Are you objective?

quote:

---

Percy
How people see immigration depends upon whether they're members of the majority race in their country.

---

quote:

---

Genomicus
Percy did not specify HOW members of the majority see immigration, only that it's a factor in shaping their convictions on that matter. There is a large body of evidence that the majority race tends to see immigration in a different light than those who are minority races. Percy's statement is wholly correct.
That's another thing about being objective: actually examining what is said instead of what you think was said or meant

---

In post 20 I showed (with links) a recent Pew study

quote:

---

Blacks view newcomers to the United States as more of a threat to American values (61%) than do whites (48%), while very few Hispanics (29%) express this view.

---

You responded with polls (albeit old) showing mostly policy positions (as opposed to attitudes)

quote:

---

Genomicus

​

Two points:

​

1. You're picking and choosing what data to present to the EvC audience. Consider the following data gathered in 2006:

​

a. 34% of whites believe that immigrants significantly increase crime, as opposed to 26% of blacks.

​

b. 67% of whites believe that (presumably undocumented) immigrant children should be allowed to attend public schools, while 79% of blacks support this.

​

c. 59% of whites believe that undocumented immigrants should be required to "go back to where they came from," as opposed to 47% of blacks.

---

I responded

quote:

---

LNA
This question (from 2006 btw) is not specific as to HOW to make them go back. (remember the "self-deportation" stumbling block Romney had to deal with) When it comes to deportation, the response is different. Ted Cruz is going to have trouble explaining how he is against "amnesty" when he seems to be against forced-deportation.

---

You responded

quote:

---

Genomicus
You're moving the goalposts. We're not discussing only issues about HOW undocumented immigrants should go back (of course, any ethical person wouldn't adapt this viewpoint in the first place, but I digress). We're discussing the broad topic of black and African-American attitudes towards immigration, which you called Percy out on despite the fact that OP made no errors in making the statement about majority race.

​

Lamark New Age
"When it comes to deportation, the response is different."

​

Genomicus
My point exactly. We're discussing the broad spectrum of racial views on immigration, while you were just picking and choosing select data.

---

I think my polls were relevant to the "How people SEE immigration" of the OP (caps added by me).
My poll shoed "Blacks viewed newcomers to the United States as more of a threat to American values ...than do whites"You posted 2 policy views (including one nebulous one) and one general attitude view. One policy view showed the vast majority of blacks and whites agreeing with what would be considered "pro-immigration" policy. The general attitude poll showed the vast majority of blacks and whites disagreeing that immigrants significantly increase crime, thus somewhat of a "pro immigration" attitude from both on the crime issue.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Since, gun control advocates are only worried about the relatively few human deaths, at the hand of guns, then it sounds really illogical to put it on par with the enormous issue of climate change.If the goal is to ban rifles and projectiles which kill animals, then one might be able to compare it to the acidification of the oceans and the extinction. It's still a stretch though.Gun control is a pet political issue for the left. Just a convenient "culture war" issue.

You quoted me saying this.
"Whites (as a whole) are the least nationalistic people in the world - especially in western-Europe."

quote:

---

Really? In Africa many nation states are artificial are don't reflect the actual ethno-linguistic groups that live there, hence people don't tend to be attached to their country. Where as Europe actually has a tradition of nationalistic philosophies and has possessed some of the most violently nationalist societies the world has ever seen.

---

Western Europe made quite a change after World War 2. Germany went from hyper-nationalism during WW2 to being the greatest anti-nationalist force in the world today. Though the issue is considerably more complex than even calling Nazi Germany "nationalistic" because the policy of nationalism was the Nazi policy within Europe. Outside of the "white" world, post WW1 Germany is seen as a victim of European imperialism and WW2 Germany is seen as more supportive of local populations than the awful British Empire.
Morocco has been trying since 1987 to become a member of the EU and they have improved human rights considerably to meet the standards. I hope they eventually get let in.
Gadaffi of Libya made an (amazing set of) effort(s) first at a pan-Arab state, then he gave up and attempted to set up an African unification. He encouraged light-skinned Libyans to selectively marry black spouses and vice versa.

quote:

---

Also, I find this idea of "whites" as a people a bit silly. I mean I don't think Spanish people and Georgians are that close culturally. Across Europe people speak several different languages and have very different cultures.

---

Georgia isn't part of the European Union for starters. And eastern Europeans that are part of the European Union would turn against it if lots of poor EU citizens from the west migrated east. The migration seems to be 1 way (though immigrants don't stay put but happily return home if both the economic and the border situation allows). the anti-nationalist feelings are strongest in the west for sure.

quote:

---

Since you mentioned Western Europe, I know many people in France, the UK, Ireland, Germany, e.t.c. often see second-generation African immigrants as basically French, British, Irish, e.t.c. where as a Polish guy would be Polish. I've never really seen this "white" culture or people.

