Discussion:
Is this a racist joke?
(too old to reply)
Dutch
2018-08-07 00:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Last month, a world-wide telephone survey was conducted by the UN:

The only question asked was:-
"Please give your honest opinion about possible solutions
to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"
The survey was a complete failure because..
In South America they didn't know what “please” meant.
In Eastern Europe they didn't know what “honest” meant.
In China they didn't know what “opinion” meant.
In the Middle East they didn't know what “solution” meant.
In Africa they didn't know what “food” meant.
In Western Europe they didn't know what “shortage” meant.
In the USA they didn't know what “the rest of the world” meant.
And in Canada everyone hung up as soon as they heard the Indian accent!
da pickle
2018-08-07 14:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
The only question asked was:-
"Please give your honest opinion about possible solutions
to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"
The survey was a complete failure because..
In South America they didn't know what “please” meant.
In Eastern Europe they didn't know what “honest” meant.
In China they didn't know what “opinion” meant.
In the Middle East they didn't know what “solution” meant.
In Africa they didn't know what “food” meant.
In Western Europe they didn't know what “shortage” meant.
In the USA they didn't know what “the rest of the world” meant.
And in Canada everyone hung up as soon as they heard the Indian accent!
Like everything else, it depends on what your definition of "is" is.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
BTSinAustin
2018-08-07 16:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
The only question asked was:-
"Please give your honest opinion about possible solutions
to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"
The survey was a complete failure because..
In South America they didn't know what “please” meant.
In Eastern Europe they didn't know what “honest” meant.
In China they didn't know what “opinion” meant.
In the Middle East they didn't know what “solution” meant.
In Africa they didn't know what “food” meant.
In Western Europe they didn't know what “shortage” meant.
In the USA they didn't know what “the rest of the world” meant.
And in Canada everyone hung up as soon as they heard the Indian accent!
Racist maybe, funny yes!
Tim Norfolk
2018-08-07 20:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTSinAustin
Post by Dutch
The only question asked was:-
"Please give your honest opinion about possible solutions
to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"
The survey was a complete failure because..
In South America they didn't know what “please” meant.
In Eastern Europe they didn't know what “honest” meant.
In China they didn't know what “opinion” meant.
In the Middle East they didn't know what “solution” meant.
In Africa they didn't know what “food” meant.
In Western Europe they didn't know what “shortage” meant.
In the USA they didn't know what “the rest of the world” meant.
And in Canada everyone hung up as soon as they heard the Indian accent!
Racist maybe, funny yes!
Unacceptable now, but funny indeed, like the old heaven/hell one.
Dutch
2018-08-07 20:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by BTSinAustin
Post by Dutch
The only question asked was:-
"Please give your honest opinion about possible solutions
to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"
The survey was a complete failure because..
In South America they didn't know what “please” meant.
In Eastern Europe they didn't know what “honest” meant.
In China they didn't know what “opinion” meant.
In the Middle East they didn't know what “solution” meant.
In Africa they didn't know what “food” meant.
In Western Europe they didn't know what “shortage” meant.
In the USA they didn't know what “the rest of the world” meant.
And in Canada everyone hung up as soon as they heard the Indian accent!
Racist maybe, funny yes!
Unacceptable now, but funny indeed, like the old heaven/hell one.
What is racist about it? It doesn't actually mention any particular
race. Is it that is generalizes about countries and pokes fun at them?

Oh, the Indian accent part, is that what you mean?
fffurken
2018-08-07 20:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by BTSinAustin
Post by Dutch
The only question asked was:-
"Please give your honest opinion about possible solutions
to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"
The survey was a complete failure because..
In South America they didn't know what “please” meant.
In Eastern Europe they didn't know what “honest” meant.
In China they didn't know what “opinion” meant.
In the Middle East they didn't know what “solution” meant.
In Africa they didn't know what “food” meant.
In Western Europe they didn't know what “shortage” meant.
In the USA they didn't know what “the rest of the world” meant.
And in Canada everyone hung up as soon as they heard the Indian accent!
Racist maybe, funny yes!
Unacceptable now, but funny indeed, like the old heaven/hell one.
What is racist about it? It doesn't actually mention any particular
race.
And no one noticed
Tim Norfolk
2018-08-07 21:00:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by BTSinAustin
Post by Dutch
The only question asked was:-
"Please give your honest opinion about possible solutions
to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"
The survey was a complete failure because..
In South America they didn't know what “please” meant.
In Eastern Europe they didn't know what “honest” meant.
In China they didn't know what “opinion” meant.
In the Middle East they didn't know what “solution” meant.
In Africa they didn't know what “food” meant.
In Western Europe they didn't know what “shortage” meant.
In the USA they didn't know what “the rest of the world” meant.
And in Canada everyone hung up as soon as they heard the Indian accent!
Racist maybe, funny yes!
Unacceptable now, but funny indeed, like the old heaven/hell one.
What is racist about it? It doesn't actually mention any particular
race. Is it that is generalizes about countries and pokes fun at them?
Oh, the Indian accent part, is that what you mean?
To some people, making fun of people from a given nation is racist. Is there another word for that?
BillB
2018-08-07 21:37:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Norfolk
To some people, making fun of people from a given nation is racist. Is there another word for that?
Thinly veiled racism is still racism. There are even some especially dim-witted Islamophobes who refuse to admit that their Islamophobia is grounded in racial animus. That doesn't really fool anyone, or change the way the disorder is perceived by normal people. It's still seen for what it is, an obvious form of racism.

