@vaportrail said:

There you have it, Steve. It appears you were right all along.

We knew that already.

WSS

@calfoxwc said:

I've been reading Steve's stuff for years. He always makes sense, even when I disagree with him....

and he has never, never, ever never, posted anything that would ever give any honest reader

the idea that he doesn't like black people.

That's as ignorant and mean spirited, and dishonest, as "if you don't like Obamaocare, you are a

racist and you hate black people, because Obamao is black".

If you can't do any better than that, Heck, you should just can the phoney indignation

on most of the issues and conservative kind of posts around here.

And, don't ever say "haha" again, because the yolk in on you, egghead. @@

There you have it, Steve. It appears you were right all along.

and he has never, never, ever never, posted anything that would ever give any honest reader

the idea that he doesn't like black people.

That's as ignorant and mean spirited, and dishonest, as "if you don't like Obamaocare, you are a

racist and you hate black people, because Obamao is black".

If you can't do any better than that, Heck, you should just can the phoney indignation

on most of the issues and conservative kind of posts around here.

And, don't ever say "haha" again, because the yolk in on you, egghead. @@

This is a lot like when you say that the Trayvon case is only national news because it makes Obama and Sharpton money. This is your problem in a nutshell. You can't interpret facts or events. You just find kernels of truth or facts to support taking the argument wherever you already wanted it to go.

You don't like black people as a group. You don't like what you imagine is "black culture." You just think you're not doing it blindly. You think you have really good reasons to not like blacks.

As Foster says, "Not only was it baldly racist, it was, of all things, dumb. On the topic of what made it dumb, I don’t have much to add to Jason’s post. John commits a statistical fallacy he is far too smart to have fallen for en route to a set of odious moral commitments that don’t follow from anything he’s put to paper — that seem to follow instead from unreflective prejudices informed by cherry-picked anecdotes, from a general misanthropy, and from a narrow, amoral scientism positively Victorian in its vintage."

I think what we're all saying is: much like Derbyshire's, your reasoning isn't so hot. Which makes it especially annoying when you then pretend to stand on the high ground of reason.

@vaportrail said:

As I recall, your argument was that a man should have legal say in whether or not a woman carries a pregnancy to term. You never came up with a realistic solution for that other than saying, "That's how it should be."

Then, respectfully, you don't remember very much of the entire conversation.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

Nah. Don't worry about it.

Remember a while back when heck was so outraged because I said I didn't care if women had to pay a couple bucks for their own contraception? The guy was almost apoplectic over my lack of care for my fellow human beings.

As long as violent crime stays in the ghetto why should it concern you?

The only reason we heard of this 1 is because it puts millions in the pockets of the jacksons sharpton's and obama's of the world.

The other thousands of cases?

Unless there's profit or political influence I don't expect you to give a rat's ass.

Just blame me, it's okay.

You look good in rose colored glasses.

WSS

As I recall, your argument was that a man should have legal say in whether or not a woman carries a pregnancy to term. You never came up with a realistic solution for that other than saying, "That's how it should be." I believe that was the reason you got under heck's skin.

@vaportrail said:

Guess I'll just have to take off my rose-tinted glasses.

Nah. Don't worry about it.

Remember a while back when heck was so outraged because I said I didn't care if women had to pay a couple bucks for their own contraception? The guy was almost apoplectic over my lack of care for my fellow human beings.

As long as violent crime stays in the ghetto why should it concern you?

The only reason we heard of this 1 is because it puts millions in the pockets of the jacksons sharpton's and obama's of the world.

The other thousands of cases?

Unless there's profit or political influence I don't expect you to give a rat's ass.

Just blame me, it's okay.

You look good in rose colored glasses.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

What we get is that you have no problem with the disparity in violent crime.

WSS

Guess I'll just have to take off my rose-tinted glasses.

@vaportrail said:

Give it a rest already. You see no problem with what the guy wrote. We get it.

What we get is that you have no problem with the disparity in violent crime.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

Not asking you to enjoy the facts.

Nobody does, nobody should.

Just face them.

WSS

Give it a rest already. You see no problem with what the guy wrote. We get it.

