Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/9/14 05:53 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Well, there is the FSM. I mean, many atheists throw this around a ton. The whole purpose of the FSM is to mock other religions, so that is on ereason many dislike Atheists.

It's not a good reason, though. It presumes that all or most atheists endorse this kind of mockery of other religions, which is untrue as far as I know.

It's tantamount to disliking Christians because a few of them believe that Adam and Eve were real people who lived with dinosaurs 6,000 years ago. It's unjustified, really.

At 8/9/14 05:09 AM, LeSeanPuffington wrote:

At 8/9/14 02:28 AM, Greggg586 wrote: 2nd there are many people being killed for having a different belief in countries like Korea, And it's not all comfy, cozy and safe like how we have it in the U.S. with the freedom of religion or no religion. we are blessed. You really don't know what you have until its taken away from you, so before you side step being alive for not believing in anything or at least because you live in the U.S. , it's best if you just be silent and thankful, and skip over that argument.

Are you fucking joking? This is an argument that has been used to silence legitimate criticism for centuries. Your family is from Liberia? I assume you're of African descent then. Don't you realize that this is exactly the type of shit people used to try to placate the African American community's desire for civil rights? Just be thankful you live in America and you get your own special water fountain. It's a propaganda tactic.

Equality is not a privilege. It is a right. Atheists and religious are entitled to the same freedoms of expression. No one owes their government a debt of gratitude for not silencing them with the threat of death.

I agree, and my family is from Ethiopia and Eritrea, African countries known for their egregious violations of freedom of religion(Or lack thereof). The human rights violations that the people of those nations endure is no excuse to tolerate less severe violations of these rights in the U.S. or elsewhere. I know that, and @Greggg586 should know that, too.

At 8/9/14 03:13 AM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: Seriously fuck this thread now.

The world has much much bigger problems on its hands than this side show. ISIS invading Kurdistan is a much more worrying reality than this. It gets annoying now that we all sit here talking about this when 100x the amount of people have been killed in iraq and syria and now this monstrosity calling itself a caliphate is raping the land they touch.

That is the problem wort g discussing, because if ISIS can raise their black flag over Erbil, then we're fucked.

You know, it's not really logical to ignore significant issues because there are other problems that are more pressing. It's a lot like saying that the lack of access to good healthcare for the poor should be ignored because there are starving children in Africa. Both problems are problems and must be addressed.

At 8/8/14 10:54 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 8/8/14 08:34 AM, Light wrote: We get it, you don't give a shit about the lives of other people or the deaths of innocent civilians.

By advocating for a stop inviolence when there is no possible stop in the continued violence is either the ultimate in niavte or a backward way of wanting either one of these genocidal maniacal powers to actually rule the area.

It's not like I'm implying that the solution to this conflict can easily be reached, but atrocities committed against civilians shouldn't be tolerated, regardless of the predicament that has precipitated them.

If you think that's naive, then so be it.

There is more wisdom to Tony's point that you give him credit for.

No, there really isn't.

At 8/8/14 08:34 AM, Light wrote:

At 8/8/14 08:14 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: heres a idea just let them duke it out and forget war crimes and "human rights violations" and let this shit be done with its been going on for what 60-70 years now? just let one side eradicate the other.

We get it, you don't give a shit about the lives of other people or the deaths of innocent civilians.

By the way, this:

just let one side eradicate the other

is, by definition, advocating genocide. Stop being a shitty person.

Oh, and I couldn't help notice that you're a supporter of AIPAC. I'm going to assume, then, that you support genocide of the Palestinians since you already said "just let one side eradicate the other" and "forget war crimes and 'human rights violations.'"

Please go away.

At 8/8/14 08:14 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: heres a idea just let them duke it out and forget war crimes and "human rights violations" and let this shit be done with its been going on for what 60-70 years now? just let one side eradicate the other.

We get it, you don't give a shit about the lives of other people or the deaths of innocent civilians.

By the way, this:

just let one side eradicate the other

is, by definition, advocating genocide. Stop being a shitty person.

Wow, both mainstream political parties in the U.S. are beholden to corporate interests? What a shocking revelation about American politics.

I agree with Camaohusky.

Both sides are fucking up, but Israel should know better. It's a nation-state that is much more powerful than its opposition but still continues to commit war crimes. Is Hamas committing war crimes? Probably. Is Israel committing war crimes? Definitely. Just because one side is engaging in war crimes, it does not excuse the depravity of the other's. That's shitty logic.

