Cynique

@Kalexander2 LOL Spare me your psycho babbo. Do you accuse everybody who disagrees with you as being narcissistic? It figures. Did it ever occur to you that since Troy decided to name this site after me, that i instigate debate on current subjects in order to make things interesting? And anybody who wades through what you are trying to say can comprehend it because it's the same ol same ol that everybody else is saying. You could never be labeled an original thinker. And i have no need for attention. This is the Internet, not a singles bar; a forum, not FaceBook. And i certainly can do without your attention. Do you smoke weed or drink too much? Let me assure that you will not have to concern yourself with me further wasting my time interacting with you. i can tell from the convoluted way you express yourself, that i would be doing myself a favor by ignoring you. See ya, but i wouldn't wanna be ya! Buh Bye.

You may want to go back and read my post One hour ago, i said: But economics has everything to do with you advocating blacks acquiring viability by becoming liberated from corporate America and starting up their own businesses and industries. Is that a bad life? You were given a comprehension test and you failed. How old are you by the way?? You sound like a befuddled millennial.

@Kalexander2But economics has everything to do with you advocating blacks acquiring viability by becoming liberated from corporate America and starting up their own businesses and industries. And as i said, Black people across the board have already figured this out - but are obviously helpless to do a lot about it thanks to the institutionalized racism that enables white greed. i just said that materialism is the bane of the black middleclass, and indeed it does have its counterpart in the ghetto where acquiring "bling" contributes to brothers keeping the prison industry profitable. All that you have mentioned is what i meant when i wrote about the their "entrenched culture" hampering the progress of blacks. As for good manners, they don't pay the bills and i don't know that they are becoming any more prevalent than they ever were. It's not about manners or being humble, it's about good judgment and expediency 2 vital components of survival. As for hope, "it springs eternal in the human breast", - I'm told.

At my advanced age, I wish i had a dollar for every time, I've heard a black man mount his soap box and preach the gospel according to economics. I think i could stroll the streets of the inner city, or strike up a conversation at a bougie cocktail party and the downtrodden brothas on the corner and the upwardly mobile professionals would all say the same thing as you loquacious orators. IMO, the black masses have enough sense to figure out that blacks need to get their game together, create their own business and become independent of the white system, so this is not news to them. The question is why haven't blacks done this? Well, aside from the reality of the white power structure in capitalistic America having no intention of sharing its wealth and power with anyone but their own - something the tax bill ready for senatorial ratification confirms, - blacks are focusing on the wrong problem. As long as an entrenched culture, wherein the black underclasses perpetuate a lifestyle that produces a perennial crop of fatherless boys born into the jeopardy of the violent streets, or the eventuality of the prison industry, and as long as middle class blacks are unwilling to sacrifice their materialistic creature comforts and embrace the philosophy of doing what's best for the greater good instead of adhering to the "I-got-mine-now-you-get-yours" approach, black folks will languish in the limbo of consumerism. However, as Troy has previously noted, this is also the fate of the average white population in the Oligarchic States of America where anything that reeks of Socialism being the great equalizer, is rejected. On a less negative note, black folks are at their best when setting short term goals, and focusing on individual accomplishment, adopting an "each-one-teach-one", approach to uplifting the race.

@Kalexander2I'm from Maywood but have a few ties to Chicago via of in-laws. Nice to make your aquaintance. i just commented on your first post, and what i said will introduce you to my contrarian tendencies. i will confess to you what i have said to everybody else, which is that i'm fed up with this country and everything that goes on here. i am not optimistic about black grievances and am fast becoming indifferent. i think you will have more in common with the male posters on this site than me, because i'm not usually on the same page as they are. But, stick around if you like to argue.

The suggestion that black women voted for Obama because they thought he was "fione' is predictably ludicrous, considering the source of this idea. Is that why black men voted for him? Why wouldn't black people of all sexes vote for a qualified person of their own "race" running for President against a rich white Republican. Black women stepped up in Alabama to vote for a nerdy-looking white southern male because it was in their best interest to do so; which is always what motivates sistas to make their presence felt. How simple is that to figure out? White women are who defeated Hillary Clinton, and this can be attributed to their not trusting one of their own, or to dutifully following the lead of their husbands.

@Pioneer1Well, i hope you've learned your lesson. But i doubt it.

@TroySynonyms for the word "terrific", are in order.

Logic according to your skewed way of thinking. You exist in your own little world where you have delusions of being omniscient, operating under the principle that if you say it, that makes it so. You never venture out of your comfort zone because your one-track mind would get lost.

@Pioneer1 Puleeze. You have conveniently overlooked everything else i wrote in my last post and have cherry picked the "awareness" issue, duplicating what i have already said about it. It's futile to continue this argument because everybody has their own interpretation of what words mean. And don't try and portray your arguments as being any more logical than anyone else's, especially since you have a tendency to recycle what their argument is and claim it as your own. Nobody ever said awareness meant you understood what you were aware of. When you know about something what it means can be a mystery.

Pioneer and i will never come to any agreement on any issue because the gist of the subjects gets lost in the process of rationales rather than refutations. I don't think we have ever changed each other's opinions about anything. Our brains are wired differently. This whole opinionated discussion has become muddled with so many contradictions and inconsistencies that it's a waste of time to pursue it further.

@Del i can predict that my response will be that you and i will also probably have to agree to disagree.

