|
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. |
Its more of a sad example on how badly you react to unreasonable people.
|
On March 07 2016 03:58 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 03:17 KwarK wrote: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".
To be fair in biology/genetics all psychology is pseudoscience.
|
United States43582 Posts
On March 07 2016 03:58 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 03:17 KwarK wrote: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".
Which part do you dispute, that there might be a genetic element to intelligence or that intelligence might be a selector for retaining a minority faith in an alien land?
The argument essentially reads "smarter Jews are more likely to stay in the church than abandon their faith and morph into the general population so Jewish IQ scores are basically one huge sampling error because we're only counting the Jews who still identify as Jews as Jews and not the ones who stopped identifying but are cousins to the first group".
|
In water is wet news, the Maine caucuses are a mess. People being told they can't register (they can), ridiculous lines, and people being told they can just vote and leave (not how Dem caucuses work).
Pretty stupid voting is taking 4+ hours for folks imho.
|
|
|
I'm absolutely loving how well Cruz has been doing contrasted against how poorly Rubio has been doing. You have the conservative and the non-conservative outsiders soaking up a combined 682 compared to Rubio/Kasich's 163. The party leadership that has led against the will of the people for so long are stuck with two totally unpalatable choices for them. Hell, it's about time.
|
Rubio takes Puerto Rico which can't vote in the election but ya know... is there.
|
On March 07 2016 06:10 Danglars wrote:
I'm absolutely loving how well Cruz has been doing contrasted against how poorly Rubio has been doing. You have the conservative and the non-conservative outsiders soaking up a combined 682 compared to Rubio/Kasich's 163. The party leadership that has led against the will of the people for so long are stuck with two totally unpalatable choices for them. Hell, it's about time.
To be fair There are some pretty good reasons why the leadership has been against the cruz/trump part off the party the last 4 or so years.
|
On March 07 2016 06:26 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 06:10 Danglars wrote:
I'm absolutely loving how well Cruz has been doing contrasted against how poorly Rubio has been doing. You have the conservative and the non-conservative outsiders soaking up a combined 682 compared to Rubio/Kasich's 163. The party leadership that has led against the will of the people for so long are stuck with two totally unpalatable choices for them. Hell, it's about time. To be fair There are some pretty good reasons why the leadership has been against the cruz/trump part off the party the last 4 or so years.
Not really. You are doing something seriously wrong when you are disregarding the wishes of a majority of your constituents and actively antagonizing them.
|
On March 07 2016 06:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 06:26 Sermokala wrote:On March 07 2016 06:10 Danglars wrote:
I'm absolutely loving how well Cruz has been doing contrasted against how poorly Rubio has been doing. You have the conservative and the non-conservative outsiders soaking up a combined 682 compared to Rubio/Kasich's 163. The party leadership that has led against the will of the people for so long are stuck with two totally unpalatable choices for them. Hell, it's about time. To be fair There are some pretty good reasons why the leadership has been against the cruz/trump part off the party the last 4 or so years. Not really. You are doing something seriously wrong when you are disregarding the wishes of a majority of your constituents and actively antagonizing them.
There are certainly opinions that a majority of your constituents can have that deserve being ignored and having constituents be antagonized for. You just don't think that any of them have crossed that line.
Unless you're saying there's a better to do that, as in educating and explaining people why they are wrong on something.
|
On March 07 2016 06:36 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2016 06:26 Sermokala wrote:On March 07 2016 06:10 Danglars wrote:
I'm absolutely loving how well Cruz has been doing contrasted against how poorly Rubio has been doing. You have the conservative and the non-conservative outsiders soaking up a combined 682 compared to Rubio/Kasich's 163. The party leadership that has led against the will of the people for so long are stuck with two totally unpalatable choices for them. Hell, it's about time. To be fair There are some pretty good reasons why the leadership has been against the cruz/trump part off the party the last 4 or so years. Not really. You are doing something seriously wrong when you are disregarding the wishes of a majority of your constituents and actively antagonizing them. There are certainly opinions that a majority of your constituents can have that deserve being ignored and having constituents be antagonized for. You just don't think that any of them have crossed that line. Unless you're saying there's a better to do that, as in educating and explaining people why they are wrong on something.