The same goes for animus toward certain countries. If someone says, "I don't want those dirty Mexicans coming to our country," I don't think there is much doubt he is a racist, even if he didn't mention the name of a race by name. Same thing if you say, "The [Mexicans] are bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." It's obvious racism, even though a specific race isn't "named".

We're all adults here. No need to play dumb.
fffurken
2018-08-07 21:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
Post by Tim Norfolk
To some people, making fun of people from a given nation is racist. Is there another word for that?
Thinly veiled racism is still racism.
You think Moslems are a race
Post by BillB
There are even some especially dim-witted Islamophobes who refuse to admit that their Islamophobia is grounded in racial animus.
There are many dim-witted leftists who refuse to accept (or simply don't know) what Islam is. You are of course a perfect example.
BillB
2018-08-07 22:25:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by fffurken
Post by BillB
Post by Tim Norfolk
To some people, making fun of people from a given nation is racist. Is there another word for that?
Thinly veiled racism is still racism.
You think Moslems are a race
Sure, under its most expansive definition, Muslims could be considered a race of people. It's certainly a more useful and accurate classification of humans than melanin levels. lol But like I've said many, many, many times, I don't see much use at all in trying to divide people into "races," unless it's for the purpose of addressing historical injustices caused by that now scientifically debunked concept.
Post by fffurken
There are many dim-witted leftists who refuse to accept (or simply don't know) >what Islam is. You are of course a perfect example.
I think you mean I don't subscribe to your childish and silly youtube conspiracy theories.
fffurken
2018-08-07 22:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
Post by fffurken
Post by BillB
Post by Tim Norfolk
To some people, making fun of people from a given nation is racist. Is there another word for that?
Thinly veiled racism is still racism.
You think Moslems are a race
Sure, under its most expansive definition, Muslims could be considered a race of people. It's certainly a more useful and accurate classification of humans than melanin levels. lol But like I've said many, many, many times, I don't see much use at all in trying to divide people into "races," unless it's for the purpose of addressing historical injustices caused by that now scientifically debunked concept.
Post by fffurken
There are many dim-witted leftists who refuse to accept (or simply don't know) >what Islam is. You are of course a perfect example.
I think you mean I don't subscribe to your childish and silly youtube conspiracy theories.
lol @ childish.

You break irony meters almost every time you post.

It's completely obvious that you pay absolutely no attention to what Islam is. You think of Islam as a race.. of "scary brown people" ((c) BSinAustin).. therefore "oppressed".

Leftists aren't complicated. It's the opposite.
BillB
2018-08-07 22:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
Post by Tim Norfolk
To some people, making fun of people from a given nation is racist. Is there another word for that?
Thinly veiled racism is still racism. There are even some especially dim-witted Islamophobes who refuse to admit that their Islamophobia is grounded in racial animus. That doesn't really fool anyone, or change the way the disorder is perceived by normal people. It's still seen for what it is, an obvious form of racism.
The same goes for animus toward certain countries. If someone says, "I don't want those dirty Mexicans coming to our country," I don't think there is much doubt he is a racist, even if he didn't mention the name of a race by name. Same thing if you say, "The [Mexicans] are bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." It's obvious racism, even though a specific race isn't "named".
We're all adults here. No need to play dumb.
By the way, to answer Dutch's question, the joke isn't racist, but imho "joking" about hunger in Africa is in very poor taste, to say the very least. People dying a slow, painful death by the thousands every day (a large percentage of whom are children) is not a laughing matter in my book.
Tim Norfolk
2018-08-08 02:16:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
Post by BillB
Post by Tim Norfolk
To some people, making fun of people from a given nation is racist. Is there another word for that?
Thinly veiled racism is still racism. There are even some especially dim-witted Islamophobes who refuse to admit that their Islamophobia is grounded in racial animus. That doesn't really fool anyone, or change the way the disorder is perceived by normal people. It's still seen for what it is, an obvious form of racism.
The same goes for animus toward certain countries. If someone says, "I don't want those dirty Mexicans coming to our country," I don't think there is much doubt he is a racist, even if he didn't mention the name of a race by name. Same thing if you say, "The [Mexicans] are bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." It's obvious racism, even though a specific race isn't "named".
We're all adults here. No need to play dumb.
By the way, to answer Dutch's question, the joke isn't racist, but imho "joking" about hunger in Africa is in very poor taste, to say the very least. People dying a slow, painful death by the thousands every day (a large percentage of whom are children) is not a laughing matter in my book.
It's called dark humor (black humour in the UK), and is a cultural mechanism to deal with painful subjects. It's one of the things that the extreme left and right wings do not understand, since strongly-opinionated people rarely have a functioning sense of humour.
BillB
2018-08-08 02:36:36 UTC
Permalink
It's called dark humor (black humour in the UK), and is a cultural mechanism to >deal with painful subjects.
First of all, if you think this joke was designed to alleviate the pain of knowing there are people starving to death in Africa every day, you are delusional. The point is to mock them.

