|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 06 2016 09:40 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 09:16 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:08 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 09:06 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:55 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:50 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2016 08:47 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:41 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
You forgot to quote the rest of wikipedia.
Here, let me help you yet again.
[quote]
Sorry for all the bolding, it's just that you left out EVERYTHING when you posted your comment, so.. Yeah.
[quote]
Sorry, gonna leave it at that now though - waste of time, really. I don't think you'll get a satisfying answer to your very real point. All of those falls under law which the USA doesn't have a line of negatively targeting black folks. You are reaching pretty far on this one. but it says right there that it's not explicit and does not need to be written out. Which is what you're arguing. That it only counts as institutionalized if there's some kind of order from higher ups / laws resulting in racism, right? There have been enough investigations showing that ferguson and co DID treat black people differently. That's institutionalized racism right there. I mean it is wikipedia you guys are quoting. The point is that unless there is a law in USA that says yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race, its all mental. And the sooner people stop victimizing themselves or spread propaganda for irrational fear of an "oppression law", the better it is for them. No, I referenced five sources which you decided to ignore, then you quoted a wikipedia article which actually proved you wrong, and now you are dismissing your own source as well. No, a law doesn't need to explicitly mention "black people are going to be penalized" for institutional racism to exist. Read the wikipedia article you quoted. Hell, read your own quote. At this point you are just arguing on semantics. But at the end of the day, if there isn't a law that says "yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race", its a mentality that people have to get over with if they truly want to help the minorities. Because telling minorities when there are laws specifically target them for being w/e while w/e they are/are doing isn't a liability, they are going to keep victimizing themselves. You can't keep giving people mental obstacles while claiming to fight for social justice unless that's your business model. No, I'm not. You have invented in your head a definition of institutional racism which is completely disconnected from the real world (and not even consistent with itself) and which you are alone in defending. You're both profoundly ignorant and dishonest, since you're deliberately refusing to acknowledge the evidence you have been presented with. Institutional racism exists, and it is not a mental projection. No the actual smart people look at the law and see there is nothing stopping them from archiving their dreams under the law and they even get AA to propel them forward and say "America is a good place for them.". Only people who have invested interests in perpetuating their ways will rationalize why they keep doing what they do. Read the wikipedia article on institutional racism. Read it. You're ignorant on the topic. Doesn't change the fact that there are no law negatively targeting black people.
This is the most ignorant post of this whole series. Yes, there may not be laws explicitly calling out blacks by name to discriminate against them, but there are plenty of laws on the books that target blacks disproportionately in a negative way and which were almost certainly intended to from the start. Laws on crack cocaine come to mind, along with housing and zoning laws.
This discussion has demonstrated the darker side of the obsession with race talk Republicans seem to have that I mentioned earlier. The more ardent among them never fail to come out of the cracks when the topic is discussed. It only gets more interesting and sad when they start to explain why they think blacks are disproportionately poor and disproportionately filling our prison systems. Unfortunately, the saggy pants mentality is probably the most palatable explanation they offer up, most others come from a much more sinister place.
|
On March 06 2016 13:01 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 12:18 Nyxisto wrote:On March 06 2016 12:01 wei2coolman wrote:On March 06 2016 11:40 oneofthem wrote:
this is not being pedantic but important. this discussion about institutional racism is not a case of different definitions, both right. it's rather one guy is using lack of legal discrimination as substitute for institutional racism, which covers social institutions and deep seated dynamics.
one example of such a deep seated discrimination is the ongoing trend towards automation and algorithm in everything from credit evaluation in loans to job candidate evaluation. race turns up high on the list of impactful indicators of fitness. there is no regulation for this so far. You mean statistical analysis by actuaries have determined that certain races have different lending results and therefore that's racist? yes, nobody said that racists are necessarily bad at statistics so reality is racist? Jewish people have higher IQ on average than the rest of the population. And black people on average have better 100m sprint times; such is life.
- face palm - and we're there
|
At this point I think the establishment needs to write off Florida. Rubio isn't winning it.
