What happens when you have an area with higher end homes, or schools, across from public housing units? How does this affect the people who live and work in the area? This documentary was told through the eyes of the children and young people who are experiencing just that. Some of their views may surprise, or not, but they are thoughtful and intelligently expressed by some rather insightful young people (especially Rosa). :)
While America has never really achieved a truly classless society, we have in the past at least made an attempt to lift as many people as possible into a middle class existence. But what seems to be occurring now is an ever widening gap between the wealthier segment of the population and those on the lower rungs. A state of affairs that isn't sustainable.
222 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 222 of 222[Chumpy]: "It is just barely remotely possible that Harvey was somehow an unrelated independent anomaly. Not bloody damn likely, but just remotely possible."
Oh yeah? So you have an actual set of calculated odds do ya? What are they? Just to make it easy for ya, anywhere within 25% will do. Jes' checkin' that it's not you that's bullshitting us.
[Lynnette]: "I went to our State Fair today."
Was that the one you told us about that got relocated due to the quest for fracking sands? The one with all those cringey costumes? ;-)
Check out Petes’ response closely folks. I said it was just barely remotely possible that Harvey was an unrelated independent anomaly, that is, unrelated to anthropomorphic global warming. Does he say that's wrong? No, he does not.
Intentional bullshitting on Petes' part.
[Chumpy]: "Check out Petes’ response closely folks... Does he say that's wrong? No, he does not."
Yeah, well spotted (duh!). 'Cos if I said that's wrong I would be doing exactly what I am accusing y'all of doing, i.e. making assertions for which there is no evidence. If y'all were being honest you would agree that there is no evidence either way. However, in the absence of evidence, y'all are merely following the current fad -- making the default assumption that horrible weather must be caused by horrible humans. That is a fallacy. In a situation where we've only had weather records for a century or two at most, it is guaranteed that there will be record-breaking weather extremes on a regular basis regardless of what the long term climate is doing. That -- unlike yer assertion about Harvey -- is a provable fact.
I see that contruction and realtors' lobbies have been busy spending lots of money on convincing government not to change or abolish federal flood insurance (politico.com).
"If y'all were being honest you would agree that there is no
evidence either way."
That happens to be wrong. Circumstantial evidence is evidence.
[Chumpy]: "That happens to be wrong. Circumstantial evidence is evidence."
Nope. Not surprisingly, y'all's logic is askew.
When one says "there is no evidence either way" one is saying that any circumstantial evidence could point to either of the possible conclusions. In other words, the logical inference that is required alongside circumstantial evidence cannot be shown to be valid. Otherwise all you have is post hoc reasoning.
I mentioned only the circumstantial evidence. You want to discuss your inferences from that evidence. Given your casual relationship with the truth here of late, I'm not interested in having that particular argument with you.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence. You know this to be true. And yet you pretend it to be otherwise.
(For our other readers… He's working his way up to blurring the line between ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’; preparing to wrap himself in Bruno's old arguments that there is no evidence because he won't accept the evidence that there is as conclusive proof--always able to hypothesize yet another variable and demand that it be disproven too. ‘Proof’, of course, is what one accepts as conclusive evidence--as long as he refuses to accept the evidence as sufficient for proof, and likewise demands that the evidence be sufficient as proof before it is considered evidence then he continually assert there is no evidence. Sophistry!)
Circumstantial evidence is evidence; that's why they call it circumstantial evidence.
[Chumpy]: "You want to discuss your inferences from that evidence."
On the contrary, Chumpy, I have no intention of doing so.
[Chumpy]: "Circumstantial evidence is evidence."
It is only useful evidence if the inference that accompanies it is valid. Otherwise a rainbow is evidence of a crock o' gold and toys under the tree are evidence of Santa. I offered y'all a chance to estimate the likelihood that yer inference is valid, and ya declined. Didn't ask for anything like proof, just an estimate based on somethin' other than yer own biases. All I got was crickets chirpin'.
[Chumpy]: "For our other readers… He's working his way up to blurring the line between ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’"
I suspect "other readers" can see through the crock o' shit that you are wont to write.