Secondly, though black humor is a thing, and I engage in it myself all the time, "joking" about thousands of black children slowly starving to death every day just falls flat, no matter how good your delivery. If you think otherwise, you should just leave the comedy to the professionals.
It's one of the things that the extreme left and right wings do not understand, >since strongly-opinionated people rarely have a functioning sense of humour.
I wouldn't know. I'm a centrist.
fffurken
2018-08-08 02:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
It's called dark humor (black humour in the UK), and is a cultural mechanism to >deal with painful subjects.
First of all, if you think this joke was designed to alleviate the pain of knowing there are people starving to death in Africa every day, you are delusional. The point is to mock them.
Secondly, though black humor is a thing, and I engage in it myself all the time, "joking" about thousands of black children slowly starving to death every day just falls flat, no matter how good your delivery. If you think otherwise, you should just leave the comedy to the professionals.
It's one of the things that the extreme left and right wings do not understand, >since strongly-opinionated people rarely have a functioning sense of humour.
I wouldn't know. I'm a centrist.
-1/10
Bill Vanek
2018-08-08 04:04:49 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 19:36:36 -0700 (PDT), BillB
Post by BillB
Secondly, though black humor is a thing, and I engage in it myself all the time, "joking" about thousands of black children slowly starving to death every day just falls flat, no matter how good your delivery. If you think otherwise, you should just leave the comedy to the professionals.
How about joking about dead RGP posters? Well, you didn't like Bea, so
it's okay.
BillB
2018-08-08 04:23:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Vanek
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 19:36:36 -0700 (PDT), BillB
Post by BillB
Secondly, though black humor is a thing, and I engage in it myself all the time, "joking" about thousands of black children slowly starving to death every day just falls flat, no matter how good your delivery. If you think otherwise, you should just leave the comedy to the professionals.
How about joking about dead RGP posters? Well, you didn't like Bea, so
it's okay.
What? I liked Bea. Although I have to admit I liked her a lot more before she started attacking me all the time. I just wish I could have helped her become a happier person. God knows I tried. She had a negative outlook on everything. I guess cancer can do that to a person.

I don't remember ever joking about her death. That's really not my style. I'm the MC of Class and Decorum
Tim Norfolk
2018-08-08 22:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
It's called dark humor (black humour in the UK), and is a cultural mechanism to >deal with painful subjects.
First of all, if you think this joke was designed to alleviate the pain of knowing there are people starving to death in Africa every day, you are delusional. The point is to mock them.
Secondly, though black humor is a thing, and I engage in it myself all the time, "joking" about thousands of black children slowly starving to death every day just falls flat, no matter how good your delivery. If you think otherwise, you should just leave the comedy to the professionals.
It's one of the things that the extreme left and right wings do not understand, >since strongly-opinionated people rarely have a functioning sense of humour.
I wouldn't know. I'm a centrist.
It's partly a comment on the reality that the problem cannot be solved. It has been analyzed multiple times, and most of Africa has enough food. It is just that the systems are so corrupt that it doesn't get to the people who need it.
Bill Vanek
2018-08-08 23:11:12 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 15:52:48 -0700 (PDT), Tim Norfolk
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by BillB
It's called dark humor (black humour in the UK), and is a cultural mechanism to >deal with painful subjects.
First of all, if you think this joke was designed to alleviate the pain of knowing there are people starving to death in Africa every day, you are delusional. The point is to mock them.
Secondly, though black humor is a thing, and I engage in it myself all the time, "joking" about thousands of black children slowly starving to death every day just falls flat, no matter how good your delivery. If you think otherwise, you should just leave the comedy to the professionals.
It's one of the things that the extreme left and right wings do not understand, >since strongly-opinionated people rarely have a functioning sense of humour.
I wouldn't know. I'm a centrist.
It's partly a comment on the reality that the problem cannot be solved. It has been analyzed multiple times, and most of Africa has enough food. It is just that the systems are so corrupt that it doesn't get to the people who need it.
Uh oh..., aren't you straying from the party line here? You might get
attacked at some restaurant.
Tim Norfolk
2018-08-09 01:11:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Vanek
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 15:52:48 -0700 (PDT), Tim Norfolk
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by BillB
It's called dark humor (black humour in the UK), and is a cultural mechanism to >deal with painful subjects.
First of all, if you think this joke was designed to alleviate the pain of knowing there are people starving to death in Africa every day, you are delusional. The point is to mock them.
Secondly, though black humor is a thing, and I engage in it myself all the time, "joking" about thousands of black children slowly starving to death every day just falls flat, no matter how good your delivery. If you think otherwise, you should just leave the comedy to the professionals.
It's one of the things that the extreme left and right wings do not understand, >since strongly-opinionated people rarely have a functioning sense of humour.
I wouldn't know. I'm a centrist.
It's partly a comment on the reality that the problem cannot be solved. It has been analyzed multiple times, and most of Africa has enough food. It is just that the systems are so corrupt that it doesn't get to the people who need it.
Uh oh..., aren't you straying from the party line here? You might get
attacked at some restaurant.
What party line? There isn't a party which best represents my interests.
Bill Vanek
2018-08-09 02:19:42 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 18:11:22 -0700 (PDT), Tim Norfolk
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by Bill Vanek
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 15:52:48 -0700 (PDT), Tim Norfolk
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by BillB
It's called dark humor (black humour in the UK), and is a cultural mechanism to >deal with painful subjects.
First of all, if you think this joke was designed to alleviate the pain of knowing there are people starving to death in Africa every day, you are delusional. The point is to mock them.
Secondly, though black humor is a thing, and I engage in it myself all the time, "joking" about thousands of black children slowly starving to death every day just falls flat, no matter how good your delivery. If you think otherwise, you should just leave the comedy to the professionals.
It's one of the things that the extreme left and right wings do not understand, >since strongly-opinionated people rarely have a functioning sense of humour.
I wouldn't know. I'm a centrist.
It's partly a comment on the reality that the problem cannot be solved. It has been analyzed multiple times, and most of Africa has enough food. It is just that the systems are so corrupt that it doesn't get to the people who need it.
Uh oh..., aren't you straying from the party line here? You might get
attacked at some restaurant.
What party line? There isn't a party which best represents my interests.
Liberals, the left. It doesn't have to be a political party, but I
would think the Democrats would be a close fit.
Tim Norfolk
2018-08-09 20:25:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Vanek
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 18:11:22 -0700 (PDT), Tim Norfolk
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by Bill Vanek
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 15:52:48 -0700 (PDT), Tim Norfolk
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by BillB
It's called dark humor (black humour in the UK), and is a cultural mechanism to >deal with painful subjects.
First of all, if you think this joke was designed to alleviate the pain of knowing there are people starving to death in Africa every day, you are delusional. The point is to mock them.
Secondly, though black humor is a thing, and I engage in it myself all the time, "joking" about thousands of black children slowly starving to death every day just falls flat, no matter how good your delivery. If you think otherwise, you should just leave the comedy to the professionals.
It's one of the things that the extreme left and right wings do not understand, >since strongly-opinionated people rarely have a functioning sense of humour.
I wouldn't know. I'm a centrist.
It's partly a comment on the reality that the problem cannot be solved. It has been analyzed multiple times, and most of Africa has enough food. It is just that the systems are so corrupt that it doesn't get to the people who need it.
Uh oh..., aren't you straying from the party line here? You might get
attacked at some restaurant.
What party line? There isn't a party which best represents my interests.
Liberals, the left. It doesn't have to be a political party, but I
would think the Democrats would be a close fit.
Nope. Every party is doing its best to ignore serious science and facts. For the GOP, it's things like global warming and evolution. For the Democrats, it's things like the genetic component of intelligence. The fringe parties are even worse.
BillB
2018-08-09 20:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Nope. Every party is doing its best to ignore serious science and facts. For the >GOP, it's things like global warming and evolution. For the Democrats, it's >things like the genetic component of intelligence. The fringe parties are even >worse.
What do you mean by "the genetic component of intelligence?" Democrats are denying that intelligent parents tend to have intelligent children? I don't remember ever seeing that, even once. Meanwhile, the entire Republican platform is based on denying science. I can't believe you had the gall to even compare the two parties on this issue. Way off base.
da pickle
2018-08-09 22:03:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
Nope. Every party is doing its best to ignore serious science and facts. For the >GOP, it's things like global warming and evolution. For the Democrats, it's >things like the genetic component of intelligence. The fringe parties are even >worse.
What do you mean by "the genetic component of intelligence?" Democrats are denying that intelligent parents tend to have intelligent children? I don't remember ever seeing that, even once. Meanwhile, the entire Republican platform is based on denying science. I can't believe you had the gall to even compare the two parties on this issue. Way off base.
Another -7 ... the fall is near