Israel doesn't even try not to kill civilians. It's reckless in its attacks on Hamas.

At 8/2/14 10:40 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 8/2/14 06:29 AM, Gozeta wrote: That makes sense sense smaller states need to be heard. It was put up to help them compete with larger states.

It's also designed to make sure that a smaller state with less population can't hijack and election from a larger state simply because the smaller state was better at turning out voters that would help their agenda. It was designed as a fairness metric as you're pointing out.

Honestly, whatever benefits the electoral college may have aren't sufficient to justify its continued existence. In my opinion, it should be abolished and the popular vote should decide who wins the presidency. Arguments that attempt to defend the electoral college are predicated on antiquated notions of federalism and the importance of letting the states decide who wins the presidency.

Although I must admit that seeing the electoral college results on election night makes the election much more interesting.

At 8/1/14 10:20 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 8/1/14 10:13 PM, Light wrote:

Is the assumption really unjustified? Is the implicit claim even an assumption? It's a known fact, at least in the U.S., that atheists are not well regarded.

That's a rhetorical question and a bis ASSumption. America is one of the largest melting pots in the world.

Holy Jesus, you clearly don't know what a "rhetorical question" is either.

I would send you links to evidence of people's bias against atheists in the U.S., but I know that you're averse to evaluating evidence that contradicts your convictions, so I'll just leave this discussion now.

At 8/1/14 10:04 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 8/1/14 09:58 PM, Light wrote:

As a philosophy major, I think I know a thing or two about fallacies, loaded questions, and proper argumentation. You're not using the terms "fallacy" and "loaded question" according to their accepted definitions. "Why do people not like atheists" isn't a loaded question whatsoever. There are no fallacies in it, either.

A loaded question is one that makes an unjustified assumption which is certainly the case here.

Is the assumption really unjustified? Is the implicit claim even an assumption? It's a known fact, at least in the U.S., that atheists are not well regarded.

At 8/1/14 09:53 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 8/1/14 09:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 8/1/14 11:36 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Why Do People Not Like Atheists? Loaded question renders thread invalid.

How?

Which people ? How many people ? "Why Do People Not Like Atheists?" loaded questions such as this are a type of fallacy in developing a proper argument and is really just some vague rhetorical bull shit when it comes down to it.

As a philosophy major, I think I know a thing or two about fallacies, loaded questions, and proper argumentation. You're not using the terms "fallacy" and "loaded question" according to their accepted definitions. "Why do people not like atheists" isn't a loaded question whatsoever. There are no fallacies in it, either.

Wade's alright, I guess.

At 7/27/14 12:28 PM, Korriken wrote: Exactly. Personally, I'd rather elect a circus clown who will surround himself with people who are experts in their field, than to elect some political insider who will surround himself with yes men and other political insiders.

I respect your opinion, but a "circus clown" president risks the possibility of being manipulated by his advisors, or, more likely, that he/she can't object much to their proposals because he/she doesn't know if they're constitutional or legally prudent.

And by the way, every president surrounds himself with yes men. That's basically what the Cabinet is.

At 7/26/14 11:42 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/26/14 10:46 PM, Light wrote:

No, but they'd still need to have extensive knowledge and experience with matters pertaining to the law, as they shape the legislative agenda of their party at the federal level and negotiate with Congress about budgets, resolutions, and other legislation.

For all intents and purposes, they'd need to know about as much about the law as members of congress and other legislators do.

Actually, not necessarily. Not even the best lawyer/judge/etc knows the entirety of law by heart. There is always research to be done to figure things out. Often, this research is either assisted by or left to paralegals. Still, even the greatest president has his advisers and assistants. While a lawyer may have an easier time understanding the nuances in the law, a President who isn't a master of law could still get the job done, thanks to his advisers and staff.

I already mentioned this in a subsequent post where I stated that I should correct myself.

All judges have j.d. degrees and many probably have doctorates. So it can be said that their knowledge of the law is indisputable.

Besides, if they don't know what the law is, then who does?

Here's the funny thing about that. If you can get 5 Supreme Court justices to agree on something, ANYTHING can be legal... or not, depending on how you want them to rule.

Look at how often cased are split 5/4 one way or another. Is it legal or is it not? Doesn't matter. SCOTUS has the final say. If they say it's legal, it's legal. If they say it's not, then it's not.

Yes. It's been known for a very long time now that what is constitutional is what the Supreme Court says is constitutional. Is it a perfect system? No. Can partisan beliefs interfere with their making an objective analysis of the law? Yes. What I was arguing, though, was that their knowledge of the law is indisputable. Not that they are completely impartial human beings.

