American.Now if African Americans have poorer health, then
    it can only be due to one of three causes:

    1. genetic tendency for poorer health, or
    2. cultural choice to not pay for health care, or
    3. lack of access to health care

    If you believe 1 or 2, then I would claim that your belief is racist.
    Do you disagree with this interpretation? As far as I understand of
    Larry's posts, he doesn't believe that is it is number 3 because he
    doesn't seem to believe that there is any problem with lack of access
    to health care. As far as I can understand of Larry's posts he doesn't
    intend anything racist. He juststicks his head on the sand and refuses
    to face the implications of what he believes.

    <snip>
    >say, a 30th percentile earning power) but even if this is true you can't
    >say that blacks haven't chosen poor health care even if they don't get
    >it. People simply aren't that one dimensional. Is it not possible that the

    <snip>

    And I'm not saying anything one dimensional. I'm saying that on
    average their lower socio-economic status restricts their access to
    health care.

    But my biggest problem with Larry is that he has refused to even rebut
    the evidence that I have presented showing that his statements have
    racist implications, and that instead he has lied about what I have
    written and tried to use those lies to sidetrack the posts.
    Furthermore he has displayed double standards. It is easy for anyone
    to go through the posting history and confirm this.

    How can you trust the technical postings of someone who does not
    demonstrate the ability to understand the writings of others and who
    does not demonstrate the ability to correct their statements based
    upon objective evidence or the ultimate logical implications of their
    statements?
     
  6. Michael Edey

    Michael Edey Guest

    On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 19:29:08 +1100, Colin Priest wrote:

    > <snip>
    >>one particular political bias or another: I really don't think you've
    >>presented, here, a very strong case for (in)direct racism.

    >
    > Where is the weakness in my case that Larry's statements have racist
    > implications? Larry has said that individual Americans get the health
    > care they choose (I note below that you disagree with Larry's
    > statement). You haven't denied that Africans have poorer health than
    > the average American.


    If A implies B, B may still not imply A. I simply brought one example to
    light. Should, say, it be more accurate to say that the poor have, umm,
    poor health care and if $ethnic_group_of_your_choice happen to be, on
    average, poor the problem is still socioeconomic. Oh it might still be
    racists but there's no rigour there.

    > Now if African Americans have poorer health, then
    > it can only be due to one of three causes:
    >
    > 1. genetic tendency for poorer health, or
    > 2. cultural choice to not pay for health care, or
    > 3. lack of access to health care


    Lack of availability == lack of access but not the other way around. That
    makes at least a fourth option.

    > If you believe 1 or 2, then I would claim that your belief is racist. Do
    > you disagree with this interpretation? As far as I understand of Larry's
    > posts, he doesn't believe that is it is number 3 because he doesn't seem
    > to believe that there is any problem with lack of access to health care.
    > As far as I can understand of Larry's posts he doesn't intend anything
    > racist. He juststicks his head on the sand and refuses to face the
    > implications of what he believes.


    My dictionary defines racist as: the belief that race accounts for
    differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is
    superior to others. That's two conditions. If I were to mention, say,
    sickle cell anaemia or (my own genetic group's) susceptibility to diabetes
    would that be racists? I suggest that I'd be prudent to watch my diet and
    only racist should I cry that 'the white devil' be putting it to the noble
    red man with the sugar cane. Noting empirically evidenced trends is an
    important part of the scientific method.

    This is not to say that Larry is right or justified but I would suggest
    that the more interesting question is 'Why does Colin seem so eager to be
    offended?"

    > <snip>
    >>say, a 30th percentile earning power) but even if this is true you can't
    >>say that blacks haven't chosen poor health care even if they don't get
    >>it. People simply aren't that one dimensional. Is it not possible that
    >>the

    > <snip>
    >
    > And I'm not saying anything one dimensional. I'm saying that on average
    > their lower socio-economic status restricts their access to health care.


    Right so there's at least two criteria by which the original observation
    might be categorized and measured: race & wealth. Why immediately jump to
    the conclusion that only one matters? How did an admittedly poor comment
    backed by sloppy argument flare into a America vrs Europe, Capitalist vrs
    Socialist, Us vrs Them race debate?

    > But my biggest problem with Larry is that he has refused to even rebut
    > the evidence that I have presented showing that his statements have
    > racist implications, and that instead he has lied about what I have
    > written and tried to use those lies to sidetrack the posts. Furthermore
    > he has displayed double standards. It is easy for anyone to go through
    > the posting history and confirm this.


    He's opinionated and not quick to back down. Problem? Past history has
    seen him flog dead horses..... _and_ publicly change his mind or present
    new argument. Sounds pretty sound, rational and sane to me. Just because
    he didn't/hasn't immediately folded and toed the line doesn't mean he's
    some kind of bigot. Have some patience and try sticking to rational
    argument. He loud and forward and I've certainly banged heads with him
    before but I can't say I've ever, given some perspective, seen him be
    intentionally offensive.

    No if you wanted to question the statistical significance of Larry's
    anecdotal evidence (3 aging cars owned by an MD is not, I'd wager,
    indicative of the sacrifice required by the average American in return for
    good health insurance) that'd be a different matter. And low hanging fruit
    to boot.

    > How can you trust the technical postings of someone who does not
    > demonstrate the ability to understand the writings of others and who
    > does not demonstrate the ability to correct their statements based upon
    > objective evidence or the ultimate logical implications of their
    > statements?


    Well I don't ask my grocer for medical advice, my librarian for help with
    plumbing or the mailman (oh I'm ever so sorry. _mail_person_) about
    anything aside from the weather. I certainly don't 'trust' anyone who can
    operate a usenet client for technical advice. Doesn't mean it's not
    valuable or worth arguing or even fun. Domain specific expertise does not
    imply universal competence or even experience. On the other hand any
    parent with small children will note that you don't have to have all the
    answers before you can ask the important questions.

    I will note, though, that this specific discussion has long since left
    sight of this specific domain as has my interest. At least in this forum.
    Should it be continued somewhere more appropriate such an assessment might
    be subject to reevaluation.

    --Mike
     
  7. Colin Priest

    Colin Priest Guest

    On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:22:45 GMT, Michael Edey <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 19:29:08 +1100, Colin Priest wrote:
    >
    >> <snip>
    >>>one particular political bias or another: I really don't think you've
    >>>presented, here, a very strong case for (in)direct racism.

    >>
    >> Where is the weakness in my case that Larry's statements have racist
    >> implications? Larry has said that individual Americans get the health
    >> care they choose (I note below that you disagree with Larry's
    >> statement). You haven't denied that Africans have poorer health than
    >> the average American.

    >
    >If A implies B, B may still not imply A. I simply brought one example to
    >light. Should, say, it be more accurate to say that the poor have, umm,
    >poor health care and if $ethnic_group_of_your_choice happen to be, on
    >average, poor the problem is still socioeconomic. Oh it might still be
    >racists but there's no rigour there.


