🚀 go-pugleaf

gumshoe detective <gumshoes@free.com> wrote:
>> I've never seen any studies on the correlation of things with
>> birthday, firstname, and height, not to mention the thousands of other
>> possible variables which could be used to compare people.
>
>What basis do you have to believe there would be any correlation with 
>anything and birthdate?
>
>None.

I have no basis to believe that there would be any correlation with
race, except that YOU claim it, which is a lousy reason.

>> In most cases the studies aren't done, and sometimes they miss
>> important things simply because no one has thought to check (I
>> recently started taking 1/4 tsp cinnamon a day as an experiment after
>> reading about a study that had a surprising find, and my triglyceride
>> level has dropped by a third and my cholesterol by a somewhat smaller
>> amount, matching the surprising study result.  
>
>Whoo hoo!  The fact of the matter is we know that aggression and 
>intelligence are hereditary.

There are hereditary aspects of each.

>We know that race is hereditary. 

Not really.  But so is height.  First names are partially hereditary
like intelligence - we don't find too many boys named "Sue" outside of
the song.

>Yes, lots of things are undiscovered because no one has looked.

And only racists see a particular reason to look at race as an
explanation.

>It is clearly racial.  Even an idiot can see that.  

Only if they are an idiot racist.

>Theoretically speaking, let's say there was a race that was less 
>intelligent and more criminal than all other races, just for the sake of 
>argument.

I don't accept racist assumptions, even for the "sake of argument".

>> No one knows why, or
>> whether there are longer term effects, but at least for the nonce, my
>> health may be slightly better.
>
>Yes, we know why.  It's because we are all DIFFERENT and NOT EQUAL.  

It's quite possible that cinnamon would have an effect on everyone.  I
doubt that it has been studied that widely, since the first small
study was published a couple months ago.

>All thoughts and all emotions humans have are chemical reactions in the 
>brain.  We know that genetics determines the levels of these chemicals, in 
>addition to amounts of gray matter in the brain.  Your denial of commonly 
>known facts does not change things, Bob.

I am not a believer in predestination, whether religious or chemical.
In point of fact, identical twins are never exactly identical in all
their traits, and certainly not in behavior.

>You fucking idiot.

Your subhuman racist slime.

>> Logic is that there is no reason why cinnamon should cause my
>> triglyceride level to drop.  But it does.
>
>Wrong.  This is where you are very wrong.  Cinnamon, is a chemical 
>compound, or combination of chemical compounds.  These chemicals enter your 
>body, are digested, metabolized, and can have a variety of effects on your 
>body.

So are a lot of other substances that enter my body.  Why does
cinnamon have such a strong effect on a key health indicator in such
small dosage.

>That's like saying there's no logic to the stimulative effect of caffeine 
>even though science has documented that there is one.

But science *has* some idea as to the mechanism for caffeine.

>Let's not forget that your little "cinnamon" study is not scientific.

Of course not.  I just started it as my own experiment, after reading
about a scientific study.  Since I am under medical supervision, it
seemed appropriate.

>You 
>could have unknowingly altered your dietary patterns in other ways that 
>contributed to your improved triglyceride numbers.

Quite possible.  Not likely, given that I have several months of
triglyceride numbers to serve as a benchmark showing my normal
variation, but still possible.

>>>can't be quantified,
>> 
>> How would you know?
>
>How would I know?  Why don't you add two legacies of slavery and then 
>divide by the square root of oppression?  Tell me what answer you get.

I already have several times.  The answer I get is that you are a
subhuman racist slime.

>>>and can never be proven one way or another because they have 
>>>nothing to do with why black people behave the way they do.
>> 
>> How could you know?
>
>Because WHITE PEOPLE and ASIAN PEOPLE do not behave in the same way when 
>faced with the same socio-economic conditions.

Nonsense.

>No race on earth, when confronted with similar circumstances, fails like 
>blacks do.

