Nobel Winner's Comments about Blacks

[Stealth Trader]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Amazing that you fail to see the fallacy of your argument, even after the hint I gave you. Also amazing is your inability to read. What do you think "one of common smears" mean?

You make a claim, you provide the proof. Evangelicals always get this backwards. See an UFO, if you cannot prove that it's man-made, then it must be out of this world. That's not logic.

You still don't get it? Then try the following:

I hereby claim that Einstein never tried to disprove any of his earlier works.

Now prove me wrong. Use Google if you like.

Ahem, the "Ahhh, the typical "you beat your wife" response" shows I "got it". Do try and keep up.

Once again, if you are unable to prove me wrong, just say so.

Your apology is accepted.

 

[MrGecko]

Additionally, if you two chaps want to keep on going on about Einstein, give credit where it's due. It was first Fitgerald, then Lorentz (but Lorentz takes all the credit because he shouted louder than Fitzgerald) who started the ball rolling. It was Michelson and Morely, with their "inferometer", that was the first clue "we didn't understand" - 20yrs before Einsteins theory of relativity.

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from man:

you call that TRUTH???

Yeah, well.. what is truth?

Seriously, Man.. we have to honor the principle of free speech and it never hurts to know what's out there, disgusting or not.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Stealth Trader:

Ahem, the "Ahhh, the typical "you beat your wife" response" shows I "got it". Do try and keep up.

Once again, if you are unable to prove me wrong, just say so.

Your apology is accepted.

"If you cannot prove me wrong then I must be right!"

Idiot.

 

[Cesko]

Quote from Hansel H:

Some generalizations are useful such as 'all white hot objects should not be picked up with bare hands.' but others like "all blacks are subnormal" are useful only to those with a simplistic agenda.

We all crave a less complex and confusing world but lumping all members of a race into the same ugly category is simplistic and ultimately self-negating.

And what is this "large scheme of things"?

Sometimes generalization is good sometimes it is not? Who is to decide? I guess you think you know better than others.
Basically, since there is no principle(consistency) in your thinking, it's a matter of belief for you. Some people believe in Jesus, you believe in equality.
Put it differently, when you say generalization is good sometimes and not other time you are basically saying it is good to learn sometimes but not always. Again, logically it comes down to faith and your unwillingness to see beyond that.
P.S. Actually there are people who don't generalize. INSANE and RETARDED!!!

 

[Stealth Trader]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

"If you cannot prove me wrong then I must be right!"

Idiot.

No need for you to sign your name as "idiot." That goes without saying.

 

[jamjob_ramjet]

Quote from man:

excuse me. we are talking bout a white person's racist
comment here, right? you really think it is a stretch if
in such a discussion nazism comes up? are you kidding
or just trying to appear smart by quoting something?

Is a white woman 'sexist' when she says white males are many times more likely to commit violent crimes than white women?

No, she's not, because it's true - it's a fact.

But it's ALSO true that black men are many times likely to commit violent crime than white men

Why is one statement not 'sexist', while the other is 'racist'?

There's only one answer, Political Correctness.

(and yes, Godwin's law did apply here, it's a good rule)


CRIMES PER 100,000 POPULATION

A-Britain B-France C-Germany D-Italy E-U.S.A. F-American Whites G-American Blacks

Murder: A-7.4 B-4.6 C-4.2 D-6.0 E-9.3 F-5.1 G-43.4

Robbery: A-62.6 B-90.4 C-47.4 D-68.6 E-263.0 F-126 G-1,343

Source: Uniform Crime Reports for U.S. data, The Economist for European data. European data for 1990; American data for 1992

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from Cesko:

Sometimes generalization is good sometimes it is not? Who is to decide? I guess you think you know better than others.
Basically, since there is no principle(consistency) in your thinking, it's a matter of belief for you. Some people believe in Jesus, you believe in equality.
Put it differently, when you say generalization is good sometimes and not other time you are basically saying it is good to learn sometimes but not always. Again, logically it comes down to faith and your unwillingness to see beyond that.
P.S. Actually there are people who don't generalize. INSANE and RETARDED!!!

Cesko... I wouldn't know where to begin with this one.

Generally, it's best to put on the old thinking cap before posting.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Stealth Trader:

BTW, did you know that Einstein spent the latter part of his life trying to disprove his earlier findings simply because they went against what he came to believe from social engineering? He failed to do so because fact is not based on belief. What is, is.

No offense, Stealth, but that's not true. Einstein spent the latter part of his life looking for a unifying idea that would reconcile the various theoretical approaches in a relativistic framework. He was actually trying hard to prove that his work was accurate and that the results of 'QCD' (as it was known at that time) did not undermine determinism. He fervently believed that 'God does not play dice'.

Ronald W. Clarke's 'Einstein: The Life and Times' is generally acknowledged to be the definitive work in the field, and provides quite a bit of detail about the years after his arrival at Princeton.

If you have information to the contrary, could you cite the relevant sources here?

 

[Rearden Metal]

Quote from man:

can someone delete, or at least close this thing here ...?
it is disgusting.

I'm <b>not</b> in favor of censoring this thread.
Yes, some ugly remarks were made... but it should be the choice of each individual to decide for himself whether or not to read it.