fuck this. We need to stop being cautious with our words, because party shills will tell us we are with the wrong party for not helping them gloss over the fault's of their canidate.
yes, we are all republicans. your brainwashed as fuck if you really think most of slashdot are republicans. Its how you justify your own zealotry and blind partisan loyalty.
No. This is what you get when you allow a corrupt government to continue operating in a corrupt manner, despite continuous and direct evidence of its corruption.
well....
While we're at it here, let's give Obama an attaboy for saying "fuck no" to the whole disgusting mess. He surely isn't perfect, but he got this exactly right.
your ability try and distort the truth to soak up even the slightest bit of gain in partisan bickering is fucking disgusting. Yes, lets give Obama credit for paying lipservice to important issues. While we are at it, give me credit too, because I've also said "fuck no" to the whole mess and done just as much about it from my fucking couch.
Obama allowed a corrupt government to continue to operate in a corrupted manner, despite continious and direct evidence of its corruption.
The only reason we even know about it, is because some blowhard had the gall to spill the beans, in defense of the program, and has so far been the only person prosecuted for being dumb enough to go to the press. Everyone else who kept their mouth shut, got off.
I find it disgusting you are willing to try and score some partisan points, like this is motherfucking football, instead of demanding a real solution. A real solution would be hearings, and a investigation panel, and potential jail time for the guilty, along with making sure they never find themselves in a position of influence in the government again. This is why no one fucking cares. They can't see a way to spin this in a partisan manner to keep their party elected. This is why bad shit happens.
I said "worth 100k", not making 100k. I also stipulated that they are statisticly more likely to give to charity, and give a far bigger percent of what they have than those worth 100m.
The second clause, was that other people, worth far less, are far too poor to be able to afford charity. The coverage by the media makes it seem like wealthy Billionares do the most, and its the stingy middle and working classes that need to be stopped, when really its the opposite, and you just have a media driven perception bias.
Also, the fact that some people needat all is a sign that the system is broken, and looking at society, it can be said that some of the things that billionares do to become billionares actually impovershes other people, making them need charity in the first place.
To make matters worse cronyism is much more worse during the Obama administration than the Bush administration.
thats still a bit of a stretch. I don't like either, but thats flat out wrong. Cronyism was still much worse under Bush, but thats not a hair I like to split.
Him saying "absolute undeniable proof" does not give you license to say "no possible way that could ever possible be true."
but it does give me a license to say "social darwinism was thrown out ~100 years ago".
put this in the dustbin of history along with lumineferous aether
#Hashtags should be for soley for viral marketing, and not to illustrate social causes, and help people connect with social causes. Heck, they might ever gather in public places and promote social change. This could work out real bad for the corporate sponsors. We need to nip this in the bud.
less and less people have $30 to give to charity. But if statistics mean anything, most people who worth $100k are more willing to give to charity than those worth $100m. Large well broadcasts of millionares donating be damned, most charity actually comes from poor and middle class people.
Of course don't let me stop you mixing up "willing" and "able". It only strengthens the demand for the commons and the public sphere.(inb4 some bad hyperbole)
Some of the groups that oppose Title II designation, like the Urban League and the League of United Latin American Citizens, have received contributions from organizations affiliated with Internet service providers,
gasp, I hardly didn't see that coming. This is fucking capitalism motherfuckers. This is why you can't have a civil rights group that isn't anti-capitalist. This shit needs to end. like yesterday
net neutrality affects the poor the most. Bridge the digital divide.
I'm really starting to wonder if maybe the only felony that should deserve a revocation of the right to vote is vote fraud.
and corruption, and charges relating to abuse of office, and treason, etc...
however, there should never be an automatic revocation of the right to vote. It should need to be something specified by a judge as part of a sentance.
The point of science fiction is to tell a story, using abstractions to make us look at our lives today from an outside perspective. The future, outer space, aliens, a galaxy long time a go, far far away, are all supposed to be abstractions to make parables about life today.