Races don't fail.  People may fail.

>Also, because of the fact that rich people are criminals, too. 

Including some white ones, and some asian ones.  Pol Pot wasn't black.
Neither was Mao Zedong.

>In the past 30 years, tens of thousands of dirt poor Hmong, Thai, and 
>Vietnamese have entered America and have outperformed blacks (and whites on 
>some measures.)

Lots of Hmong in particular have not done so.

>> since "disproportionate"
>> would have required eliminating all those other variables AND using an
>> objective definition of "black".
>
>Nope.  Disproportionate does not require eliminating all those other 
>bullshit variables you make up.  It requires one look at different races in 
>similar circumstances and then measuring their performance.
>
>FACT:  poor whites outscore rich blacks on SATs.

I know at least one well-off white that didin't outscore most poor
blacks on the SAT.  So what?

>> And I'm not a subhuman racist slime like you.
>
>Oooh, what an insult.  The truth is the truth.  I'll stand on the side of 
>the truth every time despite your attempts to win me over to your side with 
>insults.

"Win you over"?  Why do you think I have the slightest interest in
doing so?

But as long as you are polluting the education newsgroups with your
slime, I have no qualms with insulting you for your antisocial
behavior.

>> I don't know that it is so (and I don't care), and answering "why"
>> would have required eliminating all those other variables AND using an
>> objective definition of "black" and an objective definition of
>> "meaningful" and an objective definition of "lack of technical
>> innovation".
>
>Copying and pasting is all you can do to counter the truth?

On does not "counter" religious and ideological "truth".  One can
merely ridicule the religion or ideology that claims to know "truth".

>> So does your being a subhuman racist slime explain all those things,
>> because only a subhuman racist slime would ask such questions, or care
>> about the answers.
>
>Ah, here we get to the nut of Bob's reasoning.  If you even have to 
>consider looking at differences in people of different racial backgrounds, 
>then you are automatically a racist, even if you ar correct in your 
>findings.

That is the definition of the word.

>In Bob's world, we should ignore differences in the races. 

Yep.

>Hell, let your 
>teenage daughter be out on the street alone with blacks--who are 3 times 
>more likely to rape.

I do.  Not that I could stop her.

>Don't lock your car door when blacks are around--even 
>though they are many times more likely to rob and/or carjack you.

I don't.

>> My religion is between me and
>> my God, and I don't pretend to know "truth".  Ideology is something I
>> think almost as poorly of, as I do subhuman racist slime like you.
>
>Hahahahaha.  Truth:  I have a total of five fingers on my left hand.

Coming from YOU, I don't even accept such claims as "truth".

>The fact that you don't want to acknowledge the truth, Bob, doesn't mean I 
>don't have five fingers on my left hand.

It doesn't mean that you DO have five fingers on your left hand,
either.

Most people have four fingers and a thumb, but you might be weird.  Or
you might have ideologically defined a thumb to be a finger.

>>>Bob, most people think you are an idiot
>> 
>> You wouldn't know, since you have conducted no studies.
>
>Nobody argues your side with you.  Just you, alone.

Most people don't think you are worth arguing with.  I don't either,
so I don't argue with you.  I just ridicule you.  And I'm not the only
one who does so.

>>>Nobody argues with the data we present.
>> 
>> Why bother?  It is data gathered by subhuman racist slime, and is
>> tainted by association with you.
>
>Uh huh.  So, information that I presented previously by the African-
>American Men Project is tainted because I quoted it?

Yep.

>And not only that, 
>but you are calling a group of black people racist because they published a 
>study about black people that you don't want to acknowledge???

There are racist blacks.

>>>They just resort to name-calling
>> 
>> No.  That is what subhuman racist slime does when it uses "black" not
>> to mention other words, as epithets.
>
>Epithets?  Black people are called nigger to remind them of their inferior, 
>sub-human status.

In other words, you resort to name-calling.

lojbab
-- 
lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org