If their goal is to force a brokered convention Rubio should drop out now. That should guarantee Kasich wins Ohio, denying Trump critical delegates.
But Rubio isn't going to drop out. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
On March 06 2016 20:21 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 19:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Cruz will bring out the Hispanic vote for the republicans.He would smash Clinton in a general. lol no. Cruz doesn't get any more Hispanic votes than other (white) Republicans. He actually got less than the other people who won when he ran. He just barely beat Trump among Hispanic voters in Texas. Source He will bring over more democrat and independent hispanics when it is the general.Cruz leads Hilary head to head, Trump does not.
Maybe a few Cubans. South Americans do not feel connected to Cuba. Would a Chinese candidate lock down the Korean vote? Same deal here. I don't understand why people assume there is some kinda South American unified identity.
|
So this round further confirms that polls are pretty worthless. None of the results resemble the polled results in any meaningful way.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
im seeing this trump situation as a failing time push. he is losing momentum and the late game is a sure loss.
|
On March 06 2016 22:08 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:40 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 09:16 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:08 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 09:06 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:55 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:50 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2016 08:47 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
All of those falls under law which the USA doesn't have a line of negatively targeting black folks. You are reaching pretty far on this one. but it says right there that it's not explicit and does not need to be written out. Which is what you're arguing. That it only counts as institutionalized if there's some kind of order from higher ups / laws resulting in racism, right? There have been enough investigations showing that ferguson and co DID treat black people differently. That's institutionalized racism right there. I mean it is wikipedia you guys are quoting. The point is that unless there is a law in USA that says yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race, its all mental. And the sooner people stop victimizing themselves or spread propaganda for irrational fear of an "oppression law", the better it is for them. No, I referenced five sources which you decided to ignore, then you quoted a wikipedia article which actually proved you wrong, and now you are dismissing your own source as well. No, a law doesn't need to explicitly mention "black people are going to be penalized" for institutional racism to exist. Read the wikipedia article you quoted. Hell, read your own quote. At this point you are just arguing on semantics. But at the end of the day, if there isn't a law that says "yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race", its a mentality that people have to get over with if they truly want to help the minorities. Because telling minorities when there are laws specifically target them for being w/e while w/e they are/are doing isn't a liability, they are going to keep victimizing themselves. You can't keep giving people mental obstacles while claiming to fight for social justice unless that's your business model. No, I'm not. You have invented in your head a definition of institutional racism which is completely disconnected from the real world (and not even consistent with itself) and which you are alone in defending. You're both profoundly ignorant and dishonest, since you're deliberately refusing to acknowledge the evidence you have been presented with. Institutional racism exists, and it is not a mental projection. No the actual smart people look at the law and see there is nothing stopping them from archiving their dreams under the law and they even get AA to propel them forward and say "America is a good place for them.". Only people who have invested interests in perpetuating their ways will rationalize why they keep doing what they do. Read the wikipedia article on institutional racism. Read it. You're ignorant on the topic. Doesn't change the fact that there are no law negatively targeting black people. This is the most ignorant post of this whole series. Yes, there may not be laws explicitly calling out blacks by name to discriminate against them, but there are plenty of laws on the books that target blacks disproportionately in a negative way and which were almost certainly intended to from the start. Laws on crack cocaine come to mind, along with housing and zoning laws. This discussion has demonstrated the darker side of the obsession with race talk Republicans seem to have that I mentioned earlier. The more ardent among them never fail to come out of the cracks when the topic is discussed. It only gets more interesting and sad when they start to explain why they think blacks are disproportionately poor and disproportionately filling our prison systems. Unfortunately, the saggy pants mentality is probably the most palatable explanation they offer up, most others come from a much more sinister place.
