🚀 go-pugleaf

makemyday@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> makemyday@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> >Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> >> david640@webtv.net wrote:
>> >> >   Like  I've  Stated   Before;  it  isn't  racist  if  it's  true.
>> >>
>> >> Your statement isn't true.  It is racist whether or not it is true.
>> >> Non-raccsts don't even ask the question, since there is no more reason
>> >> to look at data based on skin color than to look at data based on what
>> >> day of the year you were born on, or height, or first name.
>> >
>> >There is just as much reason to look at race as there is for insurance
>> >companies to look at the ages of auto liability or life insurance
>> >applicants.  Group stats tell a revealing and meaningful story.
>> 
>> So tell us the group stats based on birthday, first name, and height.
>> Don't have them?  Then why did you pick race as the grouping you wish
>> to look at stats for?  
>
>Because Crime, LowIQ, and OOW_Breeding correlate heavily 
>with race, not with birthday, first name, and height.

How do you know?  Have you checked? let's see the data.

Why did you check the data for race and NOT checked the data for the
other variables?  Because you are a subhuman racist slime, is why.

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