@Pioneer1Your disagreement with what i've said is no more valid than what i am saying. You have not offered anything to refute what i say except your opinion that it is not so. You supplied no definition to support your view but below are some that i was compatiable with even before i looked them up, and i which i consider more authoritive than your opinion, mostly because they makes more sense than your interpretations and are aligned with my life experiences. These definitions are from various sources listed in GOOGLE. Suffice to say that i don't accept your rebuttuals, and don't expect you to accept mine. Knowledge: " An acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things. 2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job." Awareness: knowledge or perception of a situation or fact: Definition of wisdom - the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgement; the quality of being wise." and "The fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association." "Knowledge is gathered from learning and education, while most say that wisdom is gathered from day-to-day experiences and is a state of being wise. Knowledge is merely having clarity of facts and truths, while wisdom is the practical ability to make consistently good decisions in life.There is no wisdom without knowledge but there is knowledge without wisdom. So we simply have to agree to disagree.

1. The Dictionary 2-10. The biographies of the many noteworthy people i have read over the years. Up until recently, i have been an avid reader all of my life, and i couldn't begin to narrow down the titles of all the fiction books i've read. If i finished them, then they impressed me. The dictionary has always been my enabler. Every word definition is a story unto itself.

@Pioneer1 ??? How does classification behave? And how can you use unnatural terms to classify natural behavior? You seem to be using the word "unnatural" in lieu of the word "technical". And the operative word here is "you" because you have set up your own technology in establishing your observed claims that differ from scientific studies. You also seem to be equating "behavior" with "culture". All of which brings to mind the word i originally used to describe your argument: ambiguous. Nobody is "obviously" Caucasian to me because i have reached the point where when asked to identify the "race" of a person, i am comfortable with saying "i don't know". Women do have a keen eye when it comes to sizing up other women. To my eye, the roots of the hair-line of the pictured woman are not straight and her stiff looking hair is either permed or she has on a hair "fall" that is draped over where the part in her hair ends. Even the texture of her eyebrows is curly. i've encountered many people who look like her, - some in my own family. All of which why i had my doubts about her "purity". A certain segment of the new crop of tall, fair skinned NBA players all look "white" except for their grade of hair which they inherited from their black fathers who married white women. (If Pioneer can advance his personal theories from his observations about race, then i so can i.) The question of race will never be resolved on this board. The different views here are too entrenched.

But you can give an illiterate person information and facts by simply telling it to them. Not being able to read doesn't render a person deaf and mute. Once you tell them something, their innate intelligence will determine whether they will subsequently comprehend what they have been told. Slaves couldn't read or write but that didn't interfere with them comprehending things. Griots are prime examples of oral communication. They were fonts of information who verbalized the history of their people. Awareness and knowledge are the same thing, as are comprehension and understanding. You are confusing knowledge with wisdom. Wisdom has to do with whether you wisely apply what you have comprehended in the course of living your life.

What do you think i have been saying??? Being knowledgeable about a subject via of having facts and information supplied to you does not guarantee that you will understand what the knowledge implicates. Knowledge is synonymous with information and facts, but it is not synonymous with comprehension.

@Del Isn't that what i wrote??

For some women, power can be an aphrodisiac that draws them to men with power. Women also like men with finesse. If all of these powerful lechers now being outed had just substituted charm from crudeness, they might not have had to harass those who are now their accusers. At the core of these egocentric harassers is a need to humiliate, in order to feel better about themselves. There are scores of women who have slept their way to the top in their professions because they were not turned off by the traits of the men they used to get ahead.

@DelIn answer to your inquiry about where you said what i implied, - after i contended that "A person can be knowledgeable about a subject because he has been supplied with the facts and the information. This distinguishes him from a person who hasn't been supplied with facts and information about this subject. Comprehension doesn't figure into this equation," you wrote: That is what i was trying to express when i wrote: And what i was trying to muddle through when i wrote:

Well how how a person looks is subjective. The woman was not obviously Caucasian to me because as i previously noted, her hair line looked nappy and this suggested to me that she was mixed. If something is artificial it is not authentic, so your agreeing with race being an artificial construct actually means you don't think race is a natural way of classifying people.

@Del, i don't follow yours either. You seem to be saying that having the "capability" to acquire information and facts automatically makes you able to understand them. I disagree. I know the information about Einstein's formula, recognize it when i see it and know what it refers to but i do not understand the principle it illustrates. Pioneer says that wisdom comes from experience then presents a non sequitur by saying that you can't give people knowledge, but can only give them facts. i also disagree with this because when you give them facts you are making them knowledgeable about the subject which the facts refer to; whether they comprehend what the facts indicate is not a given.

@Pioneer1 How can she be obviously Caucasian if she isn't because she has black blood in her as suggested by her hair roots? It's more like she is possibly Caucasian. And what does your knowing 2 Italian women who are darker than her, have to do with it? Does their being darker than her, make them obviously Negroid? Using your ambiguous standards, just supports the argument that race is an artificial construct. Human beings are all variations of one race.

Wel you Well, this depends. If its causation is explained to you, you might very well understand the explanation if you have an intellect that is capable of comprehending knowledge that is imparted to you. You may not need experience to comprehend something. But the whole gist of the article in question is that the ability to comprehend specifics is enhanced if you can relate to what you are comprehending because your experience has familiarized you with the subject in general. e.g. it's easier to understand a chess strategy if you have played the game before. Can you really separate knowledge from information and facts? A person can be knowledgeable about a subject because he has been supplied with the facts and the information. This distinguishes him from a person who hasn't been supplied with facts and information about this subject. Comprehension doesn't figure into this equation.

There's a difference between fact and knowledge. Being unaware of a fact doesn't mean you would'n't comprehend it, once you heard it.