As risk averse as I am, I'd take the other side of that bet. You are blindly looking at pat statistics (assuming they're accurate) without any consideration to moderating variables. Look at Obama's upbringing and his achievements, both scholastic and otherwise. I think it contrasts quite notably with the stereotype you are blindly adhering to. And you do realize, of course, that blind stereotyping is the basis of bigotry, right?
Can't argue with your points...on the other hand, Edwards had a 'dying wife" and was a well raised man ect....
Oh, so is your point that you can't draw sweeping conclusions based on rudimentary stereotypes? If so, then I can't argue with your point.
2/3rds is not a stereo type its a trend...on the other hand the rumors are starting to rumble about BO just like they did with Edwards.
No, two-thirds is a statistic, if accurate. Blindly expecting the next person who falls within that basic demographic to necessarily fall in with that statistic is stereotyping. It's a short-hand alternative to thinking, in the absence of additional information. (Personally, I prefer to think, and give people the benefit of the doubt where possible and reasonable.) As for rumors, you know as well an everyone here that the repubniks are better at churning the rumor mill than anyone else in the US. This is an established fact. So, unless you have an agenda other than seeking the truth, why not wait for the first shred of evidence to emerge before engaging in "I told you so." I gave Edwards the benefit of the doubt before the facts were in. And, although I disliked Bush from the get-go, I also gave him the benefit of the doubt before the facts were in. Let's see if you can do the same with Obama.
So if 2 out of every 3 people that walk past you punch you in the face.....your gonna say its not a trend and will not cover up as you see a group of 10 about to walk past you??? Listen, if it makes you feel politically correct to be aghast over stereotyping, bravo, I applaud you for being so enlightened ....but just remember this some time in the near future. I just have a gut feeling thats all...
would you rather have a guy in office that can't get an erection anymore? i want the horny guy that wakes up with the chub ..he's motivated. F^ck it! he's gonna get it done!
You're still not getting it. Read my post again, which you quoted: "Personally, I prefer to think, and give people the benefit of the doubt where possible and reasonable." If I were to see one or more guys of any race or color walking towards me with attitude, I'd cross the street and attribute it to risk aversion. However, if I were to see one or more people of any race or color walking towards me in an entirely non-threatening manner (just by way of example, with their family, or school books or shopping bags -- you get the general idea), I would be far less likely to take precautionary measures. I think demeanor is far more relevant than color in risk assessment for the example you have proposed. Are you suggesting that, if you had previously been mugged by black thugs on more than one occasion, you would automatically cringe in fear if you were being introduced to, say, a black doctor or black judge? Because that's what you're implying.
Generally the black mugger isn't going to approach you with "attitude". Often in fact he's wearing his Sunday best. The last black mugger I encountered came up to me with a smile so bright it would've disarmed anyone with less cynicism than me. Fortunately I sized him up and in a 1 in a million fluke I too had a gun in my briefcase that I'd never carried before. He took off like a bat out of hell.
Unless it was a woman who had the good sense and taste to recognize and appreciate my obvious and plentiful manly charm, I too would be a bit apprehensive if a complete stranger tried to dazzle me with a brilliant smile. At the very least, he'd be trying to sell me something. One way or another, he'd be on the make. I'd pre-emptively cross the street. Pabst, even a color-coordinated guy like you knows what I mean by "demeanor."