    You've missed the point. If Larry says that individuals get the health
    care that they choose, then he is saying that socio-economic factors
    are irrelevent.

    >
    >> Now if African Americans have poorer health, then
    >> it can only be due to one of three causes:
    >>
    >> 1. genetic tendency for poorer health, or
    >> 2. cultural choice to not pay for health care, or
    >> 3. lack of access to health care

    >
    >Lack of availability == lack of access but not the other way around. That
    >makes at least a fourth option.


    Lack of availability as a fourth option doesn't change the conclusion.
    Nor is lack of availability any different to a person than lack of
    access - either way they don't get health care.

    >
    >> If you believe 1 or 2, then I would claim that your belief is racist. Do
    >> you disagree with this interpretation? As far as I understand of Larry's
    >> posts, he doesn't believe that is it is number 3 because he doesn't seem
    >> to believe that there is any problem with lack of access to health care.
    >> As far as I can understand of Larry's posts he doesn't intend anything
    >> racist. He juststicks his head on the sand and refuses to face the
    >> implications of what he believes.

    >
    >My dictionary defines racist as: the belief that race accounts for
    >differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is
    >superior to others. That's two conditions. If I were to mention, say,
    >sickle cell anaemia or (my own genetic group's) susceptibility to diabetes
    >would that be racists? I suggest that I'd be prudent to watch my diet and
    >only racist should I cry that 'the white devil' be putting it to the noble
    >red man with the sugar cane. Noting empirically evidenced trends is an
    >important part of the scientific method.
    >
    >This is not to say that Larry is right or justified but I would suggest
    >that the more interesting question is 'Why does Colin seem so eager to be
    >offended?"


    Because I care about racism. Don't you?
    Because I care about double standards. Don't you?
    Because I object to being called a racist with zero justification.
    Don't you?
    Because I care about honesty. Don't you?

    >
    >> <snip>
    >>>say, a 30th percentile earning power) but even if this is true you can't
    >>>say that blacks haven't chosen poor health care even if they don't get
    >>>it. People simply aren't that one dimensional. Is it not possible that
    >>>the

    >> <snip>
    >>
    >> And I'm not saying anything one dimensional. I'm saying that on average
    >> their lower socio-economic status restricts their access to health care.

    >
    >Right so there's at least two criteria by which the original observation
    >might be categorized and measured: race & wealth. Why immediately jump to
    >the conclusion that only one matters? How did an admittedly poor comment
    >backed by sloppy argument flare into a America vrs Europe, Capitalist vrs
    >Socialist, Us vrs Them race debate?


    Because Larry has ruled out socio-economic factors. That only leaves
    race. That's the entire point of the problem with his argument. I will
    accept that either possibility is possible.

    >
    >> But my biggest problem with Larry is that he has refused to even rebut
    >> the evidence that I have presented showing that his statements have
    >> racist implications, and that instead he has lied about what I have
    >> written and tried to use those lies to sidetrack the posts. Furthermore
    >> he has displayed double standards. It is easy for anyone to go through
    >> the posting history and confirm this.

    >
    >He's opinionated and not quick to back down. Problem? Past history has
    >seen him flog dead horses..... _and_ publicly change his mind or present
    >new argument. Sounds pretty sound, rational and sane to me. Just because
    >he didn't/hasn't immediately folded and toed the line doesn't mean he's
    >some kind of bigot. Have some patience and try sticking to rational
    >argument. He loud and forward and I've certainly banged heads with him
    >before but I can't say I've ever, given some perspective, seen him be
    >intentionally offensive.


    And I have stated a number of times that I don't think that his racist
    implications are unintentional. So what you've written is irrelevent.

    >
    >No if you wanted to question the statistical significance of Larry's
    >anecdotal evidence (3 aging cars owned by an MD is not, I'd wager,
    >indicative of the sacrifice required by the average American in return for
    >good health insurance) that'd be a different matter. And low hanging fruit
    >to boot.
    >
    >> How can you trust the technical postings of someone who does not
    >> demonstrate the ability to understand the writings of others and who
    >> does not demonstrate the ability to correct their statements based upon
    >> objective evidence or the ultimate logical implications of their
    >> statements?

    >
    >Well I don't ask my grocer for medical advice, my librarian for help with
    >plumbing or the mailman (oh I'm ever so sorry. _mail_person_) about
    >anything aside from the weather. I certainly don't 'trust' anyone who can
    >operate a usenet client for technical advice. Doesn't mean it's not
    >valuable or worth arguing or even fun. Domain specific expertise does not
    >imply universal competence or even experience. On the other hand any
    >parent with small children will note that you don't have to have all the
    >answers before you can ask the important questions.
    >


    In the past I've noted problems with Larry's logic when he discusses
    swimming strokes. For example he has used timing of left arm stroke to
    right arm stroke as proof that a particular swimmer swims using a
    loping stroke. His logic was flawed because all he had done was prove
    that the swimmer didn't use the traditional "perfect" stroke, which is
    not the same as showing that his alternative hypothesis is correct.

    Similarly I have noted problems when Larry uses a single image of
    Hackett with his head out of the water as evidence that Hackett has a
    stroke style in which his head stays high. The problem is that Hackett
    is known to occasionally stick his head up to look at the split times
    on the scoreboard, but Larry continues to use that image as evidence
    for his point of view without supplying the video footage from which
    it was extracted.

    >I will note, though, that this specific discussion has long since left
    >sight of this specific domain as has my interest. At least in this forum.
    >Should it be continued somewhere more appropriate such an assessment might
    >be subject to reevaluation.
    >
    >--Mike


    Now that I can understand and fully agree with. I'd like to read more
    posts about swimming.
     
  8. Martin Smith

    Martin Smith Guest

    Michael Edey wrote:

    > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 19:29:08 +1100, Colin Priest wrote:
    >
    >
    >><snip>
    >>
    >>>one particular political bias or another: I really don't think you've
    >>>presented, here, a very strong case for (in)direct racism.

    >>
    >>Where is the weakness in my case that Larry's statements have racist
    >>implications? Larry has said that individual Americans get the health
    >>care they choose (I note below that you disagree with Larry's
    >>statement). You haven't denied that Africans have poorer health than
    >>the average American.

    >
    >
    > If A implies B, B may still not imply A. I simply brought one example to
    > light. Should, say, it be more accurate to say that the poor have, umm,
    > poor health care and if $ethnic_group_of_your_choice happen to be, on
    > average, poor the problem is still socioeconomic. Oh it might still be
    > racists but there's no rigour there.


    That's right, but Larry's use of statistics simply sweeps the problem of
    poor people under the rug. That is why the Affirmative Action policy was
    started in the US. People recognized that if they continued to use
    statistics that said things were ok, needed change would be too long in
    coming.
     