Now, I wouldn't expect the SCOTUS to say that the constitution is unconstitutional, but it wouldn't be a far stretch to believe that if the SCOTUS ever gets stacked with judges who think or way or another, you could see some interpretations change.

The Supreme Court has reversed its decisions numerous times throughout history; that is to be expected as their collective knowledge of the law changes and as public opinion evolves.

Liberal Stacked SCOTUS: "Second amendment? That only applies to well regulated militias, like the National Guard. Regular people have no right to arms."
Liberal Lawmakers: It's official, you have no right to bear arms! Time to hand 'em in!

This is conceivable.

Hell, you're already seeing what having an odd number of people on the SCOTUS has done for corporations! I couldn't help but shake my head to think that constitutional rights extend to corporations.

Same here. It shouldn't even be a left-wing/right-wing argument. Corporations shouldn't be considered people.

At 7/26/14 10:46 PM, Light wrote:

At 7/25/14 02:59 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/25/14 12:09 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

Lawmaking requires an intimate knowledge of how laws work on the ground. This is why so many lawyers make good politicians. They know how laws actually work and can levy that experience into making good laws.

Good thing presidents don't write laws.

No, but they'd still need to have extensive knowledge and experience with matters pertaining to the law, as they shape the legislative agenda of their party at the federal level and negotiate with Congress about budgets, resolutions, and other legislation.

For all intents and purposes, they'd need to know about as much about the law as members of congress and other legislators do.

I suppose I should correct myself. Several presidents in recent history didn't know as much about the law as legislators often do. Reagan was among them; he didn't go to law school.

Still, he was an experienced politician with gubernatorial experience, which makes up for the lack of legal experience he had. A modern president could leave the complicated legal details to his cabinet, staffers, and administration. Still, ignorance of the law is a massive disadvantage to a president these days. President Obama has a j.d. degree. Regardless of how one feels about him and the job he's done, it can't be denied by any reasonable person that his legal experience makes his job as president at least somewhat easier.

At 7/25/14 02:59 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/25/14 12:09 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

Lawmaking requires an intimate knowledge of how laws work on the ground. This is why so many lawyers make good politicians. They know how laws actually work and can levy that experience into making good laws.

Good thing presidents don't write laws.

No, but they'd still need to have extensive knowledge and experience with matters pertaining to the law, as they shape the legislative agenda of their party at the federal level and negotiate with Congress about budgets, resolutions, and other legislation.

For all intents and purposes, they'd need to know about as much about the law as members of congress and other legislators do.

Then again, as often as laws are thrown out by the courts as unconstitutional, I have to ponder this assertion that lawmakes have an intimate knowledge of the laws and constitution.

They do. The overwhelming majority of the laws they write are firmly grounded in constitutional law. Legislation that is ruled to be unconstitutional is the exception, not the rule. The people who write them are, as Camarohusky said, often lawyers or otherwise have extensive knowledge of the law, so their legal expertise really shouldn't be questioned, even if they make mistakes from time to time. Experts in all fields make mistakes from time to time.

Of course, I also have to ponder the assertion that judges have this knowledge as well.

All judges have j.d. degrees and many probably have doctorates. So it can be said that their knowledge of the law is indisputable.

Besides, if they don't know what the law is, then who does?

I agree. I like to think that my views on the subject are nuanced, though. I will admit that I am more inclined to criticize Israel as liberals often do, and because I myself am a liberal, but I acknowledge that the Palestinians aren't merely innocent people who are oppressed by big bad Israel. My main gripe is that the American media is so shamelessly pro-Israel that it's not even funny. Also, Israel has a history of committing war crimes against the Palestinians, which is obviously immoral and needs to stop.

Also, another problem with having discussions about Israel is that far too many Jewish people interpret criticisms of Israeli policies or the existence of Israel as a political entity as inherently anti-semitic in nature, which is fucking ridiculous. It's like saying that criticizing an African country's government policies means that you hate black people or something. People who conflate criticism of the existence of Israel or its governmental policies with anti-semitism deprive the word of its meaning and thereby cheapen it, making it harder for others to take actual instances of anti-semitism seriously.

I had lunch with my older sister at a fast food place a couple of days ago and when we were talking about what Israel was doing to the Palestinians in the recent conflict, I said "I hate Israel" in frustration. She told me to quiet down, implying that someone within earshot might accuse me of being an anti-semite and make a scene. It goes to show much of a problem it is to even engage in rational discourse about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

At 7/25/14 05:53 AM, 24901miles wrote: Burning the midnight oil?