Posts (or more properly the mindset behind them) like this are why people can make jokes about the left "creating trump" and it has a grain of truth.
|
On March 06 2016 22:08 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:40 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 09:16 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:08 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 09:06 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:55 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:50 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2016 08:47 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
All of those falls under law which the USA doesn't have a line of negatively targeting black folks. You are reaching pretty far on this one. but it says right there that it's not explicit and does not need to be written out. Which is what you're arguing. That it only counts as institutionalized if there's some kind of order from higher ups / laws resulting in racism, right? There have been enough investigations showing that ferguson and co DID treat black people differently. That's institutionalized racism right there. I mean it is wikipedia you guys are quoting. The point is that unless there is a law in USA that says yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race, its all mental. And the sooner people stop victimizing themselves or spread propaganda for irrational fear of an "oppression law", the better it is for them. No, I referenced five sources which you decided to ignore, then you quoted a wikipedia article which actually proved you wrong, and now you are dismissing your own source as well. No, a law doesn't need to explicitly mention "black people are going to be penalized" for institutional racism to exist. Read the wikipedia article you quoted. Hell, read your own quote. At this point you are just arguing on semantics. But at the end of the day, if there isn't a law that says "yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race", its a mentality that people have to get over with if they truly want to help the minorities. Because telling minorities when there are laws specifically target them for being w/e while w/e they are/are doing isn't a liability, they are going to keep victimizing themselves. You can't keep giving people mental obstacles while claiming to fight for social justice unless that's your business model. No, I'm not. You have invented in your head a definition of institutional racism which is completely disconnected from the real world (and not even consistent with itself) and which you are alone in defending. You're both profoundly ignorant and dishonest, since you're deliberately refusing to acknowledge the evidence you have been presented with. Institutional racism exists, and it is not a mental projection. No the actual smart people look at the law and see there is nothing stopping them from archiving their dreams under the law and they even get AA to propel them forward and say "America is a good place for them.". Only people who have invested interests in perpetuating their ways will rationalize why they keep doing what they do. Read the wikipedia article on institutional racism. Read it. You're ignorant on the topic. Doesn't change the fact that there are no law negatively targeting black people. This is the most ignorant post of this whole series. Yes, there may not be laws explicitly calling out blacks by name to discriminate against them, but there are plenty of laws on the books that target blacks disproportionately in a negative way and which were almost certainly intended to from the start. Laws on crack cocaine come to mind, along with housing and zoning laws. This discussion has demonstrated the darker side of the obsession with race talk Republicans seem to have that I mentioned earlier. The more ardent among them never fail to come out of the cracks when the topic is discussed. It only gets more interesting and sad when they start to explain why they think blacks are disproportionately poor and disproportionately filling our prison systems. Unfortunately, the saggy pants mentality is probably the most palatable explanation they offer up, most others come from a much more sinister place.
You saying that if one is black and have a coke problem, they will get harsher punishment? That's bullshit.
And on housing loan, these are private firms, they have the right to make w/e deals they want as long as it doesn't violate laws.
|
On March 07 2016 01:05 ErectedZenith wrote:
You saying that if one is black and have a coke problem, they will get harsher punishment? That's bullshit.
it is bullshit.. but is real, american police is disproportionally targeting POC, abusing their rights and study after study show (and were posted in this thread at length before you came in with your trolling) that black first offenders get higher sentences for the same crimes
|
On March 07 2016 01:05 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 22:08 frazzle wrote:On March 06 2016 09:40 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 09:16 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:08 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 09:06 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:55 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:50 Toadesstern wrote:
[quote]
but it says right there that it's not explicit and does not need to be written out. Which is what you're arguing. That it only counts as institutionalized if there's some kind of order from higher ups / laws resulting in racism, right?