Technology in sci-fi is supposed to be a plot device, nothing more. Ray guns are less messy than projectiles, lightening the plot, most of them also look less dangerous.(imagine the original star trek if they had.45s instead of funny looking ray guns), instead of falling down with neat clean wounds, they wer violently ripped to shreds?
except it doesn't work like that. People tend to side with the rich and powerful. Most people will side with the employer over the employee for the same reason they consider themselves capitalists, and are eager to throw their neighbors under the bus for whatever social witchunt might show up?
Satantic rock'n'roll brainwashing your children. you wouldn't be scared of this if you thought people actually liked your culture.
Red Scare, communist/socialist takeover - you wouldn't be scared of this if everyone in society was treated fairly, and no one was exploited.
dangerous hip hop music/black people - you wouldn't be scared of the men of color unless you knew they were mistreated.
drugs and terrorism - you would not be scared of either, if you actually thought society was good, and people weren't being repressed, and no one ever got unfairly fucked over in life.
No, they are considered bunk scientificly. Tell me, is the IQ excepted as an SI unit of measure? is there kIQ, MIQ, even mIQ? No. Its not. Its not accepted by science. It hasen't for a very long time.
Which is also funny, because IQ was started soley for political reasons. They were invented to for the soley determination of someone's ability to succede in western civilization, and then proven to be utterly useless.
Ah, but the tests themselves being crap does not prove that there isn't an average difference, which sounds like what you're saying.
So you want me to prove a negative?
In this conversation, we went from someone have "absolute indeniable proof", to "we don't really know, but you can't make a hard stance otherwise".
even if there was an average diffrence, you still need to prove that is soley genetics responsible. Then you need to prove that the diffrence is bigger than the margin of error. Then you need to prove that its also bigger than the variation of IQ between *inviduals*.
Say it again, there is no scientific proof that diffrences between races are greater than diffrences between inviduals. In fact there is proof in the opposite.
There is no scientific proof against it either because no
one is allowed to study it
What, are they being shot or something?
it so the only books that get written are by fringe people who are racist
and trying to prove an agenda.
you don't say. Its always been this way. Much of the funding for "social darwinism" in the late 1800s was funded by wealthy racists with agendas.
I don't think that's entirely fair. A lot of racist ideas follow quite logically from hypotheses that make sense from Gregor Mendel's work. The fact that they were falsified by the mid 1900s doesn't mean that they were any less science any more than the luminiferous aether and other discredited hypotheses.
fair enough, scientific racism is as scientific as "luminierous aether". Anyone talking about either outside the context of history herein year of of lord 2014, is a blithering fucking idiot.
basicly the racialists and racialist apologists feel they should be able to attack everyone else with impunity, and the slightest bit of critism surmounts to an unquestionable assault.
Its the same when they say "an assault on traditional values", and the "homosexual agenda", when they really mean "the state is going to stop using force to cram their ideas down someone elses throat". Not only is it a bit of projection, its almost a bit of a conspiracy to attack other people with competing ideas
again, you see what you want to see. Your misapplying statistics. a few points of order:
1. IQ test is considered bunk, and even if it wasn't, there are a whole plethora of tests, that yield varying results. Its very much not a mesaure like grams or meters which is absolute, and solid.
2. There are no good scientific studies on race and IQ that factor out things like education and poverty, and conclusively prove discrepencies.
you don't have to a horse in this race just to see bad methodology.
For science to work you must be able to state an unpopular opinion and not get slaughtered for it.
true, but thats not whats at stake. This is science, not art, there are real unmovable standards in science. The issue is not that his claims were offensive, but un-scientific. In fact, most of the "science" in racism was disproven long ago, and it was only "science", much because it was paid for by special intrest groups to become science.
