Random News Observations

[digitalmonkey 929]

George Zimmerman is white?

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

Scram has a point. I have many friends tht are cops and all they see is the worst of it, and they become seriously jaded.

 

 

Brv, you keep talking race and showing your ass. C'mon guy, step up

[brvheart 1,752]

I hate you for making me read all your posts a second time. I'm still not sure what you're talking about.

 

My only point is that black people have to deal with other people, including cops (especially cops?), being nervous around them for no reason. To be suspicious of them. How would you feel if you're walking in your neighborhood and somebody calls the cops on you and you have to wait for the cops to arrive to explain to them that you're walking in your neighborhood and then being told that maybe you should just go home because you're making people nervous?

 

Read this:

 

http://nymag.com/dai...-aint-shit.html

 

 

For me, the interesting thing about this case isn't the legal details, it's the underlying attitudes about what should or shouldn't have happened.

 

Agreed with everything you wrote. Sorry for making you care about me.

[brvheart 1,752]

Brv, you keep talking race and showing your ass. C'mon guy, step up

 

Again. No idea what you're talking about. But I still love you. I'm watching my mailbox for that wedding invite.

[AmScray 355]

The problem with the "that's just the way things are" argument is that you don't know whether that attitude is WHY things are that way.

 

That the reason blacks commit more crimes than whites and are generally a more obnoxious, misbehaved and dangerous group of people is because cops treat them like shit?

 

I'm sure it's somewhere in the Big Book of Equality Excuses but it doesn't withstand scruitiny.

 

If you want to know why cops- including black cops- treat blacks differently than whites during stops, here.

 

http://tunein.com/ra...Scanner-s95537/

 

That way, we negate the "courts are bias" bullshit excuse since that's happening in real time, in a city that's basically 30% Black, 30% White, 30% Hispanic, 10% "Other". Listen to that for a few days, then get back to me.

 

I'm unapologetically politically incorrect, definitely racist by the standards of most people. I'm not this way because of 'skin color'. I'm this way because I live in what you hear in that link. You will find, without exception, that those most in favor of delusional concepts of 'equality' are the furthest removed from the practical manifestation of their own ideals.

[NickCave 194]

That the reason blacks commit more crimes than whites and are generally a more obnoxious, misbehaved and dangerous group of people is because cops treat them like shit?

 

I don't grant your premise, but as to your question, yes, that explains a large part of it, but it isn't just law enforcement. Institutional and societal racism is more subversive than, I dunno, Rodney King. If you tell somebody "you are not good at math" he will instantly score lower on a math test. It's similar with being a minority. I'm not suggesting it explains all of what you're sure to counter with, but do you disagree that treating somebody worse (at least different) from birth might explain his worse (different) behavior and attitude?

 

I don't care whether you're politically correct or racist. I'm here for the discussion. As long as you're not retarded, which it appears you are not, and understand how logic works, I don't really care about anything else.

[AmScray 355]

I don't grant your premise...

 

Then whatever you say subsequent is on shaky ground.

The premise is sound.

There is no possible criteria upon which we could define any of those things that ultimately, wouldn't come down as being against blacks-at-large.

The problem is even if we disregard the hard math (which itself does not lie) and instread, go down the 'root causes' rabbit hole, the empiracal stuff- that itself is just as relevant- relies on life experience. It's just too easily dismissed by idealists, so you get in this bizarro-world debate where you're having to 'prove' that black neighborhoods are statistically dirtier than white neighborhoods, to someone who seriously doesn't believe (or their idealism has overwhelmed their cognition) it to be true, or that Canadian Asians and American Blacks are a mutually substitutable since they're both statistical 'minorities'.

 

It's a dumb debate to even bother having when the entire premise of reality is rejected from the outset.

 

but do you disagree that treating somebody worse (at least different) from birth might explain his worse (different) behavior and attitude?

 

No, I don't disagree with that. It's definitely a negative feedback loop. The root causes the problem, the problem feeds the root.

[brvheart 1,752]

Whoa, I listened to that for about 20 minutes, and I didn't hear anything but calls about young black males. I'm just assuming that's because that link is only for downtown or something.

[AmScray 355]

I'm just assuming that's because that link is only for downtown or something.

 

No.

[NickCave 194]

Then whatever you say subsequent is on shaky ground.

The premise is sound.

There is no possible criteria upon which we could define any of those things that ultimately, wouldn't come down as being against blacks-at-large.

The problem is even if we disregard the hard math (which itself does not lie) and instread, go down the 'root causes' rabbit hole, the empiracal stuff- that itself is just as relevant- relies on life experience. It's just too easily dismissed by idealists, so you get in this bizarro-world debate where you're having to 'prove' that black neighborhoods are statistically dirtier than white neighborhoods, to someone who seriously doesn't believe (or their idealism has overwhelmed their cognition) it to be true, or that Canadian Asians and American Blacks are a mutually substitutable since they're both statistical 'minorities'.

 

It's a dumb debate to even bother having when the entire premise of reality is rejected from the outset.