There have been enough investigations showing that ferguson and co DID treat black people differently. That's institutionalized racism right there. I mean it is wikipedia you guys are quoting. The point is that unless there is a law in USA that says yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race, its all mental. And the sooner people stop victimizing themselves or spread propaganda for irrational fear of an "oppression law", the better it is for them. No, I referenced five sources which you decided to ignore, then you quoted a wikipedia article which actually proved you wrong, and now you are dismissing your own source as well. No, a law doesn't need to explicitly mention "black people are going to be penalized" for institutional racism to exist. Read the wikipedia article you quoted. Hell, read your own quote. At this point you are just arguing on semantics. But at the end of the day, if there isn't a law that says "yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race", its a mentality that people have to get over with if they truly want to help the minorities. Because telling minorities when there are laws specifically target them for being w/e while w/e they are/are doing isn't a liability, they are going to keep victimizing themselves. You can't keep giving people mental obstacles while claiming to fight for social justice unless that's your business model. No, I'm not. You have invented in your head a definition of institutional racism which is completely disconnected from the real world (and not even consistent with itself) and which you are alone in defending. You're both profoundly ignorant and dishonest, since you're deliberately refusing to acknowledge the evidence you have been presented with. Institutional racism exists, and it is not a mental projection. No the actual smart people look at the law and see there is nothing stopping them from archiving their dreams under the law and they even get AA to propel them forward and say "America is a good place for them.". Only people who have invested interests in perpetuating their ways will rationalize why they keep doing what they do. Read the wikipedia article on institutional racism. Read it. You're ignorant on the topic. Doesn't change the fact that there are no law negatively targeting black people. This is the most ignorant post of this whole series. Yes, there may not be laws explicitly calling out blacks by name to discriminate against them, but there are plenty of laws on the books that target blacks disproportionately in a negative way and which were almost certainly intended to from the start. Laws on crack cocaine come to mind, along with housing and zoning laws. This discussion has demonstrated the darker side of the obsession with race talk Republicans seem to have that I mentioned earlier. The more ardent among them never fail to come out of the cracks when the topic is discussed. It only gets more interesting and sad when they start to explain why they think blacks are disproportionately poor and disproportionately filling our prison systems. Unfortunately, the saggy pants mentality is probably the most palatable explanation they offer up, most others come from a much more sinister place. You saying that if one is black and have a coke problem, they will get harsher punishment? That's bullshit. And on housing loan, these are private firms, they have the right to make w/e deals they want as long as it doesn't violate laws.
Rehavi, M. Marit and Starr, Sonja B., "Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Charging and Its Sentencing Consequences" (May 7, 2012). U of Michigan Law & Econ, Empirical Legal Studies Center Paper No. 12-002. Link.
Abrams, David and Bertrand, Marianne and Mullainathan, Sendhil, "Do Judges Vary in Their Treatment of Race?" (May 28, 2013). Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 41, No. 2 (June 2012), pp. 347-383; U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper No. 11-07. Link
|
“Super Saturday” ended up being a Saturday night massacre for Marco Rubio. The establishment’s landslide choice to win the GOP nomination no longer seems capable of even finishing in second place. If the Florida senator wants to salvage his political career, it is time that his quixotic quest for the White House comes to an end.
After Iowa, Sen. Rubio promised his supporters he would rocket to the nomination on the strength of his 3-2-1 strategy. But one month later, he finished tonight’s contests 3-3-3-4. As Paul Begala said of Rubio, “Everybody likes him but the voters.”
In Kansas, Rubio lost to Ted Cruz by 32 percent. In Kentucky, he trailed Donald Trump by 20 percent and by 30 percent in Louisiana. And in Maine, the “Future of the Republican Party” was trounced by almost 40 points.
Republican voters were obviously turned off by Rubio’s efforts to match Donald Trump insult for insult. The Florida senator first suggested that the Manhattan billionaire had wet his pants during a presidential debate. Then — channeling bathroom humor found in Austin Powers — Marco Rubio suggested that the GOP frontrunner was poorly endowed sexually. It was too much for conservative voters who would normally be his natural constituency. Sen. Ted Cruz ended up being the beneficiary of Sen. Rubio’s juvenile behavior, as the Texas senator scored two more impressive victories in Kansas and Maine.