  9. Colin Priest

    Colin Priest Guest

    On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:54:08 +1100, Colin Priest
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:22:45 GMT, Michael Edey <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 19:29:08 +1100, Colin Priest wrote:
    >>
    >>> <snip>
    >>>>one particular political bias or another: I really don't think you've
    >>>>presented, here, a very strong case for (in)direct racism.
    >>>
    >>> Where is the weakness in my case that Larry's statements have racist
    >>> implications? Larry has said that individual Americans get the health
    >>> care they choose (I note below that you disagree with Larry's
    >>> statement). You haven't denied that Africans have poorer health than
    >>> the average American.

    >>
    >>If A implies B, B may still not imply A. I simply brought one example to
    >>light. Should, say, it be more accurate to say that the poor have, umm,
    >>poor health care and if $ethnic_group_of_your_choice happen to be, on
    >>average, poor the problem is still socioeconomic. Oh it might still be
    >>racists but there's no rigour there.

    >
    >You've missed the point. If Larry says that individuals get the health
    >care that they choose, then he is saying that socio-economic factors
    >are irrelevent.
    >
    >>
    >>> Now if African Americans have poorer health, then
    >>> it can only be due to one of three causes:
    >>>
    >>> 1. genetic tendency for poorer health, or
    >>> 2. cultural choice to not pay for health care, or
    >>> 3. lack of access to health care

    >>
    >>Lack of availability == lack of access but not the other way around. That
    >>makes at least a fourth option.

    >
    >Lack of availability as a fourth option doesn't change the conclusion.
    >Nor is lack of availability any different to a person than lack of
    >access - either way they don't get health care.
    >
    >>
    >>> If you believe 1 or 2, then I would claim that your belief is racist. Do
    >>> you disagree with this interpretation? As far as I understand of Larry's
    >>> posts, he doesn't believe that is it is number 3 because he doesn't seem
    >>> to believe that there is any problem with lack of access to health care.
    >>> As far as I can understand of Larry's posts he doesn't intend anything
    >>> racist. He juststicks his head on the sand and refuses to face the
    >>> implications of what he believes.

    >>
    >>My dictionary defines racist as: the belief that race accounts for
    >>differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is
    >>superior to others. That's two conditions. If I were to mention, say,
    >>sickle cell anaemia or (my own genetic group's) susceptibility to diabetes
    >>would that be racists? I suggest that I'd be prudent to watch my diet and
    >>only racist should I cry that 'the white devil' be putting it to the noble
    >>red man with the sugar cane. Noting empirically evidenced trends is an
    >>important part of the scientific method.
    >>
    >>This is not to say that Larry is right or justified but I would suggest
    >>that the more interesting question is 'Why does Colin seem so eager to be
    >>offended?"

    >
    >Because I care about racism. Don't you?
    >Because I care about double standards. Don't you?
    >Because I object to being called a racist with zero justification.
    >Don't you?
    >Because I care about honesty. Don't you?
    >
    >>
    >>> <snip>
    >>>>say, a 30th percentile earning power) but even if this is true you can't
    >>>>say that blacks haven't chosen poor health care even if they don't get
    >>>>it. People simply aren't that one dimensional. Is it not possible that
    >>>>the
    >>> <snip>
    >>>
    >>> And I'm not saying anything one dimensional. I'm saying that on average
    >>> their lower socio-economic status restricts their access to health care.

    >>
    >>Right so there's at least two criteria by which the original observation
    >>might be categorized and measured: race & wealth. Why immediately jump to
    >>the conclusion that only one matters? How did an admittedly poor comment
    >>backed by sloppy argument flare into a America vrs Europe, Capitalist vrs
    >>Socialist, Us vrs Them race debate?

    >
    >Because Larry has ruled out socio-economic factors. That only leaves
    >race. That's the entire point of the problem with his argument. I will
    >accept that either possibility is possible.
    >
    >>
    >>> But my biggest problem with Larry is that he has refused to even rebut
    >>> the evidence that I have presented showing that his statements have
    >>> racist implications, and that instead he has lied about what I have
    >>> written and tried to use those lies to sidetrack the posts. Furthermore
    >>> he has displayed double standards. It is easy for anyone to go through
    >>> the posting history and confirm this.

    >>
    >>He's opinionated and not quick to back down. Problem? Past history has
    >>seen him flog dead horses..... _and_ publicly change his mind or present
    >>new argument. Sounds pretty sound, rational and sane to me. Just because
    >>he didn't/hasn't immediately folded and toed the line doesn't mean he's
    >>some kind of bigot. Have some patience and try sticking to rational
    >>argument. He loud and forward and I've certainly banged heads with him
    >>before but I can't say I've ever, given some perspective, seen him be
    >>intentionally offensive.

    >
    >And I have stated a number of times that I don't think that his racist
    >implications are unintentional. So what you've written is irrelevent.


    sorry, this is a typo - it should say "I don't think that his racist
    implications are intentional"


    >
    >>
    >>No if you wanted to question the statistical significance of Larry's
    >>anecdotal evidence (3 aging cars owned by an MD is not, I'd wager,
    >>indicative of the sacrifice required by the average American in return for
    >>good health insurance) that'd be a different matter. And low hanging fruit
    >>to boot.
    >>
    >>> How can you trust the technical postings of someone who does not
    >>> demonstrate the ability to understand the writings of others and who
    >>> does not demonstrate the ability to correct their statements based upon
    >>> objective evidence or the ultimate logical implications of their
    >>> statements?

    >>
    >>Well I don't ask my grocer for medical advice, my librarian for help with
    >>plumbing or the mailman (oh I'm ever so sorry. _mail_person_) about
    >>anything aside from the weather. I certainly don't 'trust' anyone who can
    >>operate a usenet client for technical advice. Doesn't mean it's not
    >>valuable or worth arguing or even fun. Domain specific expertise does not
    >>imply universal competence or even experience. On the other hand any
    >>parent with small children will note that you don't have to have all the
    >>answers before you can ask the important questions.
    >>

    >
    >In the past I've noted problems with Larry's logic when he discusses
    >swimming strokes. For example he has used timing of left arm stroke to
    >right arm stroke as proof that a particular swimmer swims using a
    >loping stroke. His logic was flawed because all he had done was prove
    >that the swimmer didn't use the traditional "perfect" stroke, which is
    >not the same as showing that his alternative hypothesis is correct.
    >
    >Similarly I have noted problems when Larry uses a single image of
    >Hackett with his head out of the water as evidence that Hackett has a
    >stroke style in which his head stays high. The problem is that Hackett
    >is known to occasionally stick his head up to look at the split times
    >on the scoreboard, but Larry continues to use that image as evidence
    >for his point of view without supplying the video footage from which
    >it was extracted.
    >
    >>I will note, though, that this specific discussion has long since left
    >>sight of this specific domain as has my interest. At least in this forum.
    >>Should it be continued somewhere more appropriate such an assessment might
    >>be subject to reevaluation.
    >>
    >>--Mike

    >
    >Now that I can understand and fully agree with. I'd like to read more
    >posts about swimming.
     