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Tim Norfolk
2018-08-10 02:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
Nope. Every party is doing its best to ignore serious science and facts. For the >GOP, it's things like global warming and evolution. For the Democrats, it's >things like the genetic component of intelligence. The fringe parties are even >worse.
What do you mean by "the genetic component of intelligence?" Democrats are denying that intelligent parents tend to have intelligent children? I don't remember ever seeing that, even once. Meanwhile, the entire Republican platform is based on denying science. I can't believe you had the gall to even compare the two parties on this issue. Way off base.
That is the claim of the left. It's one of the driving premises for the 'college for all' movement. The idea, promulgated in colleges of education, is that anyone can succeed, if they are taught 'correctly'.
Mossingen
2018-08-10 02:37:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Norfolk
That is the claim of the left. It's one of the driving premises for the
'college for all' movement. The idea, promulgated in colleges of education,
is that anyone can succeed, if they are taught >'correctly'.
You disagree with that? I tend to that that is true. Sure, there are the
tails of the bell curve with retarded people on the one end and a small
number of super geniuses who can conceptualize complex ideas in their heads
in a way most people can't, but the for the bulk of the folks like us inside
the bell curve, I think parental example and instruction to young children
is probably the single greatest indicator of "intelligence" there is.

I grew up in rural Oklahoma at a time with no internet and with three
television stations at my house out in the country. But, my Dad valued
reading and education and he quizzed me on spelling words and went over my
homework with me, and he brought books home and a set of encyclopedias so
that I could look things up for myself. My mom would drive the half-hour to
the next city that had a library and would take me with her and spend the
day there.