And while we all know that Chumpy is gonna keep on obfuscatin' and trollin' until eventually nobody any longer knows or cares what he originally wrote, here's a little refresher jes' to pin him down:
[Chumpy @Sat Sep 02, 12:44:00 pm]: "It is just barely remotely possible that Harvey was somehow an unrelated independent anomaly. Not bloody damn likely, but just remotely possible."
All I've asked Chumpy to do is express that "just bare remote possibility" in percentage terms, to anywhere within 25%. Just place the probability within the correct quartile -- surely that can't be hard since the matter is so obviously a slam dunk to ole' Chumpy. Only catch is he must provide actual direct evidence.
Oh, and before we leave it:
[Chumpy]: "Trying to blow that remote possibility up into a credible question about the existence of anthropomorphic global warming is bullshitting us--intentionally."
Can y'all point me to where I did any such thing?
"It is only useful evidence if the inference that accompanies it is
valid."
And there we have it.
1. First he tells us there ‘is no evidence either way’
"If y'all were being honest you would agree that there is no
evidence either way."
Petes @ Sat Sep 02, 07:05:00 pm
2. This is wrong. Circumstantial evidence is evidence.
3. Then he tells us he's not going to be arguing the inferences he wants to be drawn from the evidence.
| "You want to discuss your inferences from that evidence.
| Given your casual relationship with the truth here of late, I'm not
| interested in having that particular argument with you."
| Lee C. @ Sun Sep 03, 01:49:00 am ↑↑
| "On the contrary, Chumpy, I have no intention of doing so."
| Petes @ Sun Sep 03, 02:01:00 am ↑↑
4. He had, still has if he could draw me into it, every intention of doing just so. See his argument at Sun Sep 03, 05:26:00 am, supra.
"It is only useful evidence if the inference that accompanies it is valid.
Otherwise a rainbow is evidence of a crock o' gold and toys under the
tree are evidence of Santa."
Petes @ Sun Sep 03, 05:26:00 am ↑↑
∴ He lies to you right in front of you. Only eleven comments, around half of them mine, and he's lied to you guys, right in front of you guys, three times already.
To repeat what I said on the prior page of this thread then:
"Given [Petes] casual relationship with the truth here of late, I'm not
interested in having that particular argument…"
If Lynnette still wants to play apologist for this sort of shit, she's welcome to serve her own wants on the subject. I think I've made my point; my job here is done.
Ciao for now.
"… three times already."
I seem to have flagged only two of them. Well, two's enough for now.
Again, ciao for now.
Lynnette: "Let me ask you this, if you are a poor person in Africa where there is little educational opportunity, especially higher education, how do you progress?
[...]
I say again, if there are natives of Africa who are ambitious and bright enough to create, invent or just build their own business they are migrating to the US or Europe."
So you're basically saying the reason there are no ways towards progress in Africa is becuse the Africans intelligent and educated enough to create that progress leave their brethren behind in sqaulor and aim for the shores of the white man's lands?
That's NOT an argument in favour of immigration. Just so you know.
Pete: "Lynnette, and even Chumpy Troll Lee, have written some decent replies which I see you have mostly ignored. Yeah, on balance I would call you a racist. If you want my definition of that word, it's the negative stereotyping of people based on (real or imagined) biological traits."
I didn't ignore any replies that were to the point. Given your definition I guess I am a racist. I prefer race realist myself, but one can't always get what one wants.
Although: what if those "stereotypes" are in fact true? Because that's all that matters to me here. Not some slur word you throw at me to shut me up (not gonna happen anyway) but am i right or am I wrong on this?
Then you need to know where I'm coming from here. It's not like I have some sort of need to belittle africans in Africa.
It's that we have a huge tidal wave of immigration from the Middle East and Africa coming into Europe. I see the African part as the bigger threat long term due to the population explosion currently underway which is projected to last many decades more, says the UN.
TWO of the (I say false) arguments in favour of not shutting this down hard and fast are: 1 - we're not replenishing our own populations so we need fresh bloood and 2 - they're gonna pay our pensions with all of their labour when we grow grey and old.
The first one I'll answer, as I have did before, fewer people on a stressed planet is not a bad thing, and we will not go extinct up here regardless. There are 700 Million Europeans and if that stays stable good, if it shrinks to 500 Million probably better long term.