The Rubio campaign, by contrast, was left humiliated again, cornered into betting their candidate’s political future on a first place finish in Florida. That outcome was made more difficult by tonight’s collapse. If there is anyone around Rubio who understands that this campaign is over, they should tell him to go home, announce his run for reelection as a senator, get the voting card out of the glove compartment, and start rebuilding his political reputation right away.
The senator still has time to salvage a political career damaged by his lackluster presidential campaign. But that won’t still be the case if Rubio hangs around this race long enough to be embarrassed by Donald Trump in his home state of Florida. If that were to be the case, the once promising senator would be forced to live out his professional life as a Beltway lobbyist or worse yet, endure the grim existence of being a cable news host.
Source
|
Breaking: Nancy Reagan has died at the age of 94.
|
United States43581 Posts
On March 06 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:
Stealthblue, Kwark, Jilla etc.: do ErectedZenith's posts in the last few pages (willfully ignoring contradictory evidence and claiming that institutional racism affecting African Americans does not exist) not warrant at the very least a warning?
For my own part I try not to moderate people I dislike due to the conflict of interest and I try not to moderate anyone in the Politics topic because that's not the spirit of the topic. Obviously some people are such bad posters that they can overcome my resistance to doing so but I try not to.
|
On March 07 2016 01:05 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 22:08 frazzle wrote:On March 06 2016 09:40 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 09:16 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:08 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 09:06 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:55 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:50 Toadesstern wrote:
[quote]
but it says right there that it's not explicit and does not need to be written out. Which is what you're arguing. That it only counts as institutionalized if there's some kind of order from higher ups / laws resulting in racism, right?
There have been enough investigations showing that ferguson and co DID treat black people differently. That's institutionalized racism right there. I mean it is wikipedia you guys are quoting. The point is that unless there is a law in USA that says yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race, its all mental. And the sooner people stop victimizing themselves or spread propaganda for irrational fear of an "oppression law", the better it is for them. No, I referenced five sources which you decided to ignore, then you quoted a wikipedia article which actually proved you wrong, and now you are dismissing your own source as well. No, a law doesn't need to explicitly mention "black people are going to be penalized" for institutional racism to exist. Read the wikipedia article you quoted. Hell, read your own quote. At this point you are just arguing on semantics. But at the end of the day, if there isn't a law that says "yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race", its a mentality that people have to get over with if they truly want to help the minorities. Because telling minorities when there are laws specifically target them for being w/e while w/e they are/are doing isn't a liability, they are going to keep victimizing themselves. You can't keep giving people mental obstacles while claiming to fight for social justice unless that's your business model. No, I'm not. You have invented in your head a definition of institutional racism which is completely disconnected from the real world (and not even consistent with itself) and which you are alone in defending. You're both profoundly ignorant and dishonest, since you're deliberately refusing to acknowledge the evidence you have been presented with. Institutional racism exists, and it is not a mental projection. No the actual smart people look at the law and see there is nothing stopping them from archiving their dreams under the law and they even get AA to propel them forward and say "America is a good place for them.". Only people who have invested interests in perpetuating their ways will rationalize why they keep doing what they do. Read the wikipedia article on institutional racism. Read it. You're ignorant on the topic. Doesn't change the fact that there are no law negatively targeting black people. This is the most ignorant post of this whole series. Yes, there may not be laws explicitly calling out blacks by name to discriminate against them, but there are plenty of laws on the books that target blacks disproportionately in a negative way and which were almost certainly intended to from the start. Laws on crack cocaine come to mind, along with housing and zoning laws. This discussion has demonstrated the darker side of the obsession with race talk Republicans seem to have that I mentioned earlier. The more ardent among them never fail to come out of the cracks when the topic is discussed. It only gets more interesting and sad when they start to explain why they think blacks are disproportionately poor and disproportionately filling our prison systems. Unfortunately, the saggy pants mentality is probably the most palatable explanation they offer up, most others come from a much more sinister place. You saying that if one is black and have a coke problem, they will get harsher punishment? That's bullshit.And on housing loan, these are private firms, they have the right to make w/e deals they want as long as it doesn't violate laws.