  10. I've got close to 15,000 Usenet posts listed on Google over more than
    10 years, and I've fortunately never been on the receiving end of such
    libelously bald distortion than that currently perpetrated by Colin
    Priest.

    Fortunately, Google Groups is forever, or until Google goes belly up.
    Anyone who re-reads the "yards ahead" thread in question can confirm
    that my version is true and Colin's is completely false.

    1. There was never any discussion on the thread about the health of
    African Americans as a group until Colin brought it up in an attempt to
    libel me.

    2. I stated that the biggest problem in American health care was that
    of working people without insurance. I stated (and stand by the
    statement) that this is, in most cases, a matter of personal choice and
    purchasing priorities. Never once in my mind did I ever think that this
    was primarily an African American (or any other ethnic) problem. In
    point of fact, when the charge was made, I provided documentation that
    >85% of the people I was speaking about (working Americans without health insurance) were whites and <15% were African Americans.


    3. Colin ingenuously claims that he never called me a racist; he only
    called my ideas racist. His own words indicate otherwise:

    Perhaps others would not interet what appears below as (1) calling me a
    racist and (2) telling me that I was not welcome to
    offercounterexplanations to Colin's gross mischaracterizations. His
    words speak for themselves.

    First March 15 post by Colin:

    >>I don't normally post off topic, but couldn't resist as you have posted this racist rubbish before without adequate reply. How does the poor health of African Americans fit into statement below? You seem to be suggesting that they deserve it. As far as I can see you are making a rather racist statement, although probably not on purpose.<<


    (nb. I at no point made any reference to the health care of African
    Americans as a specific group. I simply said that the vast majority of
    employed but uninsured Americans could have health insurance as well as
    enjoying good health if they made both priorities. There was not even
    a peripheral refererence to African Americans or any other minority
    group and the charge of "racism" is libelous).

    Second March 15 post by Colin:

    >>Stop posting racist rubbish. Stop posting "facts" that are just opinions to support your racist rubbish. Post something about swimming. <<


    (nb. Possibly I could accept the first March 15 posting by Colin as the
    racist version of a teacher telling a child "I like you, but I don't
    like your behavior." With the second post however, Colin is calling me
    a racist. There is no other interpretation. And it is a charge
    manufactured with no justification whatsoever. Not only am I certainly
    no racist; there is nothing whatsoever in these health care arguments
    to even begin to suggest any racial element to it, at all.

    As to my "double standard," here's my own statement to which Colin
    refers (where I say that it is Colin's thought processes, and not mine,
    which are "racist"):

    > Martin, this is where Colin truly doesn't understand the American health care system and the problems which exist therein. The biggest problem is the working uninsured. Of that group, African Americans make up only a minority. I'll try to find some precise stats about that. Colin is being a whole lot more racist than I am. I'm taking about working people without health insurance. Colin just assumes that those are more likely to be African Americans. I certainly never thought any such thing, because I don't believe that it is true. <<


    .... n.b. I later proved that it is UNTRUE. More than 85% of the
    working uninsured in the USA are "whites," and fewer than 15% are
    African Americans.

    Why is Colin's train of thought "racist?"

    We are talking about working people who do not purchase health
    insurance. Colin just appears to presume, on an a priori basis, that
    most of those people must be African Americans. This is because, as
    I've stated, Colin doesn't begin to understand the American health care
    system and its problems. He knows that African Americans (which,
    again, were not being discussed at all) have more health problems than
    "white" Americans and somehow this percolates through his brain while
    we are talking about the working uninsured.

    Colin appears to believe that the health problems of African Americans
    (which is a topic for another thread, as it wasn't under discussion
    here; Martin didn't divorce health care for any racial group from
    Americans in general, and either did I; it was Colin who interjected
    race into this discussion, and, in the context of what we were talking
    about (uninsured working Americans), he got it totally wrong.

    Rather than admitting that he got it wrong and rather than apologizing
    for libeling me, he is now trying to twist all of this around (see
    below) to try and make his entirely unreasonable and indefensible
    remarks and language somehow seem justifiable.

    As I said. Thank goodness for Google. This is not a "he said/she
    said." It's all there in black and white (no pun -- which would be
    tasteless -- intended).

    > 1. Larry states that individual Americans get the health care that they choose.


    No. I said that, for the large majority of the working uninsured, the
    lack of health insurance is a matter of personal choice. Of those
    without insurance, >85% are white and <15% are African Americans.

    > 2. African Americans have poorer health than the USA average (source: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5401a1.htm )


    I posted similar data. No one disputes this. African Americans have
    much higher incidence of heart disease, cancer, stroke, etc. But this
    is true even for even for African Americans with the same health care
    plans as "white" Americans (e.g. US military veterans receiving a
    lifetime of "free" medical care through the VA system, where I myself
    worked as a physician for 10 years). Unequal access to health care is a
    relatively small component of the health disparities between whites and
    non-whites, but this was entirely out of the boundaries of the
    discussion in question, as detailed above.

    What follows (along with Colin's earlier posts) constitute the biggest
    pile of crap ever hurled at me in 11 years and nearly 15,000 postings
    on Usenet:

    - Larry W

    > 3. Given 1 and 2, Larry's arguments imply that African Americans have poorer health because they choose/deserve it.


    > 4. according to msn encarta, racism is "the belief that people of different races have different qualities"


    > 5.given the definition in 4 and the implication in 3 I would label Larry's argument as racist - note that this does not mean that Larry is racist, just that he doesn't think through the implications of what he says
     
  11. Martin Smith

    Martin Smith Guest

    [email protected] (Larry Weisenthal) wrote:

    > I've got close to 15,000 Usenet posts listed on Google over more than
    > 10 years, and I've fortunately never been on the receiving end of such
    > libelously bald distortion than that currently perpetrated by Colin
    > Priest.
    >
    > Fortunately, Google Groups is forever, or until Google goes belly up.
    > Anyone who re-reads the "yards ahead" thread in question can confirm
    > that my version is true and Colin's is completely false.
    >
    > 1. There was never any discussion on the thread about the health of
    > African Americans as a group until Colin brought it up in an attempt to
    > libel me.


    The fact that there wasn't any discussion of African americans in the
    thread isn't relevant, Larry. I've explained that twice.

    > 2. I stated that the biggest problem in American health care was that
    > of working people without insurance.


    That's your opinion, and it is beside the point. You changed the issue
    to being about what you perceive as the biggest problem with American
    health care. You raised that point, but it wasn't the point being discussed.

    > I stated (and stand by the
    > statement) that this is, in most cases, a matter of personal choice and
    > purchasing priorities. Never once in my mind did I ever think that this
    > was primarily an African American (or any other ethnic) problem. In
    > point of fact, when the charge was made, I provided documentation that
    >
    >>85% of the people I was speaking about (working Americans without health insurance) were whites and <15% were African Americans.