In high school, I could really tell whose parents were involved and whose
were not, and I was one of the smartest in my class, probably the school,
but I have come to realize that there is nothing special about me. I just
learned to value learning and reading from an early age and remained
inquisitive. I am probably a guy of average intelligence who has worked
really hard through life to learn and think as much as I can. I think most
folks are like that.
fffurken
2018-08-10 03:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mossingen
I am probably a guy of average intelligence
That sounds about right
BillB
2018-08-10 08:41:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mossingen
Post by Tim Norfolk
That is the claim of the left. It's one of the driving premises for the
'college for all' movement. The idea, promulgated in colleges of education,
is that anyone can succeed, if they are taught >'correctly'.
You disagree with that? I tend to that that is true. Sure, there are the
tails of the bell curve with retarded people on the one end and a small
number of super geniuses who can conceptualize complex ideas in their heads
in a way most people can't, but the for the bulk of the folks like us inside
the bell curve, I think parental example and instruction to young children
is probably the single greatest indicator of "intelligence" there is.
I grew up in rural Oklahoma at a time with no internet and with three
television stations at my house out in the country. But, my Dad valued
reading and education and he quizzed me on spelling words and went over my
homework with me, and he brought books home and a set of encyclopedias so
that I could look things up for myself. My mom would drive the half-hour to
the next city that had a library and would take me with her and spend the
day there.
In high school, I could really tell whose parents were involved and whose
were not, and I was one of the smartest in my class, probably the school,
but I have come to realize that there is nothing special about me. I just
learned to value learning and reading from an early age and remained
inquisitive. I am probably a guy of average intelligence who has worked
really hard through life to learn and think as much as I can. I think most
folks are like that.
If you were a person of "average intelligence" (~100 IQ), that is said to translate to an LSAT score of about 125. That means ~99% if LSAT test takers outscored you. Is that what happened? lol I don't think so. You would not have been accepted into any accredited law school in North America.

iirc you went to law school at the University of Oklahoma. The median LSAT score is 157 and the bottom 25% score in 155 (i.e. not a lot of standard deviation in scores). An LSAT score of 157 is said to roughly translate to an IQ of 128, or two almost two standard deviations above "average". That makes sense, as my recollection is that the average undergraduate student in first tier university has an IQ of 115-120 (96 in Ireland). An IQ of 128 would put your IQ somewhere around the 96th percentile...hardly "average".

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to deduct 10 IQ points for making that stupid self-effacing comment in the first place, and another 10 for believing that freedom of speech should be absolute, which makes no logical sense whatsoever.
fffurken
2018-08-10 08:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to deduct 10 IQ points for making that stupid self-effacing comment...
Of course it was self-effacing, especially considering he spent the former part of his post telling us how sooper smart he is.

I just picked out the factuality of his post.
Mossingen
2018-08-10 17:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by fffurken
Of course it was self-effacing, especially considering he spent the former
part of his post telling us how sooper smart he is.
I think you missed my point. I'm not any "smarter" than an average person,
meaning that I don't think my brain is that different than the norm. It is
different from people who are in the left-tail who are mentally retarded. I
am "smarter" than them, meaning that I can process information in a more
effective and efficient manner than a drooling idiot. It is different from
people in the right-tail who can do complex math and astrophysics in their
heads. They are "smarter" than me, meaning that they can process
information in a much more effective and efficient manner than I can.

That's what I mean when I say that I am average. But, if an average
5-year-old has parents who value and emphasize reading, learning, and
curiosity about the world, that kid has an excellent chance at becoming
"smart" at some point in his life, which is I think what happened to me. In
other words, it's not my biology, it's just good parenting.
da pickle
2018-08-10 19:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by fffurken
Of course it was self-effacing, especially considering he spent the
former part of his post telling us how sooper smart he is.
I think you missed my point.  I'm not any "smarter" than an average
person, meaning that I don't think my brain is that different than the
norm.  It is different from people who are in the left-tail who are
mentally retarded.  I am "smarter" than them, meaning that I can process
information in a more effective and efficient manner than a drooling
idiot.  It is different from people in the right-tail who can do complex
math and astrophysics in their heads.  They are "smarter" than me,
meaning that they can process information in a much more effective and
efficient manner than I can.
That's what I mean when I say that I am average.  But, if an average
5-year-old has parents who value and emphasize reading, learning, and
curiosity about the world, that kid has an excellent chance at becoming
"smart" at some point in his life, which is I think what happened to
me.  In other words, it's not my biology, it's just good parenting.
Could be that both nature/genetics and nurture/parenting play very
strong roles in getting the most out of children.

Maybe our "government" could do more to encourage good parenting and
less excusing bad behavior.

Or maybe just get out of the way and let people take care of their own
kids and see if they can do it on their own without so much "help".