 

 

 

No, I don't disagree with that. It's definitely a negative feedback loop. The root causes the problem, the problem feeds the root.

 

Fair enough, we don't have to have the debate. I'm not super well educated on any of this anyway. I'm not irrationally idealistic, but I am uninformed. I'm not super-attached to any position.

 

As for the second bolded point, (shrug) if we admit that there's a negative feedback loop, I don't know how we can still point to something else as the "real" cause of dysfunction with any real confidence.

 

Do you think black people are genetically predisposed to being assholes? Or do you think it's cultural?

[AmScray 355]

Do you think black people are genetically predisposed to being assholes? Or do you think it's cultural?

 

It's definitely cultural, but now we're getting into the unpopular science of heredity, intelligence and race, what role intelligence plays in behavior and what role race plays in intelligence. Its usually better to have that discussion in the context of Jews and significantly higher IQ than it is blacks and significantly lower IQ, since there's a lot less intellectual stonewalling.

[brvheart 1,752]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, Scram, but I have a question.

 

Let's say your premise is sound, and you could get a legitimate scientific community that would be willing to study AND publish their findings that because of evolution, it's logically impossible to assume that all races are the same, and in fact, blacks people have inferior IQ's.

 

At least I think that's kindof your premise. (Obviously, I doubt a respected scientific community would touch this topic, and you would probably point out that it would be because they already know the answer and are unwilling to publish. whatever. If I'm wrong, please adjust it.)

 

 

As a Christian creationist, I'm a little exempted from the premise. No? Anyone who's an evolutionist MUST take a hard look at what you're saying. But a creationist can take another path, especially if that person was a young earth creationist, like BG. Instead of inherent flaws in a race, I could start with the premise that the differences could be 100% cultural.

 

This almost certainly makes no sense.

[Cha! Cha! 628]

This almost certainly makes no sense.

 

This was the part of your post that I "liked."

[AmScray 355]

As a Christian creationist, I'm a little exempted from the premise. No? Anyone who's an evolutionist MUST take a hard look at what you're saying. But a creationist can take another path, especially if that person was a young earth creationist, like BG. Instead of inherent flaws in a race, I could start with the premise that the differences could be 100% cultural.

 

No, it's actually 100% correct.

 

You believe we were created out of fairy dust by a magical man in the clouds. On this basis, anything is possible and if your dogmas say that he created us 'equally' then by god, that's how it is.

 

The scientific race and intelligence debate, however, is a very well worn path so it's no point retreading it in detail when there's only like 10 people on this site but safe to say, heredity is the basis for basically everything you are. Race and heredity have interesting and fully demonstrable macro implications. For example, disease. The Darwin factor is the single greatest arbiter of heredity over an arc of time there is, favoring certain traits, removing others.

 

The idealists get off the wagon at IQ since it's such a hot button issue but there are a few academic types with the courage to step up. Consider this; we're entering a world of incredible possibility when it comes to studying the human brain, the last frontier of medical understanding. One of the first studies addressing race and the brain wasn't the most logical one: Get (X) healthy participants from groups 1,2,3,4,5 and scan them.

 

No, it was using fMRI to see if we could 'detect racISM' in the brain. Surprise surprise, it discovered the essentially involuntary, Darwinian basis for disquiet when among those not of ones own kind.

 

The idealogy here is entirely overwhelming inquiry into the facts. Human beings have a very consistent history of letting their ideals subsume scientific inquiry, doesn't matter if it's the Church and Gallelieo or modern day studies on the implications of biological differences on intellignce and behavior. We're a species that hates the truth when the truth is something uncomfortable.

[colonel Feathers 5]

Interesting fact....JP Morgan protested the building of the statue of liberty, cause he feared the idea of liberty would cause unrest among the nations underclass,or untermenschen, if you prefer. Cheers to fellow chase acct holders.

[colonel Feathers 5]

No, it's actually 100% correct.

 

You believe we were created out of fairy dust by a magical man in the clouds. On this basis, anything is possible and if your dogmas say that he created us 'equally' then by god, that's how it is.

 

The scientific race and intelligence debate, however, is a very well worn path so it's no point retreading it in detail when there's only like 10 people on this site but safe to say, heredity is the basis for basically everything you are. Race and heredity have interesting and fully demonstrable macro implications. For example, disease. The Darwin factor is the single greatest arbiter of heredity over an arc of time there is, favoring certain traits, removing others.

 

The idealists get off the wagon at IQ since it's such a hot button issue but there are a few academic types with the courage to step up. Consider this; we're entering a world of incredible possibility when it comes to studying the human brain, the last frontier of medical understanding. One of the first studies addressing race and the brain wasn't the most logical one: Get (X) healthy participants from groups 1,2,3,4,5 and scan them.

 

No, it was using fMRI to see if we could 'detect racISM' in the brain. Surprise surprise, it discovered the essentially involuntary, Darwinian basis for disquiet when among those not of ones own kind.