    But when you are using that argument, you are ignoring the plight of
    people who can't afford health insurance. You are ignoring the plight of
    people who have to decide whether to see a doctor or not. You don't have
    to make that choice.

    > 3. Colin ingenuously claims that he never called me a racist; he only
    > called my ideas racist. His own words indicate otherwise:
    >
    > Perhaps others would not interet what appears below as (1) calling me a
    > racist and (2) telling me that I was not welcome to
    > offercounterexplanations to Colin's gross mischaracterizations. His
    > words speak for themselves.


    I'm sure we all understand your point. You have repeated it often
    enough. Nevertheless, even I can see that your expression of your view
    on this whole subject is open to a charge of racism, for the reason I
    have explained. I suppose your argument reduces to your claim that
    Americans have the health care system they want. I don't believe you
    really believe that.

    > ... n.b. I later proved that it is UNTRUE. More than 85% of the
    > working uninsured in the USA are "whites," and fewer than 15% are
    > African Americans.
    >
    > Why is Colin's train of thought "racist?"


    Because you are intentionally restricting your argument to the working
    uninsured.

    > We are talking about working people who do not purchase health
    > insurance.


    Who said so?
     
  12. O.K. Martin, now you, too, want to accuse me of offering racist
    arguments.

    It's the equivalent of saying, when are you going to stop beating your
    wife?

    No, you haven't explained. If you had explained, I'd answer directly.
    If I accepted that your point of view had merit, I'd not only concede
    the point, but I'd thank you for pointing out to me how it was that I
    inadvertently made some remark or presented some line of reasoning
    which presented some sort of subliminal racist ideation.

    So maybe I'm dumb. Colin offered up a whole lot of crap numbered 1,2,
    3, and 4. Reading your various posts since your initial reference to
    your (apparently intended to be tongue in cheek) view that America
    can't solve it's educational, health care and race relation problems
    because it is too busy converting yards to miles, I do get the idea
    that you are trying to be dispassionate and reasonable (again, in stark
    contrast to Colin, whose language has been utterly contemptible). So
    be patient with me; explain (probably using different words, as I
    obviously didn't understand the words you used before) exactly what it
    is in any of what I've said which could remotely fit into the broadest
    possible definition of "racism" (a definition broad enough to justify
    the use of this word to describe anything that I said or implied).

    What my argument "reduces" to is that the USA has a philosophy of
    government (and a philosophy of health care) which emphasizes
    maximizing opportunity as opposed to maximizing the even distribution
    of goods and services (including health care). You are free to feel and
    argue that Americans should want out of government what Europeans want,
    but the fact is that we don't. So, in a democracy, you follow the
    wishes of the majority while doing your best to respect and protect the
    rights of the minority. Political minority views can easily get air
    time in American debate (thank goodness!). Conspicuously absent has
    been any measurable public sentiment for radically overhauling the
    American health care system along the lines of other Western
    democracies. People in British Columbia care passionately about health
    care (I know this from regularly listening to "As it Happens"). This
    isn't the case even for California, one of the most solidly "Blue"
    states.

    Now, you accuse me of "restricting my argument to the working
    uninsured."

    In the first place, this is by far the biggest problem (see below). In
    the second place, it is in this context that my allegedly "racist"
    statements were made (my contention, which I stand by, that the lack of
    health insurance among working Americans is a matter of personal
    priorities and personal choice).

    Look at the numbers. 95% of white Americans are employed. 90% of
    African Americans are employed (white unemployment in the US is about
    half that in Europe, where white unemployment in Europe approximates
    African American unemployment in the US). 90% of Americans are white;
    10% are African Americans. So, when you talk about unemployed African
    Americans, you are talking about 10% of 10% or 1% of the total
    population. Of that 1%, the vast majority (but not all) receive
    government funded health care through Medicare, the Veterans
    Administration, or state run Medicaid programs. So the problem of
    inadequate health care for unemployed African Americans is very small,
    compared to the problem of health care for the working uninsured. So
    that's why I focused my bandwidth entirely on the problem of the
    working uninsured, because that's what everyone would agree is the
    single biggest problem with US healthcare.

    And, for the seventy-11th time, the problem of the working uninsured is
    an 85% white problem and 15% African American problem, so nothing I
    said was intended to be or can even remotely be construed to be racist
    in nature.

    But, once again, maybe I really am the world's densest political swim
    junkie.

    So I am asking you to help me out in understanding exactly what it is
    that I seem to be missing in all of this. Racism-wise.

    - Larry W
     
  13. Martin Smith

    Martin Smith Guest

    [email protected] (Larry Weisenthal) wrote:

    > O.K. Martin, now you, too, want to accuse me of offering racist
    > arguments.


    I don't want to accuse you of anything, Larry. I explained why your
    argument IS OPEN TO A CHARGE of racism. I explained how your aergument
    CAN BE INTERPRETED as racism. The fact that you have ignored the nature
    of what I have said and have instead defended yourself against charges
    that were not made seems to indicate you see the problem in the argument
    you have chosen.

    > It's the equivalent of saying, when are you going to stop beating your
    > wife?
    >
    > No, you haven't explained. If you had explained, I'd answer directly.


    You didn't answer this at all:

    "But [Colin] is asking you about African Americans, Larry. Your response
    is to say you didn't say anything about them. But you did say something
    about them, because your statements include them, and since, by the
    statistics Colin claims exist, African Americans have significantly
    poorer health as a group, either you are saying African Americans are
    irresponsible, or you are saying there is no need to consider their poor
    health separately, because the level of health for the whole set of
    people who are responsible enough to prioritize health care is high, and
    some subset of people has to be at the bottom of the curve, and the fact
    that it happens to be African Americans is just, well, bad karma, I guess."

    > If I accepted that your point of view had merit, I'd not only concede
    > the point, but I'd thank you for pointing out to me how it was that I
    > inadvertently made some remark or presented some line of reasoning
    > which presented some sort of subliminal racist ideation.
    >
    > So maybe I'm dumb.


    That's it. You are dumb about this. Tim Wise wouldn't put it that
    succinctly, but I guess it would amount to the same thing. You didn't
    inadvertantly make some remark. Your whole argument ignores the problem.