You are missing the key point -- really the only point -- of representative democracy.
|
On March 07 2016 06:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 06:36 Toadesstern wrote:On March 07 2016 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2016 06:26 Sermokala wrote:On March 07 2016 06:10 Danglars wrote:
I'm absolutely loving how well Cruz has been doing contrasted against how poorly Rubio has been doing. You have the conservative and the non-conservative outsiders soaking up a combined 682 compared to Rubio/Kasich's 163. The party leadership that has led against the will of the people for so long are stuck with two totally unpalatable choices for them. Hell, it's about time. To be fair There are some pretty good reasons why the leadership has been against the cruz/trump part off the party the last 4 or so years. Not really. You are doing something seriously wrong when you are disregarding the wishes of a majority of your constituents and actively antagonizing them. There are certainly opinions that a majority of your constituents can have that deserve being ignored and having constituents be antagonized for. You just don't think that any of them have crossed that line. Unless you're saying there's a better to do that, as in educating and explaining people why they are wrong on something. You are missing the key point -- really the only point -- of representative democracy.
And you apparently missed out on me taking it to the extreme just to show that it's not that black and white.
I mean really, if a majority of people think it's absolutely fine and dandy to punish/kill people for having a terrorist in their family without any proof that the familymembers are related at all it's completly fine to tell people they're stupid and that's not something you can do no matter the number of people who think so.
(in fact that's why it's so important that neither you nor anyone else really is a pure democracy. You have to protect minorities from stupid shit the majority could do otherwise)
|
On March 07 2016 06:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 06:36 Toadesstern wrote:On March 07 2016 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2016 06:26 Sermokala wrote:On March 07 2016 06:10 Danglars wrote:
I'm absolutely loving how well Cruz has been doing contrasted against how poorly Rubio has been doing. You have the conservative and the non-conservative outsiders soaking up a combined 682 compared to Rubio/Kasich's 163. The party leadership that has led against the will of the people for so long are stuck with two totally unpalatable choices for them. Hell, it's about time. To be fair There are some pretty good reasons why the leadership has been against the cruz/trump part off the party the last 4 or so years. Not really. You are doing something seriously wrong when you are disregarding the wishes of a majority of your constituents and actively antagonizing them. There are certainly opinions that a majority of your constituents can have that deserve being ignored and having constituents be antagonized for. You just don't think that any of them have crossed that line. Unless you're saying there's a better to do that, as in educating and explaining people why they are wrong on something. You are missing the key point -- really the only point -- of representative democracy.
Actually, no he isn't. Perhaps you are confusing representative democracy with direct democracy.
|
Ted Cruz denounced the possibility of a brokered convention to decide a Republican presidential nominee on Sunday, as the death of former first lady Nancy Reagan cast the schisms of the modern party into high relief compared with the unity of the party under her husband.
Cruz, who won more delegates than frontrunner Donald Trump in the four states that held Republican votes on Saturday night, told CBS’s Face the Nation he believed any strategy of a brokered convention – a last resort to stop Trump – simply represents “the fevered talk of the Washington establishment”.
The Texas senator warned that if party leaders resorted to choosing any candidate besides the majority delegate winner, “a manifest uprising” would ensue.
His remarks underscored the dilemma facing the party as it searches for a cohesive strategy to beat Trump, who according to the Associated Press has 382 of the 1,237 necessary delegates to win the nomination. Cruz has 300, far more than Marco Rubio and John Kasich, whom party leaders prefer to the unpredictable billionaire and disliked senator.
