You're racist because you're using labels like "black" and no one is actually black. You are not alone.
With blowhards like Prager, it usually isn't necessary to read the entire bunch of baloney. Finding the premise to be flawed is all it takes to expose the fallacious thinking. More fallacious thinking from Prager: "So I posed to this question to my radio audience, and, sure enough, whites from around the country called in to say that they are afraid to differ with blacks lest they be labeled racist." Prager's call in audience is not a random sample...doh! He is a right wing talk show host with an audience dominated by ditto headed right wing thinkers...double doh! In addition, all the talk shows, yes, both left and right, have call screeners who pre-screen calls. What a joke. Anyone who would take Prager's "conclusion" seriously as some proper foundation for his bile is as illogical as Prager usually is....
Z, I would think so-called "right-wingers" would be more apt to disagree with blacks publicly than left-wingers. It is the Left that panders most to minorities, after all. So if your argument is that right-wingers are more apt to disagree with blacks than left-wingers, it is a failed one. Your response also did not address the fact that Prager mentioned " a firm that specializes in analyzing radio talk shows... the company had discovered that almost no whites would publicly differ with the opinions of the blacks on the panel." This is not Prager's talk radio show, but an outside firm. Are you saying this outside firm is a right-wing organization? What a joke indeed... Anyone who would take your "conclusion" seriously as some proper foundation for your bile against Prager is as illogical as your arguments usually are.... By the way, do you disagree with blacks publicly?
"So I posed to this question to my radio audience, and, sure enough, whites from around the country called in to say that they are afraid to differ with blacks lest they be labeled racist." He is using his own radio talk show with an unscientific method of data gathering to lay a foundation his argument. This is the work of a hack, which Prager clearly is. Of course, hacks like Prager do have their following, clearly.... By the way, do you disagree with blacks publicly? By the way, why do you continue to ask questions of a personal nature that are irrelevant to the point I made? One begins to wonder if there is capability of keeping this about Prager, his arguments, and the flaws that have been demostrated in his "non scientific" data gathering and resulting conclusions based on that "evidence".... Or are you so obsessed with the messenger in this case, that you can't stay on the topic of the message...?
Again, you completely ignore the fact that Prager referred to an outside organization that specializes in analyzing talk radio shows. If you were sincere about discussing this topic in a rational, civilized manner, you would address that point as it is central to the discussion. Omitting it is convenient for you, but not honest. The question is completely relevant to the point you attempted to make. You are stating that Prager is a hack and disingenuous. If you, someone who is NOT a right-winger - the base you claim demonstrates their unwillingness to debate blacks publicly - does not debate blacks publicly, then your argument is further damaged as it supports Prager's since he makes no political distinction among whites as you have. One begins to wonder if you are able to stay on topic. The title of the thread is, "Do liberals injure blacks?" I posted Prager's article to begin the discussion about the overall topic, not make Prager himself the topic. You are clearly attempting to make Prager the topic whilst avoiding his message. It is you who is obsessed with the messenger, in this case Prager. It is also you who is obsessed with me as it is a matter of record that your comments about me outside of Chit Chat far exceed comments I have made about you, both in frequency and in hateful content. It is also a matter of record that I have appealed to you to agree to engage civilly, and that you have not agreed to in either deed or action. It is what it is.
Again, you completely ignore the fact that Prager referred to an outside organization that specializes in analyzing talk radio shows. If you were sincere about discussing this topic in a rational, civilized manner, you would address that point as it is central to the discussion. Omitting it is convenient for you, but not honest. If the outside organization's analysis was sufficient to construct a case, he would have done so....there would be no need to go beyond this data point, if it is sufficient on its own to reach the conclusion and liberal bashing agenda he wants to push. By inclusion of a bogus "poll" of his callers, he soiled both his argument, and himself....demonstrating that the outside data is not by itself sufficient, that the argument requires some supporting evidence to try to hold it up. Prager is so much of a hack, that he just had to bring himself, and his show, and his listeners, and their opinions, and his opinion into it...as he knows his argument has no real foundation. The question is completely relevant to the point you attempted to make. No, I just demonstrated that it isn't. You are stating that Prager is a hack and disingenuous. Yes, quite clearly and unequivocally. If you, someone who is NOT a right-winger - the base you claim demonstrates their unwillingness to debate blacks publicly - does not debate blacks publicly, then your argument is further damaged as it supports Prager's since he makes no political distinction among whites as you have. Try, just try to keep it on Prager and his message....and his argument, not on anything personal about the messenger, i.e. the person who is attacking his argument. One begins to wonder if you are able to stay on topic. The title of the thread is, "Do liberals injure blacks?" I posted Prager's article to begin the discussion about the overall topic, not make Prager himself the topic. You are clearly attempting to make Prager the topic whilst avoiding his message. It is you who is obsessed with the messenger, in this case Prager. Prager's column is what I am responding to, what I am critiquing, and the hack job he did... It is also you who is obsessed with me as it is a matter of record that your comments about me outside of Chit Chat far exceed comments I have made about you, both in frequency and in hateful content. It is also a matter of record that I have appealed to you to agree to engage civilly, and that you have not agreed to in either deed or action. Once again, it is obvious that you are unable to keep it in real time, and on topic, on this thread, as rather than making it about Prager and his argument, his hack job, which is what I exclusively have posted on....the focus once again shifts to me and information that is fully irrelevant to both Prager's piece and my critique of it. LOL....
