BigDMcGee 3,354 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 IF you're curious where the bar mitzvah comment came from, it came from here.. I decorate parties for a living, so I do an occasional Bar and Bat Mitzvah so I get to deal with Jewish mothers trying to one up each other with a party for their adorable child.They are not a good representation of the whole culture to be sure at this time of their life.The most 'Jewish' guy I ever met as in acted sterotypical etc was a Jews for Jesus leader. Nicest guy in the world, always appologizing etc.Favorite Jewish joke:Mother buys her son two shirts for his birthday, he goes upstairs and puts one on and comes down to show her. She says: "What? You didn't like the other one?"One of my favorite radio personalities is Bill Handle in Los Angelas, funny guy that really uses his religion as a springboard for great one liners.Israel's army is one of the best in the world, the obvious involvement of God in the 6 Day and Yom Kippur War are amazing, their's is a blessed nation. It is my goal to visit Jerusalem at least once in my life.The Mossad is one of the best as well.Other than that I know some good jews, some bad ones, and some okay ones. I liked the explanation by Barry Farber about why Jewish families value education so much, after centuries of being thrown out of countries, not allowed to own land etc, education was the only thing no one could take from them and they could always take with them. Since Christians couldn't charge usury to another Christian, Jews filled the banker role, which caused them to become wealthy and hated in many Christian countries, which resulted in Christian's atrocities against Jews. Not so much religion, but religion played a part.But Jewish children...the worst. just my experience. Until they turn 13 they are monsters. Go to a hotel where they are celebrating Passover as a group, they Kosher the hotel, and the kids run wild. write on the walls, trash everywhere, throw food. It's mayhem.That's my perception of Jews.Nothing in the closet about your antisemitism. Link to post Share on other sites
scram 1 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 IF you're curious where the bar mitzvah comment came from, it came from here..Nothing in the closet about your antisemitism.There are two kinds of people.Those who form their beliefs based on experience, and those who maintain a belief in some prevailing idealism that dictates what they should and shouldn't believe on any given issue.Often times, the latter are so dogmatic about their idealism that even in the face of evidence that's plain-as-day contrary to their beliefs, they will completely ignore it and rationalize it away. One thing I've found that is absolutely, positively consistent with your virulent "anti racist" crusaders is that they're:1) Young2) Have absolutely no direct, prolonged exposure to the cultures they are so strident about mothering.Idealism is the province of the inexperienced. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,354 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 There are two kinds of people.Those who form their beliefs based on experience, and those who maintain a belief in some prevailing idealism that dictates what they should and shouldn't believe on any given issue.Often times, the latter are so dogmatic about their idealism that even in the face of evidence that's plain-as-day contrary to their beliefs, they will completely ignore it and rationalize it away. One thing I've found that is absolutely, positively consistent with your virulent "anti racist" crusaders is that they're:1) Young2) Have absolutely no direct, prolonged exposure to the cultures they are so strident about mothering.Idealism is the province of the inexperienced.THat is the most disgusting, pseudo-intellectual defense of racism I've ever seen since the bell curve. You keep busting out pearls, man, congratulations. Link to post Share on other sites
scram 1 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 THat is the most disgusting, pseudo-intellectual defense of racism I've ever seen since the bell curve. You keep busting out pearls, man, congratulations.Actually, it was more an indictment of stupid, naive idealists who don't know shit and simply adhere to a philosophy as a surrogate for honest, critical thought and/or experience. That would definitely be you, so I can understand why you might cry about it. But dismissing the Bell Curve?LOL!I love critics of the Bell Curve.They call it false and garbage and bad science (insert tag here) but they cannot refute it with any sort of countering data, other than calling it "racist" and questioning whether we should be asking these questions in the first place (there was actually a very well written column in the NYT that openly admitted this- "Yeh, we can't really argue with the science, but why are we asking these questions?"). I remember a paper that came out of Berkeley (surprise surprise) that was supposed to be the grand answer to the Bell Curve, but it was basically a bunch of shrill, unfounded associations to socioeconomics that have no collinearity with any other legitimate, scientifically established avenue that seeks to measure human intelligence.I sure wish I had a cut&paste of the people who are behind the Bell Curve, a number of whom freely admit that they don't like the result, but cannot argue with the methodology applied in its construction. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,354 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Actually, it was more an indictment of stupid, naive idealists who don't know shit and simply adhere to a philosophy as a surrogate for honest, critical thought and/or experience.But dismissing the Bell Curve?LOL!I love critics of the Bell Curve.They call it false and garbage and bad science (insert tag here) but they cannot refute it with any sort of countering data, other than calling it "racist" and questioning whether we should be asking these questions or not. I remember a paper that came out of Berkeley (surprise surprise) that was supposed to be the grand answer to the Bell Curve, but it was basically a bunch of shrill, unfounded associations to socioeconomics that have no collinearity with any other avenue that seeks to measure human intelligence.Do I really need to bust out the links to dismiss the bell curve? Really? You really think that pile of crap was good science? really really? Link to post Share on other sites