Source
|
On March 07 2016 06:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 06:36 Toadesstern wrote:On March 07 2016 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2016 06:26 Sermokala wrote:On March 07 2016 06:10 Danglars wrote:
I'm absolutely loving how well Cruz has been doing contrasted against how poorly Rubio has been doing. You have the conservative and the non-conservative outsiders soaking up a combined 682 compared to Rubio/Kasich's 163. The party leadership that has led against the will of the people for so long are stuck with two totally unpalatable choices for them. Hell, it's about time. To be fair There are some pretty good reasons why the leadership has been against the cruz/trump part off the party the last 4 or so years. Not really. You are doing something seriously wrong when you are disregarding the wishes of a majority of your constituents and actively antagonizing them. There are certainly opinions that a majority of your constituents can have that deserve being ignored and having constituents be antagonized for. You just don't think that any of them have crossed that line. Unless you're saying there's a better to do that, as in educating and explaining people why they are wrong on something. You are missing the key point -- really the only point -- of representative democracy.
Here is the issue. The US is a 2 party system.
Lets generalize and divide the entire range of political opinions in 10 parts.
if the Democratic party is at 3 and the GOP at 7 then maybe the GOP doesnt want people who are at 9.
However since the US is a 2 party system there is no where else for these people to go.
It is perfectly acceptable for a party to not want people of certain conviction. You don't have a right to a party that represents your views.
|
On March 07 2016 07:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 06:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2016 06:36 Toadesstern wrote:On March 07 2016 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2016 06:26 Sermokala wrote:On March 07 2016 06:10 Danglars wrote:
I'm absolutely loving how well Cruz has been doing contrasted against how poorly Rubio has been doing. You have the conservative and the non-conservative outsiders soaking up a combined 682 compared to Rubio/Kasich's 163. The party leadership that has led against the will of the people for so long are stuck with two totally unpalatable choices for them. Hell, it's about time. To be fair There are some pretty good reasons why the leadership has been against the cruz/trump part off the party the last 4 or so years. Not really. You are doing something seriously wrong when you are disregarding the wishes of a majority of your constituents and actively antagonizing them. There are certainly opinions that a majority of your constituents can have that deserve being ignored and having constituents be antagonized for. You just don't think that any of them have crossed that line. Unless you're saying there's a better to do that, as in educating and explaining people why they are wrong on something. You are missing the key point -- really the only point -- of representative democracy. Here is the issue. The US is a 2 party system. Lets generalize and divide the entire range of political opinions in 10 parts. if the Democratic party is at 3 and the GOP at 7 then maybe the GOP doesnt want people who are at 9. However since the US is a 2 party system there is no where else for these people to go. It is perfectly acceptable for a party to not want people of certain conviction. You don't have a right to a party that represents your views.
We aren't talking about the GOP disenfranchising a small
minority of its constituency. We are talking about a large majority of the party.
Edit: And like the others, you are putting the cart before the horse. The party is supposed to reflect the will of it constituency -- not the other way around.
|
I laughed :p
“Look, I told Barack, if you really, really want to remake the Supreme Court, nominate Cruz,” Mr. Biden said at the annual Gridiron Dinner, according to excerpts from his prepared speech released by his office. “Before you know it, you’ll have eight vacancies.”
Source
|
On March 07 2016 07:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 07:04 Gorsameth wrote:On March 07 2016 06:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2016 06:36 Toadesstern wrote:On March 07 2016 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2016 06:26 Sermokala wrote:On March 07 2016 06:10 Danglars wrote:
I'm absolutely loving how well Cruz has been doing contrasted against how poorly Rubio has been doing. You have the conservative and the non-conservative outsiders soaking up a combined 682 compared to Rubio/Kasich's 163. The party leadership that has led against the will of the people for so long are stuck with two totally unpalatable choices for them. Hell, it's about time. To be fair There are some pretty good reasons why the leadership has been against the cruz/trump part off the party the last 4 or so years. Not really. You are doing something seriously wrong when you are disregarding the wishes of a majority of your constituents and actively antagonizing them. There are certainly opinions that a majority of your constituents can have that deserve being ignored and having constituents be antagonized for. You just don't think that any of them have crossed that line. Unless you're saying there's a better to do that, as in educating and explaining people why they are wrong on something. You are missing the key point -- really the only point -- of representative democracy. Here is the issue. The US is a 2 party system. Lets generalize and divide the entire range of political opinions in 10 parts. if the Democratic party is at 3 and the GOP at 7 then maybe the GOP doesnt want people who are at 9. However since the US is a 2 party system there is no where else for these people to go. It is perfectly acceptable for a party to not want people of certain conviction. You don't have a right to a party that represents your views. We aren't talking about the GOP disenfranchising a small minority of its constituency. We are talking about a large majority of the party. Edit: And like the others, you are putting the cart before the horse. The party is supposed to reflect the will of it constituency -- not the other way around.