More faulty argumentation on your part. Prager referred to the outside organization as it was the root cause of his call-in. That he mentioned his radio show is obvious -he is a talk show host! DOH! By your reasoning, a lawyer never need explain cause, as the crime in question should be evidence enough to the jury. No real foundation indeed... No, I just demonstrated that it is. Clearly and unequivocally wrong. Try, just try to keep it on the topic of this thread, and not Prager, or anything personal about the thread starter. Try, just try to keep it on the topic of this thread, and not Prager, or anything personal about the thread starter. If your obsession with Prager is as alarming as it appears, please feel free to start a thread titled "Prager is a hack and disengenuous." Once again you have proven your inability to make a coherent argument and that you must always resort to ad hominem when your fallacies are exposed. So Z, do you disagree with blacks in public?
It's called a guesstimate. I'd be quite willing to state a number as high as 75%. Perhaps not assholes - a difficult term to define, afterall - but certainly people of whom I was left with an on-balance negative opinion of. I haven't spent a great deal of time in America, and so have never really had much contact with blacks. Most contact I did have was limited to black customer service personnel and black mendicants asking me for "$2". (One such black came closest to guessing my nationality, while most whites assumed I was hispanic - walking out of the supermarket one day, I was approached with, "Hey cuz, us Italians gotta stick together man. Gimme a dollar"). The customer service I have received from blacks has been almost invariably of a (sometimes far) lower quality than that I have received from whites. At times, the incompetence became quite frustrating, but it was usually the casual indifference in their attitude that irked me. I found it unaccountable because I'm not in the least a huffy, demanding customer. I came to America firmly convinced that all it took to get along with blacks was simply treating them with the same friendliness I would extend to anyone of any race. And so I would, in my first few, still raw, weeks, strike up conversations with the occasional black while waiting at bus-stops or in line at McDonald's. I soon ended this practise because I found the people I spoke with either never had anything even slightly interesting to say, or rudely snubbed me. It wasn't all negative, though. I recall one black gentleman, whom I met at the Las Vegas Bright Trading office, with whom I had a very pleasant encounter. It was all the more pleasing because I began to think, probably by some sort of osmosis, that I should be able to have such encounters with blacks, that it's somehow a sign of moral goodness to be able to get along well with blacks. This moral sense seems to be confirmed by polling in which some sixty or seventy percent of whites claim to have 'at least one good black friend'. If this were true, given the disparity in numbers between whites and blacks, it would mean that blacks, even the lowest class gang-bangers, each have, on average, four white good friends. Or if we simply take the upper half of blacks, in terms of class, each them would have, on average, eight white good friends. With so much white love and warmth abounding, it would be a wonder how such blacks - they are upper class, so they largely command what passes for 'the black view' - ever find the opportunity to experience any 'racism'. Humor aside, I think the greatest injury liberal whites to do blacks is telling that they are absolutely, precisely, geometrically equal to whites in every single way, and that therefore they must achieve at at least the same level of whites in every single sphere of human activity, and that the only reason they do not is because of a pervasive, usually underground, and, by now (we are told), 'institutional' white 'racism', working day and night to keep them down. There is a far simpler, far more 'elegant' (as scientists like to say) explanation, and that is that blacks and whites are simply not equal; that genes matter; and that as long as genes matter, and as long as whites continue to inherit their genes from other whites and blacks from other blacks, the differences will persist. Such views, of course, are simply unacceptable to a society which has accepted a fiat declaration that there are not, that there cannot be any significant differences between races. Scientific investigation is known (the hubris!) to be unnecessary. So we labor on as we have done for the last fifty or so years, ever more certain that a solution to 'race relations' is in the offing with every new program, and when that fails to achieve anything (or actually makes things worse), ever more certain that 'racism' is to blame.