Nah. I just sleep late.

I just completed jury duty for the first time on Wednesday. It was a criminal trial that lasted for about a week. The defendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and making criminal threats. He stabbed his sister(Yes, you read that right) two times with a pair of scissors and was accused of making death threats to her in the process of this stabbing.

All 12 of us jurors found him guilty of assault with a deadly weapon but we were deadlocked on the criminal threats count because we were not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he had made any threats to her, including in the letters he sent to the victim after the assault that were presented to us as evidence.

We weren't present to see what sentence he'd get from the judge, but based on his past criminal record(This guy committed robbery, assault, possessed and sold drugs in the past) and based on the likelihood that this would be his third strike under California state law, he'll probably get at least 20~25 years or maybe even life without possibility of parole.

My jury service was very interesting and has been very informative for many reasons. Among them is the fact that the evidence presented to you can be interpreted very differently if you keep examining it. At first, I thought the defendant was very obviously guilty of making criminal threats, but after examining the evidence, I, along with several other jurors, began to doubt it. Furthermore, some evidence in a trial may not be publicly available to the media, as I believe the case was with the George Zimmerman and Casey Anthony trials. The jurors in those controversial trials had to unanimously agree that those two people were innocent of the charges leveled against them, and I'm now more inclined to believe that they did so for good reason.

Also, not only did they have access to evidence not known to the public, but they had to consider whether the defendant committed the crime that he/she was accused of committing. Take George Zimmerman, for example. My opinion of his trial has changed somewhat because I better understand why the jury may not have convicted him. He was accused of 2nd degree murder, and although I believe that what he did was wrong and that he should've been punished for it, I'm not sure that he deserved to be convicted on that charge. Perhaps manslaughter would be more appropriate. I'm sure the jurors would agree, but they, in all likelihood, did the right thing by not convicting Zimmerman a charge that was this serious. If offered the charge of manslaughter instead, they might have convicted him on that.

The prosecution did something similar to this in the case that I was on, too. They charged him with making criminal threats, which, in California, means(I'm paraphrasing here) that one is making a clear and unconditional threat on someone's life or threatening to seriously harm them. The supposedly threatening letters I read were used as evidence of this charge, but reading through them, I found that the defendant merely meant to intimidate the victim and discourage her from taking him to court over this incident and not that they contained death threats.

I'm glad that I was selected to play a small but important role in the justice system. Everyone should do it at least once. It can change your perspective on the law and on celebrity trials that everyone thinks should end with an obvious verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty." Things look very different when you go into that jury deliberation room. Trust me.

At 7/25/14 12:17 AM, TheKlown wrote: The people are done with the corrupt career politicians.

Way to completely disregard Camarohusky's argument there, buddy.

At 7/23/14 11:37 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Only the Light can save this world!!

Watch out for this guy. He's my archenemy.

At 7/23/14 09:58 PM, Th-e wrote:

At 7/23/14 06:27 PM, Light wrote: In just about every sense of the word, the world is a better place now than it was years ago. Less crime today(For the most part), poverty, war, and so on than ever before.

The world is actually improving for the most part, believe it or not.

Wait, what?

Radical Muslims took over much of Iraq and Syria, and nobody is taking any real action against them. With Westerners joining the Islamic State cause, future terrorist attacks on the U.S. and Europe are all but certain. This could be 9/11 times 100.

You have to understand that I'm speaking in generalities. I'm not saying that every place in the world has improved considerably in most aspects, but most have improved a great deal in many areas.

You can name all the exceptions that you want, but factually speaking, what I'm saying can't be disputed. Less people in the world today live in extreme poverty and poverty in general than they did just 20 years ago. More people are healthier than ever(In the sense at least, that they can afford to eat more food now. After a certain point, obesity becomes a problem, but the point stands—I think I'd rather have to deal with obesity than starvation). As more countries become wealthier, crime rates go down and standards of living go up all over the world. Scientific innovation is facilitating and enhancing these achievements and together, these advances create a positive feedback loop that creates more wealth and prosperity for all, along with appropriate government regulation, of course.

The Human Development Index is a metric that's used to measure such standards of living, and in that regard, the world is doing better now than it was decades ago and will continue to improve for the foreseeable future.

Boko Haram is working its way into taking over Nigeria. Massacres of Christians there are occurring DAILY, and the government (which is corrupt, BTW) can't do anything about it. Boko Haram is the IS of Nigeria, and just as brutal.