scram 1 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Do I really need to bust out the links to dismiss the bell curve? Really? You really think that pile of crap was good science? really really?The existence of an opposing position doesn't mean anything other than someone disagrees with something someone said.Bust out all the links you wish, however, I can argue the science of the Bell Curve till the cows come home without linking one single time (other than to source a citation) I'd bet a million dollars that you couldn't. You will simply post a link to some rationalist nonsense and declare yourself vindicated.Let me go find that link to the people who insist that WTC was a controlled detonation perpetrated by the Jews.... Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,354 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 They call it false and garbage and bad science (insert tag here) but they cannot refute it with any sort of countering data, other than calling it "racist" and questioning whether we should be asking these questions in the first place (there was actually a very well written column in the NYT that openly admitted this- "Yeh, we can't really argue with the science, but why are we asking these questions?"). I remember a paper that came out of Berkeley (surprise surprise) that was supposed to be the grand answer to the Bell Curve, but it was basically a bunch of shrill, unfounded associations to socioeconomics that have no collinearity with any other legitimate, scientifically established avenue that seeks to measure human intelligence.I sure wish I had a cut&paste of the people who are behind the Bell Curve, a number of whom freely admit that they don't like the result, but cannot argue with the methodology applied in its construction.Okay, I guess you do then.. the American psychological association did extensive study of the bell curve, following the publication of the book. YOu can read the results of that study here...http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jwosbor2/otherfiles/...ntelligence.pdfWhile the APA does support much of the research in the Bell Curve, here is the relevant point of interest...Stalking the Wild Taboo -APA Statement on <cite>The Bell Curve</cite... http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html28 of 40 5/19/2005 5:44 PMThe Genetic Hypothesis. It is sometimes suggested that the Black/ White differential in psychometricintelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point,but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis. Once piece of evidence comes from a study of thechildren of American soldiers stationed in Germany after the Second World War (Eyferth, 1961): there was nomean difference between the test scores of those children whose fathers were White and those whose fatherswere Black. (For a discussion of possible confounds in this study, see Flynn, 1980.) Moreover, several studieshave used blood-group methods to estimate the degree of African ancestry of American Blacks; there were nosignificant correlations between those estimates and IQ scores (Loehlin et al, 1973; Scarr et al, 1977).It is clear (Section III) that genes make a substantial contribution to individual differences in intelligence testscores, at least in the white population. The fact is, however, that the high heritability of a trait within a givengroup has no necessary implications for the source of a difference between groups (Loehlin et al, 1975). This isnow generally understood (e.g., Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). But even though no such implication isnecessary, some have argued that a high value of h2 makes a genetic hypothesis more plausible. Does it?That depends on one's assessment of the actual difference between the two environments. Consider Lewontin's(1970) well-known example of seeds from the same genetically variable stock that are planted in two differentfields. If the plants in field X are fertilized appropriately while key nutrients are withheld from those in field Y,we have produced an entirely environmental group difference. This example works (i.e., h2 is genuinelyirrelevant to the differential between the fields) because the differences between the effective environments ofX and Y are both large and consistent. Are the environmental and cultural situations of American Blacks andWhites also substantially and consistently different - different enough to make this a good analogy? If so, thewithin-group heritability of IQ scores is irrelevant to the issue. Or are those situations similar enough tosuggest that the analogy is inappropriate, and that one can plausibly generalize from within-groupheritabilities? Thus the issue ultimately comes down to a personal judgment: how different are the relevant lifeexperiences of Whites and Blacks in the United States today? At present, this question has no scientific answer.So, is the APA to much of a radically leftist organization for you, or do I need something from the Heritage foundation? Link to post Share on other sites
scram 1 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!Holy reading comprehension batman! Do you actually understand what was written there, or did you just futilely throw up whatever appeared to most benefit your position, knowing that the peanut gallery wouldn't bother to read it, thus you could create the illusion that your position had some backing to it?Here's a brief rundown of what the above says:"While the source I'm citing does indeed agree with much of the Bell Curve, here's one fragmentary citation that basically concludes that an isolated section of TBC research falls into the "maybe, maybe not" category"Yeh pal, you're on a real fucking roll here. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,354 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 The existence of an opposing position doesn't mean anything other than someone disagrees with something someone said.Bust out all the links you wish, however, I can argue the science of the Bell Curve till the cows come home without linking one single time (other than to source a citation).How much of the Mien Kampt can you bust out? Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 So, just out of curiosity, how many combat causualites do you suppose there have been on submarines and aircraft carriers since ww2 ( I don't mean the jet pilots, of course, I mean casualites to men stationed on the carrier, like your son) ? He'll be in much greater danger when he's boat is in port than he will be at sea... or the drive to the military base. Are you really trying to compare the danger your son in law will be in with an infantryman in iraq? Really? Really really? and you call me an idiot. You blather on and on about liberal idiocy, and then pass out cigars, patting servicemen on the back, while you send them to die for fcking nothing, and you deride me because I refuse to go along with your con job. This is "honoring our servicemen?" How about not sending them into foreign wars that do nothing to promote our national defense in the first place... all honors are worthless on a casket, they only alievate the guilt of the living.This is why the rest of us just shake our head..you actually believe you are making sense, when all you are doing is showing how young and naive you are.Interesting note, The deaths in Iraq are par with the peace time death rate of soldier in training, about 1500 a year. It's dangerous making the world safe for idiots like you to pretend you understand life.Honor isn't a word you will understand, maybe ever. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,354 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!Holy reading comprehension batman!"While the source I'm citing does indeed agree with much of the Bell Curve, here's one fragmentary citation that basically concludes that an isolated section of TBC research falls into the "maybe, maybe not" category"Yeh, you're on a real fucking roll here. No, brain master, it completely refutes the salient point... that IQ is correlated genetically by race... That's what we are talking about, right? It's race? Stop me if I'm wrong. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,354 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 This is why the rest of us just shake our head..you actually believe you are making sense, when all you are doing is showing how young and naive you are.Interesting note, The deaths in Iraq are par with the peace time death rate of soldier in training, about 1500 a year. It's dangerous making the world safe for idiots like you to pretend you understand life.Honor isn't a word you will understand, maybe ever.And you do, Chicken hawk? Link to post Share on other sites
scram 1 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 How much of the Mien Kampt can you bust out?Was something I said there in Mien Kampf? Or are you just saying "Mien Kampf" because its yet another catch-all for your wee, associative mind.Now say "ignorant" and "racist", then start dancing around like a Brass Monkey. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,354 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Was something I said there in Mien Kampf? Or are you just saying "Mien Kampf" because its yet another catch-all for your wee, associative mind.Now say "ignorant" and "racist", then start dancing around like a Brass Monkey.No, I"m implying that you're politics border on fascism and eugenics seem to be pet interest of yours, so I just assumed that mien kampf would be right in your wheel house. Link to post Share on other sites
scram 1 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 No, brain master, it completely refutes the salient point... that IQ is correlated genetically by race... That's what we are talking about, right? It's race? Stop me if I'm wrong.Oh my god.Man, I used to give you credit as being at least a bit brighter than most of the people on here even though we disagreed, but sorry. You're officially retarded. If you can't comprehend what was written IN YOUR OWN CITATION, there's absolutely no point in my furthering this. But I will, because it's a weakness of mine. It starts off talking about traits of heritability, and fully acknowledges that heritability exhibits a direct corollary in inherited intelligence amongst white people. It then says that the traits of controlled intra-racial heritability don't imply the difference in intelligence between races (per Loehlin)It says there was no correlation between the IQ scores of African Blacks and American Blacks. It cites botany (per the 'Lewontin Formulation') as the answer to the heredity of human traits (WTF? LMAO)It then concludes that socioeconomics and environmental factors cannot be established as being the impetus behind divergences in intelligence amongst races, or, at least, nothing can be proven one way or the other given the existent body of data that we have at present. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,354 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 It starts off talking about traits of heritability, and fully acknowledges that heritability exhibits a direct corollary in inherited intelligence amongst white people. It then says that the traits of controlled intra-racial heritability don't imply the difference in intelligence between races.You get what that means right?It says there was no correlation between the IQ scores of African Blacks and American Blacks. Wrong.. what it studied was if there was a correlation between IQ scores and the degree of african ancestry (IE the ratio of african ancestry to white ancestry) in american blacks. There wasn't. You get what that means, right?It cites botany as the answer to the heredity of human traits (WTF? LMAO) okay, that was a little random, probably could have clipped off my quote there. Link to post Share on other sites