 

The idealogy here is entirely overwhelming inquiry into the facts. Human beings have a very consistent history of letting their ideals subsume scientific inquiry, doesn't matter if it's the Church and Gallelieo or modern day studies on the implications of biological differences on intellignce and behavior. We're a species that hates the truth when the truth is something uncomfortable.

If you ever publish a newsletter, sign me up.

[brvheart 1,752]

No, it's actually 100% correct.

 

You believe we were created out of fairy dust by a magical man in the clouds. On this basis, anything is possible and if your dogmas say that he created us 'equally' then by god, that's how it is.

 

The scientific race and intelligence debate, however, is a very well worn path so it's no point retreading it in detail when there's only like 10 people on this site but safe to say, heredity is the basis for basically everything you are. Race and heredity have interesting and fully demonstrable macro implications. For example, disease. The Darwin factor is the single greatest arbiter of heredity over an arc of time there is, favoring certain traits, removing others.

 

The idealists get off the wagon at IQ since it's such a hot button issue but there are a few academic types with the courage to step up. Consider this; we're entering a world of incredible possibility when it comes to studying the human brain, the last frontier of medical understanding. One of the first studies addressing race and the brain wasn't the most logical one: Get (X) healthy participants from groups 1,2,3,4,5 and scan them.

 

No, it was using fMRI to see if we could 'detect racISM' in the brain. Surprise surprise, it discovered the essentially involuntary, Darwinian basis for disquiet when among those not of ones own kind.

 

The idealogy here is entirely overwhelming inquiry into the facts. Human beings have a very consistent history of letting their ideals subsume scientific inquiry, doesn't matter if it's the Church and Gallelieo or modern day studies on the implications of biological differences on intellignce and behavior. We're a species that hates the truth when the truth is something uncomfortable.

 

Excellent. All you evolutionist fools are racists!

 

Also, thanks for the interesting response. You're a very interesting dude. Wanna meet for coffee sometime? I won't even mention Jesus.

[AmScray 355]

Excellent. All you evolutionist fools are racists!

 

Most of them don't realize it, but its really the only logical conclusion.

To presume 'equality' - including cognition- among vastly divergant races with totally different geographic specific selection biases effected over millenia and millenia just because we share a common species is ****ing absurd. It's like saying that a Labrador Retriever has an equal chance of beating a Greyhound in a footrace if you just 'raise it right'.

 

Most people who 'believe' in evoloution don't even really understand what they believe in, especially since it's taken an amusing socio-political alignment whereby left bent types- in their visceral rejection of the institutions of faith- wind up supporting a scientific idea that absolutely demolishes one of their most sacred cows.

 

The tenets of evoloution are most definitely contra to the precepts of 'equality'; one could argue that evoloution at its very core stands in opposition to the idea of 'equality'.

[NickCave 194]

 

 

Most of them don't realize it, but its really the only logical conclusion.

To presume 'equality' - including cognition- among vastly divergant races with totally different geographic specific selection biases effected over millenia and millenia just because we share a common species is ****ing absurd. It's like saying that a Labrador Retriever has an equal chance of beating a Greyhound in a footrace if you just 'raise it right'.

 

Most people who 'believe' in evoloution don't even really understand what they believe in, especially since it's taken an amusing socio-political alignment whereby left bent types- in their visceral rejection of the institutions of faith- wind up supporting a scientific idea that absolutely demolishes one of their most sacred cows.

 

The tenets of evoloution are most definitely contra to the precepts of 'equality'; one could argue that evoloution at its very core stands in opposition to the idea of 'equality'.

 

That comparison is absurd. The Domestic Dog population is waaaay more genetically divergent than the homo sapien population.

 

 

[AmScray 355]

That comparison is absurd. The Domestic Dog population is waaaay more genetically divergent than the homo sapien population.

 

It's not a direct comparison. It's an illustrative example to clarify a common idea.

 

EIther way, there's enough human genetic variety to clearly manifest itself in all manner of deeply meaningful and reliably repeatable ways, including disease, height, bone structure, etc. You can strip all the flesh off a man leaving only a skeleton or drop of blood, modern science has shown us that alone is enough to determine his race.

 

We accept that genetic variety can play a role in intelligence in the animal kingdom but it's magically not the same for man? This is where people have a hard decision to make. It's either equality with God, or the cruelly unfair world of natural selection with all it's obvious biases included.

[JustDoIt 10]

Nate Silver Went Against the Grain for Some at The Times

By MARGARET SULLIVAN

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/nate-silver-went-against-the-grain-for-some-at-the-times/

[FCP Bob 1,312]

He's the gift that keeps on giving

 

http://thedirty.com/2013/07/exclusive-anthony-weiner-sex-messages-post-scandal-with-another-woman-not-huma-abedin/

[FCP Bob 1,312]

The Carlos Danger Name Generator

 

Use our widget to get a name like Anthony Weiner’s alleged sexting pseudonym.

 

 

My new name is Fabricio Dynamite

[Cha! Cha! 628]

Julio Kill

[CaneBrain 95]

Paco Stealth