I don't want to dismiss the seriousness of this issue, but it's worth noting that this kind of thing was more common in the past

Russia and pro-Russian rebels continue their hold on Ukraine, and their activity has cost the lives of 298 innocent people that have nothing to do with this crisis. And it looks like nobody is going to take action against Russia or the rebels. Economic dependency is high...

I'd rather deal with Russia's shenanigans in 2014 than with the Soviet Union's during the Cold War. You can't honestly tell me that what Russia's doing now compares to the danger it posed to individual countries as the Soviet Union.

I feel that I'm going to have to reiterate this so as to avoid misunderstanding on your part: I don't believe the world is better in absolutely every sense of the word now than it was in the past, but for the most part, it is.

Central America has been overrun by drug cartels. Children are fleeing on their own...

That's unfortunate. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone in Latin America who'd honestly say that life in their part of the world was so much better in the past. On the whole, they have higher standards of living now than they did back then. This is empirically measurable and beyond debate.

Meanwhile, in the United States...
- The economy continues to stagnate. And things could get worse soon. The Obama administration policies are driving big corporations out of the country due to the excessive corporate tax and the use of penalties for companies using these inversion practices.

lol, wow.

You actually think corporations are being oppressed by excessively high corporate taxes. You do realize that most of them illegally avoid paying taxes in the first place, right?

I've never seen someone stick up for those poor little corporations that are just trying so hard to make money in America before.

- Chicago shootings have become so frequent that Baghdad is safer by comparison. In fact, people are nicknaming the city Chiraq!

Good point, but overall, gun violence in the U.S. has been going down for ~20 years now, so this doesn't really refute my point about the world becoming a safer place to live as time passes.

- Detroit is having mass water shutoffs to people there, even if they can't afford to pay for their water. This actually caused the UN to intervene! And I don't think any of the major media networks (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News) are covering it at all. Detromolia, anyone?

I haven't read too much about this issue, so I feel that I can't really express an informed opinion on the matter.

Still, the standard of living in the U.S. is, on the whole, higher now than it was in the past, even if it may have stagnated in recent years. You're just pointing out exceptions to the rule. Exceptions don't refute anything.

- Due to the Central America drug cartels and children fleeing, we have a new border crisis. Nobody is protecting the border, and we have Islamists taking advantage of these openings.

lol, have we actually caught any terrorists across the border? Please, tell me.

- And just wait until the big corporations take over the Internet, destroying Net Neutrality, and the 99% end up on the slow lane.

So you argue for less government regulation of corporations in one area, and a lot more in another? lol, OK.

The world isn't getting better. It's falling apart as we speak.

No it's fucking not. Don't be melodramatic. The world is way more stable than you give it credit for.

I don't believe it can be saved. Perhaps it will become an Orwellian world. Or maybe Islamists will take over, as they are doing in parts of Africa and the Middle East. But those who actually embrace democracy have hidden themselves away. Today, we don't fight. We just lie down and take our beatings.

It's that kind of attitude that makes it hard to maintain progress.

In just about every sense of the word, the world is a better place now than it was years ago. Less crime today(For the most part), poverty, war, and so on than ever before.

The world is actually improving for the most part, believe it or not.

At 7/20/14 09:59 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/18/14 03:15 PM, SnakyDragon wrote: I beg to differ. I think that Atheism is the belief that there is nothing, not that believing in something is wrong.

There's a difference between no belief and belief in nothing. No belief means that you do not have ANY views on religion. This is the benign group that you try to lump under atheism. Belief in nothing means you have an active belief that there is nothing, which is at least a passive way of saying all those with belief are wrong.

To be fair, those who claim that there is no god and those who don't make claims either way but withhold belief in god are all atheists. However, the ones who don't make any affirmative claims about the existence of god or nonexistence thereof and withhold belief in a god are known as"weak atheists." Those who believe there is no god are "strong atheists."

The more reasonable position is weak atheism.

At 7/15/14 11:12 PM, Entice wrote:

At 7/15/14 10:23 PM, Light wrote: Are you being serious or jocular with that historical reference? Do you think Japan's recent decision to lift the restrictions on its defense forces is malicious in nature?

Oh no I wasn't being serious
I find that name kind of amusing

It is pretty funny. I mean, the name is a perfect example of propaganda, and a really good example of a clichéd one at that.