scram 1 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 You get what that means right?Yes. As I said: a completely isolated and fragmentary precept of the "Bell Curve" that even if it were to be disregarded all together, still wouldn't invalidate the premise. Basically, it proffers a counter-theory to a minuscule precept of the TBC by pointing out the overall corollary between heredity and intelligence, which is fully acknowledged to exist intra-racially, yet it doesn't establish the interracial differences as a matter of default not because it has been "disproved", but because it has been neither proved nor disproved.Wrong.. what it studied was if there was a correlation between IQ scores and the degree of african ancestry (IE the ratio of african ancestry to white ancestry) in american blacks. There wasn't. You get what that means, right?That's kinda what I said, given the assumption that American blacks tend to have white ancestry without much exception. okay, that was a little random, probably could have clipped off my quote there.Yeh. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,354 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 That's kinda what I said, given the assumption that American blacks tend to have white ancestry without much exception.No.. it was a study of American blacks.. a study between American blacks and african blacks wouldn't be useful, since their conditions of life are so dissimilar ( if you think environment has anything to do with IQ scores). A study of american blacks is much more useful... If there is genetic predictor of IQ scores, one would think that americans who's genetics were a higher percentage white would have higher IQ. This does not prove to be the case, which is a pretty damning evidence, IMO. Unless of course, it's melanin itself that dumbs black people down.. Link to post Share on other sites
runthemover 39 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 cat fight! rrraaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwrrrrrthey gonna kiss after? Link to post Share on other sites
solderz 0 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Unless of course, it's melanin itself that dumbs black people down..LOL. So Albino's are the smartest. A ruling class elite with pink eyes and poor visiion. Cool!! Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,354 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 LOL. So Albino's are the smartest. A ruling class elite with pink eyes and poor visiion. Cool!!ahahahaah Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,354 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Honor isn't a word you will understand, maybe ever.I wanted to touch on this further.You know, you're probably right.. because honor is one of those buzzwords, one of those concepts, than men throw around when they want to get other men to kill for them and to die for them. Wars aren't won with honor... they are won with technological advantage, numerical superiority, and by people who have the will to do the most terrible, least "honorable" but most necessary things. Necessity is a concept I'll acknowledge when it comes to war, not honor. You can keep your honor, and I'll keep my breath, thanks anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
fighter 4 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 I wanted to touch on this further.You know, you're probably right.. because honor is one of those buzzwords, one of those concepts, than men throw around when they want to get other men to kill for them and to die for them. Wars aren't won with honor... they are won with technological advantage, numerical superiority, and by people who have the will to do the most terrible, least "honorable" but most necessary things. Necessity is a concept I'll acknowledge when it comes to war, not honor. You can keep your honor, and I'll keep my breath, thanks anyway.QFT Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 I wanted to touch on this further.You know, you're probably right.. because honor is one of those buzzwords, one of those concepts, than men throw around when they want to get other men to kill for them and to die for them. Wars aren't won with honor... they are won with technological advantage, numerical superiority, and by people who have the will to do the most terrible, least "honorable" but most necessary things. Necessity is a concept I'll acknowledge when it comes to war, not honor. You can keep your honor, and I'll keep my breath, thanks anyway.So if a country like say America was to go into a pissant litle asian country and decide to fight a war with them they would win everytime?Or would idiots at the homefront who call the soldiers names and mock their sacrifices demoralize them to the point of being unable to win the war?Been said before, but bombs and planes will never win a war, boots on the ground are needed.And when those soldiers put thier boots on the ground, they deserve at the least our quiet support, they don't deserve whiny half brains saying they are throwing their lives away and then try to act like you have a clue how the world is run.and like I said, you will probably never understand why you are a fool.Which makes you pathetic along with stupid. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,354 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Or would idiots at the homefront who call the soldiers names and mock their sacrifices demoralize them to the point of being unable to win the war?Yeah, that's why we lost the war.. LOL and you call me ignorant. Glad you brought up Vietnam, though.. how many 10's of thousands of americans died because they were told they were fighting for our freedoms and making America safer. Vietnam was exactly zero threat to america, and the americans died there wasted their lives, throughly. What happened in Vietnam was an absolute travesty, a tragedy and a horror... I think it was terrible for the war protesters to mock soldiers, to throw things at them and to otherwise demean them. Their scorn should have been saved for Kissenger and Mcnamara, not for the poor ******* drafted into the army. Those men were victims. But to call them heroes only perpetuates myths... Men like you absolutely disgust me. thoroughly. You've never fought in a war.. you've never risked your life.. but you think you can tell other men to fight and wars and risk their lives for you.. you think you can freely lie to them, brainwash them, hand them a cigar, slap 'em on the back, get richer on their efforts, and expect to be respected for yours. Fck you. It's warmongering elites like you that have gotten men killed for generation after generation. I won't sit here and let your lies and propaganda go unquestioned. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now