    > Colin offered up a whole lot of crap numbered 1,2,
    > 3, and 4. Reading your various posts since your initial reference to
    > your (apparently intended to be tongue in cheek) view that America
    > can't solve it's educational, health care and race relation problems
    > because it is too busy converting yards to miles, I do get the idea
    > that you are trying to be dispassionate and reasonable (again, in stark
    > contrast to Colin, whose language has been utterly contemptible). So
    > be patient with me; explain (probably using different words, as I
    > obviously didn't understand the words you used before) exactly what it
    > is in any of what I've said which could remotely fit into the broadest
    > possible definition of "racism" (a definition broad enough to justify
    > the use of this word to describe anything that I said or implied).
    >
    > What my argument "reduces" to is that the USA has a philosophy of
    > government (and a philosophy of health care) which emphasizes
    > maximizing opportunity as opposed to maximizing the even distribution
    > of goods and services (including health care). You are free to feel and
    > argue that Americans should want out of government what Europeans want,
    > but the fact is that we don't. So, in a democracy, you follow the
    > wishes of the majority while doing your best to respect and protect the
    > rights of the minority. Political minority views can easily get air
    > time in American debate (thank goodness!). Conspicuously absent has
    > been any measurable public sentiment for radically overhauling the
    > American health care system along the lines of other Western
    > democracies. People in British Columbia care passionately about health
    > care (I know this from regularly listening to "As it Happens"). This
    > isn't the case even for California, one of the most solidly "Blue"
    > states.


    There are two points for me to say something about there. First, when
    you say "the USA has a philosophy of government (and a philosophy of
    health care) which emphasizes maximizing opportunity as opposed to
    maximizing the even distribution of goods and services (including health
    care)," you clearly imply it isn't that way in the other countries we're
    talking about. Your implication is false. None of these other health
    care systems is about trying to even the distribution of health care.
    They are all about ensuring that everyone gets the health care he or she
    needs. That is quite a different task from your implication.

    Second, your remark "Conspicuously absent been any measurable public
    sentiment for radically overhauling the American health care system..."
    is exactly the kind of view that LEAVES YOU OPEN to a charge of the
    "white privilege" racism Tim Wise is talking about. You'll have to spend
    some time at his website to get a handle on this concept.
    <http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise>

    > Now, you accuse me of "restricting my argument to the working
    > uninsured."
    >
    > In the first place, this is by far the biggest problem (see below). In
    > the second place, it is in this context that my allegedly "racist"
    > statements were made (my contention, which I stand by, that the lack of
    > health insurance among working Americans is a matter of personal
    > priorities and personal choice).


    No, Larry. You don't get to decide the context. That isn't the context.

    > So I am asking you to help me out in understanding exactly what it is
    > that I seem to be missing in all of this. Racism-wise.


    I've tried to do it again above, but here is another angle on it from
    Tim wise that is closer to what Colin has been pointing to:

    "The two most common excuses for racial wage inequity are age and
    geography: excuses popularized by black conservatives like Thomas
    Sowell, and repeated ad infinitum by white reactionaries like Abigail
    and Stephen Thernstrom. Since blacks are, on average, younger than
    whites they will earn less, so the argument goes; and since blacks
    disproportionately live in the South -- a lower-wage region of the
    country -- they will earn less, even if there were no racism operating
    in labor markets.

    "Regarding age, though the median age among whites is about nine years
    older than the median for blacks (5), and although persons who are older
    typically earn more than those who are younger, this fact does not
    explain differences between white and black earnings, and even to the
    extent it is a factor, it cannot be separated from the issue of racism.

    "First, even when whites and blacks of comparable age are compared, wage
    gaps remain substantial. Black men with college degrees earn, on
    average, 20-25 percent less than comparable white men, even when they
    are the same age (6). White families headed by persons of every age
    group are far better off than comparable blacks, and indeed a black
    family headed by a 45-54 year old is 3.5 times more likely to be poor
    than a comparable white family, and twenty percent more likely to be
    poor than a white family headed by someone who is twenty years younger! (7)

    "Secondly, the older median age for whites is due to a larger number of
    elderly citizens, which is the result of longer life expectancy. But of
    course, life expectancy itself is related to racism, so age gaps between
    whites and blacks hardly qualify as an independent variable to explain
    income inequality. As a number of studies have documented, blacks
    routinely have less access to high-quality health care, and also suffer
    from discriminatory treatment at the hands of doctors. Even when health
    care is available, doctors are less likely to order a full range of
    diagnostic tests and treatments for black patients than for whites, even
    when these patients' finances and insurance coverage are comparable to
    their white counterparts (8).

    "Even when comparing blacks and whites of comparable age, sex, severity
    of disease, geographic location, and other factors that could influence
    the quality of medical treatment, blacks are sixty percent less likely
    to receive a coronary angioplasty or bypass surgery to relieve a serious
    heart condition (9).

    "As one study found, doctors presented with identical patient histories
    and symptoms overwhelmingly refer whites for more advanced treatment.
    According to the study, which presented doctors with videotaped patient
    interviews (actually actors trained to pose as patients with identical
    medical histories and symptoms), doctors were far less likely to refer
    black women for aggressive treatment of cardiac symptoms than white
    women. When asked to give their impression of the actors (whom they
    believed to be real patients), doctors routinely said they perceived the
    black "patients" as less intelligent, less likely to follow doctor's
    recommendations and thus cooperate with a treatment regimen, and more
    likely to miss appointments: this, despite the fact that the actors had
    made identical comments and had presented identical symptoms (10).

    "So, if whites have a longer life expectancy, and if this is due in part
    to racially disparate provision of health care, it is absurd to claim
    that the younger average age of the black community explains racial
    earnings gaps, independent of racism, since the age gaps and racism are
    intimately related. Even racism experienced outside the realm of health
    care is correlated with negative health outcomes. After all, the biggest
    killer of African Americans is high blood pressure leading to stroke,
    heart disease and kidney failure (11); and high blood pressure has been
    shown to be associated with experiences with racism."

    <http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/excusesexcuses1.html>
     
  14. Pat in TX

    Pat in TX Guest

    I have known over the years, many working people without health care
    insurance. In our city, these folks can go to the public health clinics for
    $3 a visit. Their drugs? $3 a prescription. If they get a serious problem,
    like my friend who works as a bicycle mechanic and who got hit by a car on
    his commute to work, they are taken care of in the charity hospital without
    payment (and the hospital tries to work out a payment schedule according to
    what they can pay). As it turns out, he is suing the car's driver, so he
    won't have to pay the bill at all. And, of course, those of us with health
    insurance are subsidizing these facilities through our taxes.

    My friend who is a hair stylist broke her ankle and was treated at the
    charity hospital. Her bills were set up for a payment schedule and she is
    paying $50 every two weeks on the remainder.

    I have a friend whose husband works for Radio Shack but the fees for the
    entire family's health insurance are too high, so the wife and 3 daughters
    rely on the charity clinic. The guys who run their own bicycle shop? No
    insurance, either. Now, when these folks all get older, they just might
    have problems with their drugs and ailment costs. They are hoping that by
    then the federal government will "do something".

    Oh, and none of these people are black. However, they do see other patients
    who are black at the clinics. I would never call someone a racist who merely
    points out or acknowledges differences where they occur: I, myself, was
    called a racist on this same forum for simply mentioning that one of my
    black friends won't swim because the chlorine in the pool makes her skin
    ashy and she doesn't like that. And for mentioning that, I was called a
    racist!