Maybe ... but the lines are hard to draw and the ink smears so much.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Tim Norfolk
2018-08-11 18:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
Post by fffurken
Of course it was self-effacing, especially considering he spent the
former part of his post telling us how sooper smart he is.
I think you missed my point.  I'm not any "smarter" than an average
person, meaning that I don't think my brain is that different than the
norm.  It is different from people who are in the left-tail who are
mentally retarded.  I am "smarter" than them, meaning that I can process
information in a more effective and efficient manner than a drooling
idiot.  It is different from people in the right-tail who can do complex
math and astrophysics in their heads.  They are "smarter" than me,
meaning that they can process information in a much more effective and
efficient manner than I can.
That's what I mean when I say that I am average.  But, if an average
5-year-old has parents who value and emphasize reading, learning, and
curiosity about the world, that kid has an excellent chance at becoming
"smart" at some point in his life, which is I think what happened to
me.  In other words, it's not my biology, it's just good parenting.
Could be that both nature/genetics and nurture/parenting play very
strong roles in getting the most out of children.
Maybe our "government" could do more to encourage good parenting and
less excusing bad behavior.
Or maybe just get out of the way and let people take care of their own
kids and see if they can do it on their own without so much "help".
Maybe ... but the lines are hard to draw and the ink smears so much.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Of course both genetics and culture (nurturing) matter. The question is how much each contributes. Studies of identical twins separated after birth seem to show that genetics takes a larger role than most are comfortable with.
Mossingen
2018-08-11 20:32:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Norfolk
Of course both genetics and culture (nurturing) matter. The question is how
much each contributes. Studies of identical twins separated after birth
seem to show that genetics takes a larger >role than most are comfortable
with.
Meaning that the architecture of the brain is constructed in such a manner
to process information form the senses in a certain complex manner, and that
this architecture is genetic? I'm comfortable with whatever the data shows,
although my general sense is that nurture plays a larger role. But, I could
be wrong about that.
fffurken
2018-08-11 21:07:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mossingen
Meaning that the architecture of the brain is constructed in such a manner
to process information form the senses in a certain complex manner, and that
this architecture is genetic? I'm comfortable with whatever the data shows,
although my general sense is that nurture plays a larger role. But, I could
be wrong about that.
Reminds me of the time Dutch couldn't do simple maths.. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/fkWIXCJ3UpY/9wtRS8VZBAAJ
Dutch
2018-08-12 06:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by fffurken
Post by Mossingen
Meaning that the architecture of the brain is constructed in such a manner
to process information form the senses in a certain complex manner, and that
this architecture is genetic? I'm comfortable with whatever the data shows,
although my general sense is that nurture plays a larger role. But, I could
be wrong about that.
Reminds me of the time Dutch couldn't do simple maths.. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/fkWIXCJ3UpY/9wtRS8VZBAAJ
Why are you so desperate to believe that whites are superior in
intelligence to blacks? What's the payoff for you?
fffurken
2018-08-12 10:12:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Why are you so desperate to believe that whites are superior in
intelligence to blacks?
I'm not desperate to believe that blacks have a lower average IQ than whites, it's you who's desperate to not believe it.
Post by Dutch
What's the payoff for you?
What's the "payoff" for being a race realist? I'm not sure I understand your question but it would allow you to have more realistic viewpoints. For example, you mightn't blame certain phenomenon on muh racism. You mightn't be in favour of mass migration from the third world. If you were a race realist you wouldn't dream of wasting your time on a sociology degree.
VegasJerry
2018-08-12 15:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by fffurken
Post by Mossingen
Meaning that the architecture of the brain is constructed in such a manner
to process information form the senses in a certain complex manner, and that
this architecture is genetic? I'm comfortable with whatever the data shows,
although my general sense is that nurture plays a larger role. But, I could
be wrong about that.
Reminds me of the time Dutch couldn't do simple maths.. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/fkWIXCJ3UpY/9wtRS8VZBAAJ
Why are you so desperate to believe that whites are superior in
intelligence to blacks? What's the payoff for you?
The payoff is his desperation in getting a response. Any response. This legitimizes him. What are YOU getting from replying to him?
VegasJerry
2018-08-11 22:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by da pickle
Post by fffurken
Of course it was self-effacing, especially considering he spent the
former part of his post telling us how sooper smart he is.
I think you missed my point.  I'm not any "smarter" than an average
person, meaning that I don't think my brain is that different than the
norm.  It is different from people who are in the left-tail who are
mentally retarded.  I am "smarter" than them, meaning that I can process
information in a more effective and efficient manner than a drooling
idiot.  It is different from people in the right-tail who can do complex
math and astrophysics in their heads.  They are "smarter" than me,
meaning that they can process information in a much more effective and
efficient manner than I can.
That's what I mean when I say that I am average.  But, if an average
5-year-old has parents who value and emphasize reading, learning, and
curiosity about the world, that kid has an excellent chance at becoming
"smart" at some point in his life, which is I think what happened to
me.  In other words, it's not my biology, it's just good parenting.
Could be that both nature/genetics and nurture/parenting play very
strong roles in getting the most out of children.
Maybe our "government" could do more to encourage good parenting and
less excusing bad behavior.
Or maybe just get out of the way and let people take care of their own
kids and see if they can do it on their own without so much "help".
Maybe ... but the lines are hard to draw and the ink smears so much.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Of course both genetics and culture (nurturing) matter. The question is how much each contributes. Studies of identical twins separated after birth seem to show that genetics takes a larger role than most are comfortable with.
I believe the study said it's 50/50.
da pickle
2018-08-12 13:50:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by da pickle
Post by fffurken
Of course it was self-effacing, especially considering he spent the
former part of his post telling us how sooper smart he is.
I think you missed my point.  I'm not any "smarter" than an average
person, meaning that I don't think my brain is that different than the
norm.  It is different from people who are in the left-tail who are
mentally retarded.  I am "smarter" than them, meaning that I can process
information in a more effective and efficient manner than a drooling
idiot.  It is different from people in the right-tail who can do complex
math and astrophysics in their heads.  They are "smarter" than me,
meaning that they can process information in a much more effective and
efficient manner than I can.
That's what I mean when I say that I am average.  But, if an average
5-year-old has parents who value and emphasize reading, learning, and
curiosity about the world, that kid has an excellent chance at becoming
"smart" at some point in his life, which is I think what happened to
me.  In other words, it's not my biology, it's just good parenting.
Could be that both nature/genetics and nurture/parenting play very
strong roles in getting the most out of children.
Maybe our "government" could do more to encourage good parenting and
less excusing bad behavior.
Or maybe just get out of the way and let people take care of their own
kids and see if they can do it on their own without so much "help".
Maybe ... but the lines are hard to draw and the ink smears so much.
Of course both genetics and culture (nurturing) matter. The question is how much each contributes. Studies of identical twins separated after birth seem to show that genetics takes a larger role than most are comfortable with.
I think we are on the same page. Such comments are uncomfortable to
many people. Which should not matter, except many of those people
refuse to be uncomfortable enough to recognize facts and use that
information for policies that recognize those facts but are not
regressive nor immoral.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Mossingen
2018-08-10 17:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mossingen
Post by Tim Norfolk
That is the claim of the left. It's one of the driving premises for the
'college for all' movement. The idea, promulgated in colleges of education,
is that anyone can succeed, if they are taught >'correctly'.
You disagree with that? I tend to that that is true. Sure, there are the
tails of the bell curve with retarded people on the one end and a small
number of super geniuses who can conceptualize complex ideas in their heads
in a way most people can't, but the for the bulk of the folks like us inside
the bell curve, I think parental example and instruction to young children
is probably the single greatest indicator of "intelligence" there is.
I grew up in rural Oklahoma at a time with no internet and with three
television stations at my house out in the country. But, my Dad valued
reading and education and he quizzed me on spelling words and went over my
homework with me, and he brought books home and a set of encyclopedias so
that I could look things up for myself. My mom would drive the half-hour to
the next city that had a library and would take me with her and spend the
day there.
In high school, I could really tell whose parents were involved and whose
were not, and I was one of the smartest in my class, probably the school,
but I have come to realize that there is nothing special about me. I just
learned to value learning and reading from an early age and remained
inquisitive. I am probably a guy of average intelligence who has worked
really hard through life to learn and think as much as I can. I think most
folks are like that.
If you were a person of "average intelligence" (~100 IQ), that is said to
translate to an LSAT score of about 125. That means ~99% if LSAT test takers
outscored you. Is that what happened? lol I don't think so. You would not
have been accepted into any accredited law school in North America.

