Quote:
|
You stated that a conclusion drawn from an inferrence drawn from another inferrence is somehow laudable - when the results state that "whites" - aka non-blacks - are racist.
|
Yet it doesn't state that at all
Is there anything Haplo can come up with on this that will stand at all?
Quote:
Oh - and as for the "methods" being very good - even the writer admits one of my points:
"Throughout this paper I refer to non-blacks, including Hispanics and Asians, rather imprecisely, as whites. *A footnote attached to the paper.
|
Precisely define whites
More importantly define it in a way that excludes both hispanics and asians.
Even better, define it in a way that also excludes africans.
Why does the objectation over a problem of identification seemingly by pigmentation make an unsavoury implication about the people making the issue?
Perhaps the next study could add those sort of people to the ones which object to "inter-racial marriage" to give a better regional breakdown for comparing the figures.
Quote:
|
Fact: "Research" claiming that a significant portion of "white" America is racist is released by a left leaning researcher with a connection to Team Obama.
|
Good point, it wouldn't take "research" or even much research. It is an undeniable fact that a significant proportion of people are racists