The second is where this whole IQ thing comes into play. Are really a whole lot of Africans up in our countries benefitting our economies? I say no. While obviously they do boost GDP they do not boost Per Capita GDP which is what matters for our well being. Hell 9/11 boosted GDP. Just boosting GDP is not necessarily a good thing.
So, I want to know wether Africans in Europe (seein' as there are a whole lot of 'em comin') are a good or bad thing. Which leads to their collective economic impact. Which demands an answer to what jobs they will do. Which necessiate the answer to what jobs they are qualified to do, which leads us to the question of their inherent ability to perform advanced jobs - their mean IQ levels.
So you see, it's not a question of me waking up and deciding to hate on dark skin, there's actully a reason behing my thinking here.
[Chumpy]: "And there we have it."
Yessir, indeedy we do.
Ole' Chumpy flings handfuls of shit around the monkey cage and declares victory once again.
For the record:
1. According to Chumpy, "It is just barely remotely possible that Harvey was somehow an unrelated independent anomaly. Not bloody damn likely, but just remotely possible." (Sat Sep 02, 12:44:00 pm)
2. Given umpteen chances to present his reasoning as to how this "just barely remotely possible" occurrence is low probability, Chumpy lies and obfuscates.
3. The logical inference is: he ain't got nothin'. Which, of course, anybody with half a brain or even agile Googlin' fingers knew already. Ain't no science folks out there supportin' Chumpy neither.
4. Chumpy was presumably too busy doin' backflips for "his audience" to even bother doin' his usual frantic Googlin'.
And now it's ciao from me.
[Marcus]: "The second is where this whole IQ thing comes into play. Are really a whole lot of Africans up in our countries benefitting our economies? I say no."
There are a lot more Africans than there are Swedes. Even if the alleged IQ differences were true, there are more Africans above the median Swedish IQ than there are white Swedes. If you're OK with discrimination on the basis of IQ then you should let all those ones in, right? If you have some other criterion, then why bring IQ (or race) into it at all? That's racist.
Oh, yeah; there was one other subject I'd intended to mention (that third one I never got around to taking up). Petes decided to end his little tirade with a reference to it.
"1. According to Chumpy, ‘It is just barely remotely possible that
Harvey was somehow an unrelated independent anomaly. Not bloody
damn likely, but just remotely possible.’ (Sat Sep 02, 12:44:00 pm)"
He ended it up by having himself a real rant ‘bout why won't I accommodate his desire to argue the probabilities on that subject? Well, he's already admitted to the conclusion, that's why.
"…there is no such thing as an isolated incident in Earth's weather."
Petes @ Sat Sep 02, 12:33:00 pm
Getting to the conclusion is quite sufficient in my book; no point in arguing over the evidence after that.
Idiot obfuscation to the end. What a chump!
Pete: "If you're OK with discrimination on the basis of IQ then you should let all those ones in, right?"
No. That angle I used to debate the (false) argument that we need pension savers and that Africans in general contribute to increased GDP per capita and will save our pension system through their hard work up here. Everything I see so far is evidence to the complete opposite.
There are other arguments against mass immigration like the counter argument to the (false) claim of "cultural enrichment". Of for that matter that the majority of immigrants are actual "refugees".
Have you never noticed how these arguments come and go? In the early 2000's it was all about "cultural enrichment". We really needed all these new and exciting influences and if you were against them you were boring and hate filled. Then as more and more people realize the true impacts of mass immigration the very term "cultural enrichment" came to mean gang-rape, wellfare leeching, car burnings and riots. The very term is taken over by people like me and used ironically.
Then the "establishment" abandons that argument and used a new one. Suddenly it's "they're gonna save our pensions". That too is shot down by now and only a complete idiot have any faith in it and "pension-saver" is used ironically. Like if there was a robbery of an old lady: "Yeah, probably a pension-saver again" and everyone knows what that means.
Your side are running out of storylines. Calling grown economic migrant men "refugee children" is not working any more. It's getting laughed at and ridiculed:
https://petterssonorg.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/ensamkommande-flyktingbarn.png
Also, Pete, I don't acknowledge that it is "discrimination" in any way not to let hundreds of thousands of african economic migrants into Europe.
Or do you think this video shows actual refugees who will enrich our stale culture and save our pensions:
https://youtu.be/hGw5UXmohUQ
If so we see things very different.
Post a Comment