You know, I would be in support of an official thread on this forum where we can post political cartoons we find to be particularly insightful(Or repugnant) and discuss their meaning and why we agree/disagree with them, assuming that the mods are OK with it. Who agrees?

At 7/15/14 04:51 PM, Entice wrote: I'm just glad they can finally begin to reunify the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere

Are you being serious or jocular with that historical reference? Do you think Japan's recent decision to lift the restrictions on its defense forces is malicious in nature?

As @Korriken said earlier, some hardcore Richard Dawkins-type atheists make the rest of us look bad. But I don't think that's the only reason.

People tend to be uncomfortable with certain groups of people that they aren't knowingly exposed to on a frequent basis. Since only a low percentage of the American population identifies as atheists, naturally, people will be suspicious of them as they probably know few, if any atheists and can only imagine what most of them are like. They tend to believe atheists are godless heathens who don't give a shit about other people or something, which is patently untrue.

This is why support for gay marriage wasn't very popular up until several years ago. Most people did not know of any openly gay people and just assumed they were perverted pedophiles with a "homosexual agenda" to impose upon their vulnerable children or some dumb shit like that. As more and more people have come to know someone in their lives who's gay, they find that they are just like everybody else, except that they are attracted to members of the same sex.

I strongly believe that as America becomes more secular and as more atheists "come out of the closet", in a sense, to their family members and friends, people will become far more accepting of them. I wouldn't be surprised at all if an atheist was elected President of the United States in my lifetime.

At 7/14/14 06:25 PM, Korriken wrote:

Jim shrugs his shoulders and figures he can find a new job. Jim fills out applications and each time the foreman is contacted about Jim, he tells the potential employer about the day he was fired. Weeks pass and Jim doesn't receive any replies for a job because the foreman tells the employers about Jim's racism and the employers realize Jim could be a liability.

In essence, Jim's culture costs him dearly because he was raised to believe that positions of authority are reserved for whites.

You do make good points, but I feel that this hypothetical person's culture was influenced, ultimately, by the forces of classism.

He's a redneck from some small hillbilly town that doesn't like blacks. OK. The thing is, though, most, if not all rednecks aren't exactly middle or upper class people who enjoy financial stability. They're working-class at best and impoverished at worst. These people are, in my opinion, economically oppressed and need to be uplifted from that shitty environment.

It's also worth noting that those who are poorer happen to have lower IQs than those who are wealthier. Funnily enough, low IQ increases the likelihood of being a racist. There's a reason that the overwhelming majority of racists you see on television and in real life don't come off as very intelligent. I can provide links to studies supporting my claims if you wish.

Ultimately, if they were more financially secure, I think there'd be a trickle-down effect and they'd be less racist. I'm not saying that all poor people are racist(I'm pretty poor, though financially stable, and I consider myself very accepting of all races) and all wealthier people are not, but statistically, being poor can indirectly make you more racist. My mom, for example, hates to admit this, but she's kind of a racist. She's expressed suspicion of my friends and asks if they're black or hispanic. I fucking hate her ignorance, but I don't attribute it to her culture. She's that way because she's an uneducated immigrant who didn't even go to high school. Personally, I doubt her IQ is higher than 85 or 90 because of the very little education she's received in her life. Her IQ is probably around 80. In any case, I think her intelligence is what makes her a racist.

I'm not saying that the culture in which your example person lives is not a problem; it is. What I am saying is that trying to improve the culture directly is only applying a band-aid to the problem. You have to get at the source, which, I believe, is the severe poverty in which many people like your example live in.

This is also why I think some parts of black culture(Not all) don't really emphasize success in school and the like. Lots of black people live in crushing poverty. Living in Los Angeles, I've seen how badly impoverished inner-city black people really are. Visiting those neighborhoods in South L.A. is fucking depressing. In that kind of environment, poverty is rampant and you can bet that it makes it much, much more difficult for them to succeed in school and in life because of it. Black people have, on average, lower IQs than white people, but it's not because they're black, but because they're much more likely to be poor. A lower IQ makes everything in life harder; it decreases your chances of doing well in school, making good money. It increases the chances that teen pregnancy will occur, and even makes one more likely to commit violent crime. Again, I can provide links to the studies supporting what I've said here if you wish.

Blacks, like rednecks, are not in the shitty situation they're in because their culture is awful, but because they're very poor. Culture is a problem, I agree, but it's intertwined with the socioeconomic statuses of those who are a part of that culture. Rich people have a different culture, to some degree, than those in the middle class, and those in the middle class have a different culture than those who are poor.