You want to deny the Holocaust while you're at it?
|
United States43581 Posts
On March 06 2016 13:46 Plansix wrote:
IQ tests are tests of cogitative development, nothing more. Its not even a very accurate test either. A malnourished child will have a lower IQ than a well fed child, regardless of genetics. The same is true if you compare the IQs of a child in a "standard" loving family to a child that is abused or in an abusive household. Weirdly, nourishment, lack of quality preschool, elementary school education and abusive, unstable house holds are all traits of poverty.
So Jews having a higher IQ than other minority groups in the has very little to do with their genetics. IQ has only a passing connection to genetics as social economic groups have similar traits when it comes to appearance.
I disagree. There is a genetic component to intelligence. Social factors have a high impact on the result but there is a genetic component to the raw materials.
There was a large component of recitation and memorization to Jewish society in Europe for two thousand years. Furthermore Jews were excluded from farming and manual labour and pushed into more intellectual roles. I believe this had a selection effect, Jews who were not good at being Jews, by which I mean skilled workers, rabbis and bankers, disappeared into the general population, lost their religion and ceased being counted as a part of Jewish society. Strict Jewish laws also required a certain degree of affluence which correlates with intelligence. Affluent Jewish families would have non Jewish servants to perform tasks they could not on the Sabbath.
|
On March 07 2016 01:23 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 01:05 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 22:08 frazzle wrote:On March 06 2016 09:40 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 09:16 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:08 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 09:06 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:55 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
I mean it is wikipedia you guys are quoting.
The point is that unless there is a law in USA that says yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race, its all mental.
And the sooner people stop victimizing themselves or spread propaganda for irrational fear of an "oppression law", the better it is for them. No, I referenced five sources which you decided to ignore, then you quoted a wikipedia article which actually proved you wrong, and now you are dismissing your own source as well. No, a law doesn't need to explicitly mention "black people are going to be penalized" for institutional racism to exist. Read the wikipedia article you quoted. Hell, read your own quote. At this point you are just arguing on semantics. But at the end of the day, if there isn't a law that says "yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race", its a mentality that people have to get over with if they truly want to help the minorities. Because telling minorities when there are laws specifically target them for being w/e while w/e they are/are doing isn't a liability, they are going to keep victimizing themselves. You can't keep giving people mental obstacles while claiming to fight for social justice unless that's your business model. No, I'm not. You have invented in your head a definition of institutional racism which is completely disconnected from the real world (and not even consistent with itself) and which you are alone in defending. You're both profoundly ignorant and dishonest, since you're deliberately refusing to acknowledge the evidence you have been presented with. Institutional racism exists, and it is not a mental projection. No the actual smart people look at the law and see there is nothing stopping them from archiving their dreams under the law and they even get AA to propel them forward and say "America is a good place for them.". Only people who have invested interests in perpetuating their ways will rationalize why they keep doing what they do. Read the wikipedia article on institutional racism. Read it. You're ignorant on the topic. Doesn't change the fact that there are no law negatively targeting black people. This is the most ignorant post of this whole series. Yes, there may not be laws explicitly calling out blacks by name to discriminate against them, but there are plenty of laws on the books that target blacks disproportionately in a negative way and which were almost certainly intended to from the start. Laws on crack cocaine come to mind, along with housing and zoning laws. This discussion has demonstrated the darker side of the obsession with race talk Republicans seem to have that I mentioned earlier. The more ardent among them never fail to come out of the cracks when the topic is discussed. It only gets more interesting and sad when they start to explain why they think blacks are disproportionately poor and disproportionately filling our prison systems. Unfortunately, the saggy pants mentality is probably the most palatable explanation they offer up, most others come from a much more sinister place. You saying that if one is black and have a coke problem, they will get harsher punishment? That's bullshit. And on housing loan, these are private firms, they have the right to make w/e deals they want as long as it doesn't violate laws. Rehavi, M. Marit and Starr, Sonja B., "Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Charging and Its Sentencing Consequences" (May 7, 2012). U of Michigan Law & Econ, Empirical Legal Studies Center Paper No. 12-002. Link. Abrams, David and Bertrand, Marianne and Mullainathan, Sendhil, "Do Judges Vary in Their Treatment of Race?" (May 28, 2013). Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 41, No. 2 (June 2012), pp. 347-383; U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper No. 11-07. Link
"Indeed, sentence disparities (at the mean and at almost all deciles in the sentence-length distribution) can be almost completely explained by three factors: the original arrest offense, the defendant’s criminal history, and the prosecutor’s initial choice of charges."