iirc you went to law school at the University of Oklahoma. The median LSAT
score is 157 and the bottom 25% score in 155 (i.e. not a lot of standard
deviation in scores). An LSAT score of 157 is said to roughly translate to
an IQ of 128, or two almost two standard deviations above "average". That
makes sense, as my recollection is that the average undergraduate student in
first tier university has an IQ of 115-120 (96 in Ireland). An IQ of 128
would put your IQ somewhere around the 96th percentile...hardly "average".

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to deduct 10 IQ points for making that
stupid self-effacing comment in the first place, and another 10 for
believing that freedom of speech should be absolute, which makes no logical
sense whatsoever.

__________________


Those numbers don't mean much to me because I think the LSAT was scaled
differently when I took it around 1989 or 1990. I think I scored somewhere
in the high 70s percentile-wise, like the 78% or around there. Not
spectacular, but coupled with my good grades it was enough to get me in.

But, that is a good example of what I mean. The LSAT is just a written
exam. A person of average intelligence as a child who values book-learning,
reading, and is curious about things in the world can acquire the skills to
take tests like that.

I suspect that you don't like to hear things like that because you raise law
school and LSAT scores frequently and it appears that these things are tied
to your identity. Remember, I grew up in a town of less than 1,500 people,
with less than 150 kids in my entire high school--let me repeat that---less
than 150 kids in all four high school grades (my graduating class had 28).
I managed to learn quite a bit in that environment. I think if I grew up in
Tulsa or OKC in a large school with a lot more resources I would probably be
more well off than I am.
BillB
2018-08-10 18:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mossingen
Those numbers don't mean much to me because I think the LSAT was scaled
differently when I took it around 1989 or 1990.
It is scaled differently, but the relative percentiles are more or less the same.


I think I scored somewhere
Post by Mossingen
in the high 70s percentile-wise, like the 78% or around there. Not
spectacular, but coupled with my good grades it was enough to get me in.
78th percentile translates to a current scaled score of 159. That approximates an IQ of 128. See how close I was? Again, nowhere near "average". That's like saying Scarlett Johansson is an average looking female. It's delusional.

You don't give yourself enough credit for intelligence, but at the same time you have unrealistic expectations for the abilities of average people. There's something a little unseemly about it, because you are denying the privilege with which you were gifted, and attributing it all to "hard work". It's all very self-serving false modesty.
Post by Mossingen
But, that is a good example of what I mean. The LSAT is just a written
exam. A person of average intelligence as a child who values book-learning,
reading, and is curious about things in the world can acquire the skills to
take tests like that.
Uh, no. Not even close. More delusion. A person with a 100 IQ can practice the LSAT until the cows come home, but they aren't going to score well enough to get into a good (any?) law school. That's what the test is designed to do: weed out the pretenders.
Post by Mossingen
I suspect that you don't like to hear things like that because you raise law
school and LSAT scores frequently and it appears that these things are tied
to your identity.
Being a law school graduate is definitely part of my identity. How could it not be?


Remember, I grew up in a town of less than 1,500 people,
Post by Mossingen
with less than 150 kids in my entire high school--let me repeat that---less
than 150 kids in all four high school grades (my graduating class had 28).
I managed to learn quite a bit in that environment. I think if I grew up in
Tulsa or OKC in a large school with a lot more resources I would probably be
more well off than I am.
I went to a Catholic elementary school with 100 kids in 8 grades.
Mossingen
2018-08-10 18:58:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
You don't give yourself enough credit for intelligence, but at the same
time you have unrealistic expectations for the abilities of average people.
There's something a little unseemly about it, >because you are denying the
privilege with which you were gifted, and attributing it all to "hard
work". It's all very self-serving false modesty.
I suppose that's one way to look at it. I certainly didn't feel privileged
when I was growing up. I dispute your assertion that having parents who
emphasized learning, knowledge, and reading is a "privilege." Again, my
family was a totally average one in fly-over country on the poor side with
little resources. Active, responsible parenting is something that I don't
consider to be a privilege in the way that you are using the term, which
seems to be a benefit available to me but not available to others.
Responsible parents are available everyone. It's not a "privilege" that
mine were good in that way, it's just how things turned out; choices that
they made that could have been made by other parents but were not.