@the-cysko-kid said:

Just because that 'disclaimer' is above the eight highly racist statements that follow it doesn't make it ok, Steve. Come on, man. Just...come on.

Not asking you to enjoy the facts.

Nobody does, nobody should.

Just face them.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

Once more.

Use statistical common sense.

Your time would be better spent attempting to change those statistics then railing at those who print them.

WSS

Just because that 'disclaimer' is above the eight highly racist statements that follow it doesn't make it ok, Steve. Come on, man. Just...come on.

Especially 1 that has recently experienced a rash of break ins.

I'm not saying that guarantees you have trouble nor that I hate white people.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:

WSS

Once more.

Use statistical common sense.

Your time would be better spent attempting to change those statistics then railing at those who print them.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

Take a deep breath and read 10 again.

The statistics say you should be cautious.

And you probably should.

The vast majority of times you drive a car you will not get into an accident.

But you should still wear a seatbelt.

I suspect you both know that's true but it's more fun to feign righteous outrage

WSS

In case you're not sure what you're talking about 10(a)-10(h) is all 10.

@westside-steve said:

Take a deep breath and read 10 again.

The statistics say you should be cautious.

And you probably should.

The vast majority of times you drive a car you will not get into an accident.

But you should still wear a seatbelt.

I suspect you both know that's true but it's more fun to feign righteous outrage

WSS

Yeah, Steve, I've read #10, and if that's all he wrote, I might concede my point. Unfortunately, he follows it up with 10a through 10h, and when taken as a whole, he comes off as a racist moron. But hey, apparently you think he knows best.

@vaportrail said:

Steve, this guy doesn't make those concessions. Instead, he blatantly says don't help out black people, no matter if they're in Compton or the middle of Iowa.

Take a deep breath and read 10 again.

The statistics say you should be cautious.

And you probably should.

The vast majority of times you drive a car you will not get into an accident.

But you should still wear a seatbelt.

I suspect you both know that's true but it's more fun to feign righteous outrage

WSS

"...I can’t rightly speak to John’s reputation for personal warmth and charm, but I trust my colleagues that he is both warm and charming. And though I don’t know him personally, I can say that I, like so many others, admire (envy) his polymath’s talent. Jay says in his latest Impromptus that he always reads Derb, even on topics he finds dull or inaccessible, and that strikes me as both a great compliment and a true one.

That’s why I was so confused when I read the infamous column. Not only was it baldly racist, it was, of all things, dumb. On the topic of what made it dumb, I don’t have much to add to Jason’s post. John commits a statistical fallacy he is far too smart to have fallen for en route to a set of odious moral commitments that don’t follow from anything he’s put to paper — that seem to follow instead from unreflective prejudices informed by cherry-picked anecdotes, from a general misanthropy, and from a narrow, amoral scientism positively Victorian in its vintage. I found the column deplorable and I certainly understand Rich’s determination that its very outrageousness constituted a kind of letter of resignation."

@westside-steve said:

Actually you didn't include 10.

But if you feel comfortable stopping in the black part of town after dark and helping out somebody on the side of the road great.

I would say statistically like it says in 10, your risk of being hurt is probably greater.

If you don't believe that's true, fine.

WSS

Steve, this guy doesn't make those concessions. Instead, he blatantly says don't help out black people, no matter if they're in Compton or the middle of Iowa.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

And today, in the National Review:

Regarding Robert Weissberg

By Rich Lowry

Unbeknowst to us, occasional Phi Beta Cons contributor Robert Weissberg (whose book was published a few years ago by Transaction) participated in an American Renaissance conference where he delivered a noxious talk about the future of white nationalism. He will no longer be posting here. Thanks to those who brought it to our attention.

So?

( See how they run)

But that aside, what was VTs point?

I'm assuming you have no idea but just wanted to toss him a bone.

WSS

Regarding Robert Weissberg

By Rich Lowry

Unbeknowst to us, occasional Phi Beta Cons contributor Robert Weissberg (whose book was published a few years ago by Transaction) participated in an American Renaissance conference where he delivered a noxious talk about the future of white nationalism. He will no longer be posting here. Thanks to those who brought it to our attention.