    This, to me, is a term that is thrown about all too often, simply for
    dramatic effect! I read where the Swiss were complaining about Serbs moving
    to Switzerland and were then called "racists" for complaining. I read where
    the Dutch do not like Muslim thugs who threaten and murder people on the
    streets and are then called "racists" for these thoughts. I read where
    Americans who did not like the idea of turning over the control of several
    of their ports to the United Arab Emirate were called "racists".

    No, a normal person who wishes to debate a topic does not throw out the term
    "racist" as a tactic to persuade others to believe his debating points. It
    is a strawman and must not be accepted. If that is all you have---your
    entire presentation is based on calling someone a racist---I won't listen.

    Pat in TX
     
  15. Pat in TX

    Pat in TX Guest

    Okay, now go and read Clive Crook's essay in this month's The Atlantic. He
    manages to cover the topic without once mentioning people's skin
    colors.Imagine that! It's economics!!
     
  16. We were talking about health care; we were not talking about health.

    The reasons behind the greater health problems of African Americans go
    way beyond health care, as evidenced by the fact that African Americans
    with exactly the same health care as white Americans (e.g. VA patients)
    have the same increased problems with cancer, heart disease,
    hypertension, strokes, diabetes, etc.

    If Colin wanted to have a discussion about the health problems of
    African Americans, he should have introduced the topic. I didn't
    because I was clearly talking about the problems with the American
    health system and everyone agrees that the major problem is that of
    uninsured Americans. So that's what I chose to talk about. Less than
    15% of uninsured Americans are African Americans. Read my other posts.


    >>"But [Colin] is asking you about African Americans, Larry. Your response

    is to say you didn't say anything about them. But you did say something

    about them, because your statements include them, and since, by the
    statistics Colin claims exist, African Americans have significantly
    poorer health as a group, either you are saying African Americans are
    irresponsible, or you are saying there is no need to consider their
    poor
    health separately, because the level of health for the whole set of
    people who are responsible enough to prioritize health care is high,
    and
    some subset of people has to be at the bottom of the curve, and the
    fact
    that it happens to be African Americans is just, well, bad karma, I
    guess." <<

    I wasn't talking about the poor health of ANYONE as a group. I was
    talking about the health care system as a whole and its major problems.
    If you now want to broaden the discussion to the general health of
    African Americans and the reasons for health disparities (as opposed to
    health care disparities) between racial and ethnic groups, then I'm
    perfectly willing to extend the discussion. But don't accuse me of
    racism because Colin's got in the back of his mind something which I
    have no way of knowing he's got in the back of his mind.

    Despite what you say, I still think that what provoked Colin to charge
    me with racism is my statement that uninsured people are uninsured by
    personal priorities and choice. As I have explained, this is a totally
    spurious and libelous charge, in view of the actual data in the context
    of my statements.

    You enjoy arguments. So do I. But there's a right way and a wrong way
    to argue. Colin didn't just cross the line; he bulldozed the line.

    His statements on this have been crap. Notice that I'm not stating
    that Colin is crap; simply his statements are crap. But he knows that
    they are crap. Which is why he started this second thread. To try and
    shovel a little odorless dirt over the crap. But it still stinks.

    - Larry W
     
  17. Colin Priest

    Colin Priest Guest

    On 19 Mar 2006 02:51:48 -0800, "[email protected] (Larry Weisenthal)"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I've got close to 15,000 Usenet posts listed on Google over more than
    >10 years, and I've fortunately never been on the receiving end of such
    >libelously bald distortion than that currently perpetrated by Colin
    >Priest.
    >
    >Fortunately, Google Groups is forever, or until Google goes belly up.
    >Anyone who re-reads the "yards ahead" thread in question can confirm
    >that my version is true and Colin's is completely false.
    >
    >1. There was never any discussion on the thread about the health of
    >African Americans as a group until Colin brought it up in an attempt to
    >libel me.


    This was never denied. I raised the subject to point out the racist
    implications of your argument.

    >
    >2. I stated that the biggest problem in American health care was that
    >of working people without insurance. I stated (and stand by the
    >statement) that this is, in most cases, a matter of personal choice and
    >purchasing priorities. Never once in my mind did I ever think that this
    >was primarily an African American (or any other ethnic) problem. In
    >point of fact, when the charge was made, I provided documentation that
    >>85% of the people I was speaking about (working Americans without health insurance) were whites and <15% were African Americans.

    >
    >3. Colin ingenuously claims that he never called me a racist; he only
    >called my ideas racist. His own words indicate otherwise:
    >
    >Perhaps others would not interet what appears below as (1) calling me a
    >racist and (2) telling me that I was not welcome to
    >offercounterexplanations to Colin's gross mischaracterizations. His
    >words speak for themselves.
    >
    >First March 15 post by Colin:
    >
    >>>I don't normally post off topic, but couldn't resist as you have posted this racist rubbish before without adequate reply. How does the poor health of African Americans fit into statement below? You seem to be suggesting that they deserve it. As far as I can see you are making a rather racist statement, although probably not on purpose.<<


    Any person with half decent reading skills would see that I am
    attacking the racist implications of your posts, not calling calling
    you a racist.

    >
    >(nb. I at no point made any reference to the health care of African
    >Americans as a specific group. I simply said that the vast majority of
    >employed but uninsured Americans could have health insurance as well as
    >enjoying good health if they made both priorities. There was not even
    >a peripheral refererence to African Americans or any other minority
    >group and the charge of "racism" is libelous).
    >
    >Second March 15 post by Colin:
    >
    >>>Stop posting racist rubbish. Stop posting "facts" that are just opinions to support your racist rubbish. Post something about swimming. <<


    Once again Larry I am clearly talking about your postings, not you. A
    remedial reading class is called for.

    >
    >(nb. Possibly I could accept the first March 15 posting by Colin as the
    >racist version of a teacher telling a child "I like you, but I don't
    >like your behavior." With the second post however, Colin is calling me
    >a racist. There is no other interpretation. And it is a charge
    >manufactured with no justification whatsoever. Not only am I certainly
    >no racist; there is nothing whatsoever in these health care arguments
    >to even begin to suggest any racial element to it, at all.


    There is another interpretation. Reminder - remedial reading lessons
    to be booked in.

    >
    >As to my "double standard," here's my own statement to which Colin
    >refers (where I say that it is Colin's thought processes, and not mine,
    >which are "racist"):
    >
    >> Martin, this is where Colin truly doesn't understand the American health care system and the problems which exist therein. The biggest problem is the working uninsured. Of that group, African Americans make up only a minority. I'll try to find some precise stats about that. Colin is being a whole lot more racist than I am. I'm taking about working people without health insurance. Colin just assumes that those are more likely to be African Americans. I certainly never thought any such thing, because I don't believe that it is true. <<

    >
    >... n.b. I later proved that it is UNTRUE. More than 85% of the
    >working uninsured in the USA are "whites," and fewer than 15% are
    >African Americans.