I'm not for sure how substantial his claims
OK, stop right there. It looks like we are talking about two diffrent things. I am demanding that science be science, and your letting science be "worship of men in white lab coats". I am sure how substantial his claims are. Completely unsubstainiated. This is the issue at hand. You seem rather sure of yourself for someone who isn't even sure his political opinions are valid science. This leaves a giant hole in your logic
How many white people do you see in professional sports? And there is a reason we split men and women
sports apart. An average male athlete would have no problem competing at the olympic level in many sports
if they were allowed to compete on the female side. I've heard somewhere that an average 50 percentile male is
stronger than 90%+ females. Even pointing this out though can get you persecuted and heaven forbid someone
mentions that there are IQ difference between races.
That is casual observation and not science. Thats my point. It also contradicts what you said earlier. While you are entitled to your political views, your not entitled to pass off casual observation as science. As far as IQ diffrences between races, there is no scientific proof. There are a few books such as IQ and the Wealth of Nations, but they are not scientific, as their methodology is horrible.
We're talking about a very smart guy that helped discover DNA.
His discovery of DNA was science. As in he did scientific experiments and proved it using methods of science. DNA is not his opinion. DNA is not accepted because "He's a smart guy, and thinks it exists". This is science, he did experiments and proved it. He made casual observations as proof.
I don't think you know what science is. Its not simply listening to men in white lab coats.
However, if this were the case, and its not, you could not dismiss the fact that every other scientist on the planet refutes this, and PhDs and ground breaking scientists like Noam Chomsky say things almost dirrectly the opposite on a daily basis. I mean by your very own logic, Chomsky is really smart(and did ground breaking research at one point a long time ago), shouldn't we all worship every word that comes out of his mouth. Again, he likes to say political things unpopular with the mainstream. But of course, you'll respond to this with some form of leftist conspiracy, only believing the scientists you want.
The problem with people like you, is you don't rely on concrete logic, or worry about reproducable tests(condition of science), you are seeing what you want to see nothing more.
We are blaming backwards ass fucking laws, that stay on the books due to conspiracy minded dofuses who still think some variant of the satanic minded deviants running around are the reason for society's "decline".
Slashdot Mirror
fuck this. We need to stop being cautious with our words, because party shills will tell us we are with the wrong party for not helping them gloss over the fault's of their canidate.
Failure to prosecute his predecessor you mean?
yeah, pretty much.
as you pubs
yes, we are all republicans. your brainwashed as fuck if you really think most of slashdot are republicans. Its how you justify your own zealotry and blind partisan loyalty.
Inside the American prison system, things are just as bad, every day, and 3 million people are incarcerated. Many of them, again, innocent.
No. This is what you get when you allow a corrupt government to continue operating in a corrupt manner, despite continuous and direct evidence of its corruption.
well....
While we're at it here, let's give Obama an attaboy for saying "fuck no" to the whole disgusting mess. He surely isn't perfect, but he got this exactly right.
your ability try and distort the truth to soak up even the slightest bit of gain in partisan bickering is fucking disgusting. Yes, lets give Obama credit for paying lipservice to important issues. While we are at it, give me credit too, because I've also said "fuck no" to the whole mess and done just as much about it from my fucking couch.
Obama allowed a corrupt government to continue to operate in a corrupted manner, despite continious and direct evidence of its corruption.
The only reason we even know about it, is because some blowhard had the gall to spill the beans, in defense of the program, and has so far been the only person prosecuted for being dumb enough to go to the press. Everyone else who kept their mouth shut, got off.
I find it disgusting you are willing to try and score some partisan points, like this is motherfucking football, instead of demanding a real solution. A real solution would be hearings, and a investigation panel, and potential jail time for the guilty, along with making sure they never find themselves in a position of influence in the government again. This is why no one fucking cares. They can't see a way to spin this in a partisan manner to keep their party elected. This is why bad shit happens.
The second clause, was that other people, worth far less, are far too poor to be able to afford charity. The coverage by the media makes it seem like wealthy Billionares do the most, and its the stingy middle and working classes that need to be stopped, when really its the opposite, and you just have a media driven perception bias.
Also, the fact that some people needat all is a sign that the system is broken, and looking at society, it can be said that some of the things that billionares do to become billionares actually impovershes other people, making them need charity in the first place.
