Nobel Winner's Comments about Blacks

[acronym]

How come there isnt a;

"Watson did not back up this assertion with scientific evidence, so no reasonable conclusion can be made due to the lack of empirical , peer reveiwed proof."

He's a scientist after all, who gives a shit what the great unwashed think.


Oh wait, this is a hapaboy thread......................

He would represent the great unwashed, except he's not so great

feel free to use that line guys, best i got today

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from tradeslikagod:

Would you extend that to someone verbally abusing a loved one or taunting a disabled person etc

Lines have to be drawn or the ignorant morons of the world feel justified in their despicable actions

What would the equivalent to abuse of a loved one or a disabled person be in this context?

On an anonymous forum like this we're all just virtual entities - what repercussions have we to fear from our decision to participate or not participate?

Besides, ignorant morons are people too.. and they're part of the mix.

 

[man]

Quote from Stealth Trader:

And last, but not least, how do you even know that I am even white? ...

i know what kind you are. why don't you just open up a
little and tell what you think about blacks and jews and
arians? you and yours alike have learned to walk the thin
line that makes your point shine through without risking
a real debate on your real thinkings. do i do you wrong?
i doubt it. but if so, just tell me what you think on races.
in your words, not quoting someone. just yourself. are
your superior to other races? shall a black man be
allowed to marry a white, blond girl?

and no, english is not my first language. i guess i am still
more literate than most of your mental colleagues.

 

[man]

Quote from jamjob_ramjet:

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

one of the main flaws people make in statistics is mixing
up cause and effect. if you compare white and black
population with the same income you will not find
significant differences in violence. so when you state
that black people are more violent you are somehow
right, yet very misleading, since it is their social status
that causes the violence and not their race. now that
is quite an important distortion, intended or not, since
we are talking about prejudice against a whole race.
and sorry, from a certain level of intelligence people
are responsible for keeping up such distortion in public.
and i dare say that happens not due to chance but
is result of a whole mind set.

 

[man]

Quote from Hansel H:

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.

hm. point taken. i admit that the thread is going in a
certain direction, yet has not landed in deep brown
zone as of now. i smell the guys when they creep up.
it is a certain use of language. carefully chosen words
they use, since they got caught so often when they
really said what they thought. and they learned how
to stay in the shadow, playing guerilla tactics, using
the free speech claim and some other rethoric tricks
that makes the innocent reader not see what these
people are actual heading for ...

 

[man]

and, in addition, be careful with those who claim free
speech for ideas that are against free speech. all the
revisonists love free speech and will get rid of it as soon
as they can afford to do so. have no illiusions about that.
and do not let free speech get jeopardised by people
who abuse it in order to destroy it. in a weird way free
speech has to protect herself against too free speech.
and be sure, these guys have a lot of fun with people
that defend their abuse of a good idea ...

compare it do democracy. certain parties do not qualify
for democracy, namely those, that want to abolish this
very system itself.

 

[man]

i think in recent years people with a more open mindset
have realised that the values of present society must
bedefended at times. against people with very different
mindsets.

 

[man]

nevertheless, Stealth Trader does seem to be a guy
who knows how to trade and i did not find a racist
record. so maybe i am doing him wrong. could be.

Stealth, we can leave it like that. i guess we both sense
that the other one is not backing down. let us not waste
each other's time. good trading.

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from tradeslikagod:

Slippery slope

True, but it seems we're always on a slippery slope; if we manage to scramble back up the one we're on we start sliding down the other side. We're doomed to forever claw our way around on the icy roof of fate.

Alas.

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from man:

compare it to democracy. certain parties do not qualify
for democracy, namely those, that want to abolish this
very system itself.

If by parties you mean political parties I have to agree with you. Those who declare themselves enemies of democracy should not be allowed to compete for power; their organization into official parties should be forbidden by law.