    Straw man. I have never argued that African Americans form most of the
    uninsured.

    >
    >Why is Colin's train of thought "racist?"
    >
    >We are talking about working people who do not purchase health
    >insurance. Colin just appears to presume, on an a priori basis, that
    >most of those people must be African Americans. This is because, as
    >I've stated, Colin doesn't begin to understand the American health care
    >system and its problems. He knows that African Americans (which,
    >again, were not being discussed at all) have more health problems than
    >"white" Americans and somehow this percolates through his brain while
    >we are talking about the working uninsured.


    On the contrary I am merely showing the implications of your statement
    that individual Americans get the health cover that they choose. I am
    pointing out the the poorer health of African Americans must be due to
    either:
    * genetic reasons
    * poor health choices
    * lack of health care
    You have ruled out the last of these options with your statement.
    Therefore the statement has racist implications. It's really simple
    Larry, perhaps you should do the remedial reading course before you
    reply.


    >
    >Colin appears to believe that the health problems of African Americans
    >(which is a topic for another thread, as it wasn't under discussion
    >here; Martin didn't divorce health care for any racial group from
    >Americans in general, and either did I; it was Colin who interjected
    >race into this discussion, and, in the context of what we were talking
    >about (uninsured working Americans), he got it totally wrong.
    >


    I interjected race into this discussion because your statements had
    racist implications that you seem not to ahve thought through.

    >Rather than admitting that he got it wrong and rather than apologizing
    >for libeling me, he is now trying to twist all of this around (see
    >below) to try and make his entirely unreasonable and indefensible
    >remarks and language somehow seem justifiable.


    Since I didn't libel you, and I have subsequently clearly stated that
    I don't believe that your intention wa to be racist, I fail to see
    what your problem is. But perhaps after the remedial reading lessons
    we can continue this discussion.

    >
    >As I said. Thank goodness for Google. This is not a "he said/she
    >said." It's all there in black and white (no pun -- which would be
    >tasteless -- intended).
    >
    >> 1. Larry states that individual Americans get the health care that they choose.

    >
    >No. I said that, for the large majority of the working uninsured, the
    >lack of health insurance is a matter of personal choice. Of those
    >without insurance, >85% are white and <15% are African Americans.


    Thank goodness for a newsgroup history that shows otherwise that you
    said: "American health care is the best in the world, for those
    responsible enough to take advantage of it." That was the statement
    with racist implications.

    >
    >> 2. African Americans have poorer health than the USA average (source: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5401a1.htm )

    >
    >I posted similar data. No one disputes this. African Americans have
    >much higher incidence of heart disease, cancer, stroke, etc. But this
    >is true even for even for African Americans with the same health care
    >plans as "white" Americans (e.g. US military veterans receiving a
    >lifetime of "free" medical care through the VA system, where I myself
    >worked as a physician for 10 years). Unequal access to health care is a
    >relatively small component of the health disparities between whites and
    >non-whites, but this was entirely out of the boundaries of the
    >discussion in question, as detailed above.
    >
    >What follows (along with Colin's earlier posts) constitute the biggest
    >pile of crap ever hurled at me in 11 years and nearly 15,000 postings
    >on Usenet:
    >
    >- Larry W
    >
    >> 3. Given 1 and 2, Larry's arguments imply that African Americans have poorer health because they choose/deserve it.

    >
    >> 4. according to msn encarta, racism is "the belief that people of different races have different qualities"

    >
    >> 5.given the definition in 4 and the implication in 3 I would label Larry's argument as racist - note that this does not mean that Larry is racist, just that he doesn't think through the implications of what he says


    Apparently logic is categorised as "crap" by Larry. I note that you
    fail to provide any detail is why you have such a low opinion ofmy
    logic. Perhaps because you want to continue to ignore the implications
    of your statements.
     
  18. Colin Priest

    Colin Priest Guest

    On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:22:59 -0600, "Pat in TX" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >I have known over the years, many working people without health care
    >insurance. In our city, these folks can go to the public health clinics for
    >$3 a visit. Their drugs? $3 a prescription. If they get a serious problem,
    >like my friend who works as a bicycle mechanic and who got hit by a car on
    >his commute to work, they are taken care of in the charity hospital without
    >payment (and the hospital tries to work out a payment schedule according to
    >what they can pay). As it turns out, he is suing the car's driver, so he
    >won't have to pay the bill at all. And, of course, those of us with health
    >insurance are subsidizing these facilities through our taxes.
    >
    >My friend who is a hair stylist broke her ankle and was treated at the
    >charity hospital. Her bills were set up for a payment schedule and she is
    >paying $50 every two weeks on the remainder.
    >
    >I have a friend whose husband works for Radio Shack but the fees for the
    >entire family's health insurance are too high, so the wife and 3 daughters
    >rely on the charity clinic. The guys who run their own bicycle shop? No
    >insurance, either. Now, when these folks all get older, they just might
    >have problems with their drugs and ailment costs. They are hoping that by
    >then the federal government will "do something".
    >
    >Oh, and none of these people are black. However, they do see other patients
    >who are black at the clinics. I would never call someone a racist who merely
    >points out or acknowledges differences where they occur: I, myself, was
    >called a racist on this same forum for simply mentioning that one of my
    >black friends won't swim because the chlorine in the pool makes her skin
    >ashy and she doesn't like that. And for mentioning that, I was called a
    >racist!
    >
    >This, to me, is a term that is thrown about all too often, simply for
    >dramatic effect! I read where the Swiss were complaining about Serbs moving
    >to Switzerland and were then called "racists" for complaining. I read where
    >the Dutch do not like Muslim thugs who threaten and murder people on the
    >streets and are then called "racists" for these thoughts. I read where
    >Americans who did not like the idea of turning over the control of several
    >of their ports to the United Arab Emirate were called "racists".
    >
    >No, a normal person who wishes to debate a topic does not throw out the term
    >"racist" as a tactic to persuade others to believe his debating points. It
    >is a strawman and must not be accepted. If that is all you have---your
    >entire presentation is based on calling someone a racist---I won't listen.
    >
    >Pat in TX
    >


    Pat,

    Despite your thread topic you have not once dealt with the concept of
    "double standards".

    I have not called anyone racist. A simple reading of my posts will
    confirm this.

    I have never stated that all or most African Americans are uninsured.
    It is you who have used a straw man.

    Colin
     
  19. Colin Priest

    Colin Priest Guest

    Larry, thanks for the excellent example of your double standards!

    <snip>
    >His statements on this have been crap. Notice that I'm not stating
    >that Colin is crap; simply his statements are crap. But he knows that

    <snip>
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - Larry's double standards
  1. Skip613
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,020
  2. Volnix
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,213
  3. jrschultz
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    956
  4. JB83
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    615
  5. Volnix
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    668
Loading...