---

Good. Then that backs up my point.One a side note, the Scottish Nationalist Party actually isn't "nationalist". They favor remaining members of the EU (hence European citizenship and migration rights with what would be 28 other countries), and infact have said that the U.K. Independent Party (a true nationalist party) having its way - leaving the EU - would guarantee a split from the U.K. so they could remain part of Europe. If that sounds ironic, then consider the Balkan situation: Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina are trying to become the 29th EU member state (and 30th when 1 follows the other). After the ethnic-cleansing from all sides, it is really ironic that they will become members of a larger open-border entity.

From your OP. Here is the original quote in its entire context.

quote:

---

Are you objective?
Of course you are! And probably above average, too!

​

In today's New York Times Editorialist Neil Irwin comments that in his experience people's economic views depend upon whether their party is in power. We've seen it all before here. How people see evolution depends upon their religion. How people see immigration depends upon whether they're members of the majority race in their country. How people view gun control depends upon whether they own guns. And so on.

​

Those of us with entrenched beliefs (that would be all of us, in case there's any doubt) must always be ready and willing to make sure those beliefs are supported by the data. And we must also be willing to give serious consideration to accusations, as upsetting as they may be, that we are distorting the data or its interpretation to suit our purposes.

​

Irwin goes on to describe the reason for the editorial, the results of a study showing that if you reward people for their answer they become less partisan. As he puts it:

​

quote:
"The paper by Mr. Bullock, Alan S. Gerber, Seth J. Hill and Gregory A. Huber found that offering a $1 payment for a correct response and a 33-cent payment for an answer of 'Don’t know' eliminated the entire partisan gap between Democrats and Republicans on questions about the economy."

​

So we *can* be less partisan if we want, but most people need a little motivation. Or maybe the payment made them consider the questions more seriously (in the sense that they think about the questions instead of how they can get rid of this inquisitive bloke).

---

How anybody can say that you weren't describing whites as the most anti-immigration people in the USA is beyond me. "But he was just using this as a poor argument" and "but this isn't really the topic anyway" and "but you aren't objective if you think Percy was really saying that being 'white' is often the dichotomy between how you should see immigration and how things really are in the real world"."Stop displaying a lack of objectivity""And this really isn't the topic anyway"Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

How people see evolution depends upon their religion.

---

In what way?
Please show me the dichotomy.

quote:

---

How people view gun control depends upon whether they own guns. And so on.

---

Forget about the "so on" part.Show me the dichotomy you are thinking of. And the specific issue.

quote:

---

How people see immigration depends upon whether they're members of the majority race in their country.

---

Show me the dichotomy. Never mind, I have it here.6-4-12 V #92a | Pew Research Center"The growing number of newcomers threaten traditional American values" Agree or disagree? 48% of whites agree and 46% disagree. The national average was 47% agree and 48% disagree.Tell us how each group lacks objectivity so we can understand your point.

quote:

---

Before you can be objective you at least have to get things right.

---

O.k. then.(above post was supposed to be a response to #56 or OP not 57)

I want to see exactly what he is talking about.He used three issue examples in the OP complete with 2 different sides to each issue.I want to see how he can correct the objectivity of each group.But first he can show us how each side lacks objectivity.See #59Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Percy
How people view gun control depends upon whether they own guns. And so on.

---

quote:

---

Percy

​

LNA said
"Forget about the 'so on' part."

​

Forget about the "so on" part? You do realize that "and so on" is a synonym for "et cetera," right?

---

You seem to want to forget you said anything at all.

I put "prayer in school removed" into the bing.com search engine.prayer in school removed - Searchhit #2 was creationtoday.org site with "Prayer in School Affects all of Society. ... Since prayer was removed from public school classrooms in 1962, we have had a six-fold increase in violent crime, ..." in cache
(or the only cache our nihilistic courts allow anymore with the tyrannical copyright laws and decisions)These have been common claims for decades.It's interesting because since detailed homicide records were kept since 1963, year after year in recent times(up till about 2014) has shown the per capita murder rate to drop nationwide to "the lowest level since records were kept" (i.e. lower than the school prayer year). In New York City the absolute # of murders have fallen from about 3,000 per year in 1980 down to around 400 per year now. And the per capita rate is more impressive since the population rose from 7 million to 8.3 million. Additionally, the minority population went from around 33% (?) in 1980 up to about 57% in 2014, so it shot down any ideas that "murders increase as the white population decreases".The numbers have contradicted that common claim that removing school prayer equals more murders.New York has a lot of gun control so will gun control advocates use that city to support their pre-conceived views? I wouldn't doubt it.Be careful when people use X to prove Y. That might work for a while (like the school prayer chorus using the murder rate in the 70s and 80s) and in some corners or the universe. But the situation can change rather dramatically as time moves forward and in different locals.