See in a multi party system there are other options for these people to go to.
The schism in the GOP is the direct result of the 2 party system. And no a party has no duty to reflect the will of its constituents. In a normal world those people would vote for another party and cause the offending party to die out.
|
On March 07 2016 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 07:09 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2016 07:04 Gorsameth wrote:On March 07 2016 06:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2016 06:36 Toadesstern wrote:On March 07 2016 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2016 06:26 Sermokala wrote:On March 07 2016 06:10 Danglars wrote:
I'm absolutely loving how well Cruz has been doing contrasted against how poorly Rubio has been doing. You have the conservative and the non-conservative outsiders soaking up a combined 682 compared to Rubio/Kasich's 163. The party leadership that has led against the will of the people for so long are stuck with two totally unpalatable choices for them. Hell, it's about time. To be fair There are some pretty good reasons why the leadership has been against the cruz/trump part off the party the last 4 or so years. Not really. You are doing something seriously wrong when you are disregarding the wishes of a majority of your constituents and actively antagonizing them. There are certainly opinions that a majority of your constituents can have that deserve being ignored and having constituents be antagonized for. You just don't think that any of them have crossed that line. Unless you're saying there's a better to do that, as in educating and explaining people why they are wrong on something. You are missing the key point -- really the only point -- of representative democracy. Here is the issue. The US is a 2 party system. Lets generalize and divide the entire range of political opinions in 10 parts. if the Democratic party is at 3 and the GOP at 7 then maybe the GOP doesnt want people who are at 9. However since the US is a 2 party system there is no where else for these people to go. It is perfectly acceptable for a party to not want people of certain conviction. You don't have a right to a party that represents your views. We aren't talking about the GOP disenfranchising a small minority of its constituency. We are talking about a large majority of the party. Edit: And like the others, you are putting the cart before the horse. The party is supposed to reflect the will of it constituency -- not the other way around. See in a multi party system there are other options for these people to go to. The schism in the GOP is the direct result of the 2 party system. And no a party has no duty to reflect the will of its constituents. In a normal world those people would vote for another party and cause the offending party to die out.
And maybe a multiparty system is what the US needs (and it may be what Trump gives us). But the larger point is this: the GOP has clearly failed its membership. This is why I objected to Sermokala's point that the GOP may have been right to ignore the "Cruz and Trump" elements of the party. The obvious point is that a party's leadership cannot ignore 70%+ of its membership and expect things to go well.
|
On March 07 2016 00:34 Atreides 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. 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.
You are probably right. With respect to African Americans a big chunk of the Republican base is probably tired of the 'PC' crowd shaming them for calling race relations like they see it. They want to talk about: how blacks use the 'n' word, so I should be able to; that blacks are poor and criminal because they are genetically intellectually inferior and their culture sucks; blacks are moochers by nature and slave owners actually treated them pretty well all in all. So yeah, the societal demonization of those positions may have led in part to the glorious Trump revolution, but it didn't lead these folks to hold those views in the first place.
Referring to the Republican base is a bit ham-fisted I'll concede. Many, probably most, Republicans abhor those positions, but the Republican party owns those that advance it in the same way the left owns the college students that assaulted the journalist reporting on the BLM protest at Missouri St, or the odd feminist calling for men to be removed to concentration camps. But the wacko shit on the left isn't nearly so endemic as the race/xenophobia thing is on the right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