User was warned for this post, see the rebuttal two posts below. This warning was given in consideration of this poster's repeated history of the same offence.
|
Water utilities in some of the largest cities in the US that collectively serve some 12 million people have used tests that downplay the amount of lead contamination found in drinking water for more than a decade, a Guardian analysis of testing protocols reveals.
In the tests, utilities ask customers who sample their home’s water for lead to remove the faucet’s aerator screen and to flush lines hours before tests, potentially flushing out detectable lead contamination. The distorted tests, condemned by the Environmental Protection Agency, have taken place in cities including Chicago, New Orleans, Philadelphia and Columbus, Ohio. The improper screening could decrease the chance of detecting potentially dangerous levels of lead in water, the EPA has said.
The analysis comes on the heels of an EPA letter, which repeated earlier warnings to utilities not to use such methods, and Guardian reporting that revealed water customers in “every major US city east of the Mississippi” could be drinking water tested using questionable methods.
“It’s a staggering number, and it’s alarming and upsetting to hear,” said Yanna Lambrinidou, a Virginia Tech professor in the civil engineering department, about the number of Americans potentially affected by the tests. Lambrinidou is also an activist who has worked with the scientist Marc Edwards, who helped uncover Flint, Michigan’s lead-tainted water crisis.
“At the same time, it’s why we’ve been working as long and as hard we’ve been working on this issue – because we have suspected as much.”
An estimated 96 million Americans live with lead service lines – pipes that carry water from mains to meters. Lead lines are one of the most serious risk factors affecting the amount of lead in water that pours from the tap.
The requirement to test for lead in water dates to 1991, when the Safe Drinking Water Act issued a new mandate called the Lead and Copper Rule.
Source
|
On March 07 2016 03:18 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 01:23 kwizach wrote:On March 07 2016 01:05 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 22:08 frazzle wrote:On March 06 2016 09:40 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 09:16 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:08 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 09:06 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:00 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
No, I referenced five sources which you decided to ignore, then you quoted a wikipedia article which actually proved you wrong, and now you are dismissing your own source as well. No, a law doesn't need to explicitly mention "black people are going to be penalized" for institutional racism to exist. Read the wikipedia article you quoted. Hell, read your own quote. At this point you are just arguing on semantics. But at the end of the day, if there isn't a law that says "yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race", its a mentality that people have to get over with if they truly want to help the minorities. Because telling minorities when there are laws specifically target them for being w/e while w/e they are/are doing isn't a liability, they are going to keep victimizing themselves. You can't keep giving people mental obstacles while claiming to fight for social justice unless that's your business model. No, I'm not. You have invented in your head a definition of institutional racism which is completely disconnected from the real world (and not even consistent with itself) and which you are alone in defending. You're both profoundly ignorant and dishonest, since you're deliberately refusing to acknowledge the evidence you have been presented with. Institutional racism exists, and it is not a mental projection. No the actual smart people look at the law and see there is nothing stopping them from archiving their dreams under the law and they even get AA to propel them forward and say "America is a good place for them.". Only people who have invested interests in perpetuating their ways will rationalize why they keep doing what they do. Read the wikipedia article on institutional racism. Read it. You're ignorant on the topic. Doesn't change the fact that there are no law negatively targeting black people. This is the most ignorant post of this whole series. Yes, there may not be laws explicitly calling out blacks by name to discriminate against them, but there are plenty of laws on the books that target blacks disproportionately in a negative way and which were almost certainly intended to from the start. Laws on crack cocaine come to mind, along with housing and zoning laws. This discussion has demonstrated the darker side of the obsession with race talk Republicans seem