To make matters worse cronyism is much more worse during the Obama administration than the Bush administration.
thats still a bit of a stretch. I don't like either, but thats flat out wrong. Cronyism was still much worse under Bush, but thats not a hair I like to split.
Him saying "absolute undeniable proof" does not give you license to say "no possible way that could ever possible be true."
but it does give me a license to say "social darwinism was thrown out ~100 years ago". put this in the dustbin of history along with lumineferous aether
#Hashtags should be for soley for viral marketing, and not to illustrate social causes, and help people connect with social causes. Heck, they might ever gather in public places and promote social change. This could work out real bad for the corporate sponsors. We need to nip this in the bud.
less and less people have $30 to give to charity. But if statistics mean anything, most people who worth $100k are more willing to give to charity than those worth $100m. Large well broadcasts of millionares donating be damned, most charity actually comes from poor and middle class people. Of course don't let me stop you mixing up "willing" and "able". It only strengthens the demand for the commons and the public sphere.(inb4 some bad hyperbole)
If the West do not improve, in a generation or two (give or take 50 years) Asia will lead the world in Science and Math
I think they have for the past 30 years already.
Some of the groups that oppose Title II designation, like the Urban League and the League of United Latin American Citizens, have received contributions from organizations affiliated with Internet service providers,
gasp, I hardly didn't see that coming. This is fucking capitalism motherfuckers. This is why you can't have a civil rights group that isn't anti-capitalist. This shit needs to end. like yesterday
net neutrality affects the poor the most. Bridge the digital divide.
I'm really starting to wonder if maybe the only felony that should deserve a revocation of the right to vote is vote fraud.
and corruption, and charges relating to abuse of office, and treason, etc... however, there should never be an automatic revocation of the right to vote. It should need to be something specified by a judge as part of a sentance.
There will always be outliers
except its not "outliers", its a good chunk of the population.
Amish are more likely to be born with 12 fingers
thats truely outliers. Outliers in statistics are generally considered more than three standard deviations away from the norm.
Whats that? Statistics? Do you not believe in that too?
The rest of your post is filled with bold speculation, and causual observation, and "what ifs".
I'm not saying you're not entitled to your views, I'm just saying its not science.
The point of science fiction is to tell a story, using abstractions to make us look at our lives today from an outside perspective. The future, outer space, aliens, a galaxy long time a go, far far away, are all supposed to be abstractions to make parables about life today. Technology in sci-fi is supposed to be a plot device, nothing more. Ray guns are less messy than projectiles, lightening the plot, most of them also look less dangerous.(imagine the original star trek if they had .45s instead of funny looking ray guns), instead of falling down with neat clean wounds, they wer violently ripped to shreds?
except it doesn't work like that. People tend to side with the rich and powerful. Most people will side with the employer over the employee for the same reason they consider themselves capitalists, and are eager to throw their neighbors under the bus for whatever social witchunt might show up? Satantic rock'n'roll brainwashing your children. you wouldn't be scared of this if you thought people actually liked your culture. Red Scare, communist/socialist takeover - you wouldn't be scared of this if everyone in society was treated fairly, and no one was exploited. dangerous hip hop music/black people - you wouldn't be scared of the men of color unless you knew they were mistreated. drugs and terrorism - you would not be scared of either, if you actually thought society was good, and people weren't being repressed, and no one ever got unfairly fucked over in life.
Shay's Rebellion
FTFY. although much love to our peeps in the whiskey revolution as well.
Which is also funny, because IQ was started soley for political reasons. They were invented to for the soley determination of someone's ability to succede in western civilization, and then proven to be utterly useless.
Ah, but the tests themselves being crap does not prove that there isn't an average difference, which sounds like what you're saying.
So you want me to prove a negative?
In this conversation, we went from someone have "absolute indeniable proof", to "we don't really know, but you can't make a hard stance otherwise". even if there was an average diffrence, you still need to prove that is soley genetics responsible. Then you need to prove that the diffrence is bigger than the margin of error. Then you need to prove that its also bigger than the variation of IQ between *inviduals*.
Of course there is no scientific proof.
Say it again, there is no scientific proof that diffrences between races are greater than diffrences between inviduals. In fact there is proof in the opposite.
There is no scientific proof against it either because no one is allowed to study it
What, are they being shot or something?
it so the only books that get written are by fringe people who are racist and trying to prove an agenda.
you don't say. Its always been this way. Much of the funding for "social darwinism" in the late 1800s was funded by wealthy racists with agendas.
I don't think that's entirely fair. A lot of racist ideas follow quite logically from hypotheses that make sense from Gregor Mendel's work. The fact that they were falsified by the mid 1900s doesn't mean that they were any less science any more than the luminiferous aether and other discredited hypotheses.
fair enough, scientific racism is as scientific as "luminierous aether". Anyone talking about either outside the context of history herein year of of lord 2014, is a blithering fucking idiot.
call north koreans liars? in any case, it sounds like more fearmongering
Its the same when they say "an assault on traditional values", and the "homosexual agenda", when they really mean "the state is going to stop using force to cram their ideas down someone elses throat". Not only is it a bit of projection, its almost a bit of a conspiracy to attack other people with competing ideas
average diffrences
again, you see what you want to see. Your misapplying statistics. a few points of order:
1. IQ test is considered bunk, and even if it wasn't, there are a whole plethora of tests, that yield varying results. Its very much not a mesaure like grams or meters which is absolute, and solid. 2. There are no good scientific studies on race and IQ that factor out things like education and poverty, and conclusively prove discrepencies. you don't have to a horse in this race just to see bad methodology.
For science to work you must be able to state an unpopular opinion and not get slaughtered for it.
true, but thats not whats at stake. This is science, not art, there are real unmovable standards in science. The issue is not that his claims were offensive, but un-scientific. In fact, most of the "science" in racism was disproven long ago, and it was only "science", much because it was paid for by special intrest groups to become science.
I'm not for sure how substantial his claims
OK, stop right there. It looks like we are talking about two diffrent things. I am demanding that science be science, and your letting science be "worship of men in white lab coats". I am sure how substantial his claims are. Completely unsubstainiated. This is the issue at hand. You seem rather sure of yourself for someone who isn't even sure his political opinions are valid science. This leaves a giant hole in your logic
How many white people do you see in professional sports? And there is a reason we split men and women sports apart. An average male athlete would have no problem competing at the olympic level in many sports if they were allowed to compete on the female side. I've heard somewhere that an average 50 percentile male is stronger than 90%+ females. Even pointing this out though can get you persecuted and heaven forbid someone mentions that there are IQ difference between races.
That is casual observation and not science. Thats my point. It also contradicts what you said earlier. While you are entitled to your political views, your not entitled to pass off casual observation as science. As far as IQ diffrences between races, there is no scientific proof. There are a few books such as IQ and the Wealth of Nations, but they are not scientific, as their methodology is horrible.
We're talking about a very smart guy that helped discover DNA.
His discovery of DNA was science. As in he did scientific experiments and proved it using methods of science. DNA is not his opinion. DNA is not accepted because "He's a smart guy, and thinks it exists". This is science, he did experiments and proved it. He made casual observations as proof.
I don't think you know what science is. Its not simply listening to men in white lab coats.
However, if this were the case, and its not, you could not dismiss the fact that every other scientist on the planet refutes this, and PhDs and ground breaking scientists like Noam Chomsky say things almost dirrectly the opposite on a daily basis. I mean by your very own logic, Chomsky is really smart(and did ground breaking research at one point a long time ago), shouldn't we all worship every word that comes out of his mouth. Again, he likes to say political things unpopular with the mainstream. But of course, you'll respond to this with some form of leftist conspiracy, only believing the scientists you want.
The problem with people like you, is you don't rely on concrete logic, or worry about reproducable tests(condition of science), you are seeing what you want to see nothing more.
We are blaming backwards ass fucking laws, that stay on the books due to conspiracy minded dofuses who still think some variant of the satanic minded deviants running around are the reason for society's "decline".