to have that I mentioned earlier. The more ardent among them never fail to come out of the cracks when the topic is discussed. It only gets more interesting and sad when they start to explain why they think blacks are disproportionately poor and disproportionately filling our prison systems. Unfortunately, the saggy pants mentality is probably the most palatable explanation they offer up, most others come from a much more sinister place. You saying that if one is black and have a coke problem, they will get harsher punishment? That's bullshit. And on housing loan, these are private firms, they have the right to make w/e deals they want as long as it doesn't violate laws. Rehavi, M. Marit and Starr, Sonja B., "Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Charging and Its Sentencing Consequences" (May 7, 2012). U of Michigan Law & Econ, Empirical Legal Studies Center Paper No. 12-002. Link. Abrams, David and Bertrand, Marianne and Mullainathan, Sendhil, "Do Judges Vary in Their Treatment of Race?" (May 28, 2013). Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 41, No. 2 (June 2012), pp. 347-383; U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper No. 11-07. Link "Indeed, sentence disparities (at the mean and at almost all deciles in the sentence-length distribution) can be almost completely explained by three factors: the original arrest offense, the defendant’s criminal history, and the prosecutor’s initial choice of charges."
The dishonesty you display in these discussions is so obvious that you're either a troll or simply not interested at all in having an honest discussion. You just took a single sentence out of its context to try to make it seem like it supports an idea that is the exact opposite of what the article actually explains at length. Indeed, the third factor in your quote, "the prosecutor's initial choices of charges", is the factor identified by the authors as subject to the influence of racial bias. To quote the article:
This study provides robust evidence that black male federal defendants receive longer sentences than whites arrested for the same offenses and with the same prior records. On average black males receive sentences that are approximately 10% longer than comparable white males with those at the top of the sentencing distribution facing even larger disparities. Much of that disparity appears to be driven by decisions at the initial charging stage, especially by prosecutors’ filing of “mandatory minimum” charges, which, ceteris paribus, they do twice as often against black defendants. Our estimates of disparities in prosecutorial decisions are likely conservative, because they do not encompass gaps introduced by prearrest prosecutorial involvement in the case, nor do they account for possible disparities in law enforcement.
Stop being dishonest. You were uninformed and wrong, and you're deliberately trying to distort the evidence against your position to make it seem like you have a leg to stand on. You don't.
|
I really love how EZ has brought us all together against him. He really is the Donald Trump of the forums.
|
On March 07 2016 03:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 13:46 Plansix wrote:
IQ tests are tests of cogitative development, nothing more. Its not even a very accurate test either. A malnourished child will have a lower IQ than a well fed child, regardless of genetics. The same is true if you compare the IQs of a child in a "standard" loving family to a child that is abused or in an abusive household. Weirdly, nourishment, lack of quality preschool, elementary school education and abusive, unstable house holds are all traits of poverty.
So Jews having a higher IQ than other minority groups in the has very little to do with their genetics. IQ has only a passing connection to genetics as social economic groups have similar traits when it comes to appearance. I disagree. There is a genetic component to intelligence. Social factors have a high impact on the result but there is a genetic component to the raw materials. There was a large component of recitation and memorization to Jewish society in Europe for two thousand years. Furthermore Jews were excluded from farming and manual labour and pushed into more intellectual roles. I believe this had a selection effect, Jews who were not good at being Jews, by which I mean skilled workers, rabbis and bankers, disappeared into the general population, lost their religion and ceased being counted as a part of Jewish society. Strict Jewish laws also required a certain degree of affluence which correlates with intelligence. Affluent Jewish families would have non Jewish servants to perform tasks they could not on the Sabbath.
Kwark, I generally always appreciate your posts, but this right here is what we in the biology/genetics field refer to as "pseudoscience".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