And any false modesty on my part is not nearly as unseemly as your arrogance
and apparent view that "intelligence" is genetic and that you are special
because you have it (or, you think that you have it). It's a good think you
live in Canada because there is enough space there to accommodate your ego.
Post by BillB
But, that is a good example of what I mean. The LSAT is just a written
exam. A person of average intelligence as a child who values
book-learning,
reading, and is curious about things in the world can acquire the skills to
take tests like that.
Uh, no. Not even close. More delusion. A person with a 100 IQ can practice
the LSAT until the cows come home, but they aren't going to score well
enough to get into a good (any?) law >school. That's what the test is
designed to do: weed out the pretenders.
Not a PERSON with a 100 IQ, a small child with a 100 IQ who is nurtured and
has parents who encourage reading, learning, and curiosity can, over the
years, certainly develop the skills to take the LSAT.

The LSAT is just a bunch of logic/math problems in word form. You seem to
think that a person can't study for that test and do well on it.
Post by BillB
I suspect that you don't like to hear things like that because you raise law
school and LSAT scores frequently and it appears that these things are tied
to your identity.
Being a law school graduate is definitely part of my identity. How could it not be?
No, not being a law school graduate, scoring high on the LSAT. You seem to
internalize that as a great accomplishment and validation that you are
smart. When I assert that an average person can study hard during his life
and score well on it, that kind of shatters your self-image as being
naturally intelligent.


Remember, I grew up in a town of less than 1,500 people,
Post by BillB
with less than 150 kids in my entire high school--let me repeat that---less
than 150 kids in all four high school grades (my graduating class had 28).
I managed to learn quite a bit in that environment. I think if I grew up in
Tulsa or OKC in a large school with a lot more resources I would probably be
more well off than I am.
I went to a Catholic elementary school with 100 kids in 8 grades.
What about junior high and high school?
da pickle
2018-08-10 19:08:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
You don't give yourself enough credit for intelligence, but at the
same time you have unrealistic expectations for the abilities of
average people. There's something a little unseemly about it, >because
you are denying the privilege with which you were gifted, and
attributing it all to "hard work". It's all very self-serving false
modesty.
I suppose that's one way to look at it.  I certainly didn't feel
privileged when I was growing up.  I dispute your assertion that having
parents who emphasized learning, knowledge, and reading is a
"privilege."  Again, my family was a totally average one in fly-over
country on the poor side with little resources.  Active, responsible
parenting is something that I don't consider to be a privilege in the
way that you are using the term, which seems to be a benefit available
to me but not available to others. Responsible parents are available
everyone.  It's not a "privilege" that mine were good in that way, it's
just how things turned out; choices that they made that could have been
made by other parents but were not.
And any false modesty on my part is not nearly as unseemly as your
arrogance and apparent view that "intelligence" is genetic and that you
are special because you have it (or, you think that you have it).  It's
a good think you live in Canada because there is enough space there to
accommodate your ego.
Post by BillB
But, that is a good example of what I mean.  The LSAT is just a written
exam.  A person of average intelligence as a child who values
book-learning,
reading, and is curious about things in the world can acquire the skills to
take tests like that.
Uh, no. Not even close. More delusion. A person with a 100 IQ can
practice the LSAT until the cows come home, but they aren't going to
score well enough to get into a good (any?) law >school. That's what
the test is designed to do: weed out the pretenders.
Not a PERSON with a 100 IQ, a small child with a 100 IQ who is nurtured
and has parents who encourage reading, learning, and curiosity can, over
the years, certainly develop the skills to take the LSAT.
The LSAT is just a bunch of logic/math problems in word form.  You seem
to think that a person can't study for that test and do well on it.
Post by BillB
I suspect that you don't like to hear things like that because you raise law
school and LSAT scores frequently and it appears that these things are tied
to your identity.
Being a law school graduate is definitely part of my identity. How could it not be?
No, not being a law school graduate, scoring high on the LSAT.  You seem
to internalize that as a great accomplishment and validation that you
are smart.  When I assert that an average person can study hard during
his life and score well on it, that kind of shatters your self-image as
being naturally intelligent.
Remember, I grew up in a town of less than 1,500 people,
Post by BillB
with less than 150 kids in my entire high school--let me repeat that---less
than 150 kids in all four high school grades (my graduating class had 28).
I managed to learn quite a bit in that environment.  I think if I grew
up in
Tulsa or OKC in a large school with a lot more resources I would probably be
more well off than I am.
I went to a Catholic elementary school with 100 kids in 8 grades.
What about junior high and high school?
BillB believes that our "intelligence" is genetic? And he believes that
tests such as the LSAT measures that genetic "intelligence"?

I think you have stumbled on a gigantic minefield.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
BillB
2018-08-10 19:26:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
BillB believes that our "intelligence" is genetic?
It is a proven fact that intelligence has both genetic and early childhood environmental influences. "Race" is not a good independent biological predictor of intelligence. It is a decent predictor of social/environmental influences on intelligence, because race is a social construct.


And he believes that
Post by da pickle
tests such as the LSAT measures that genetic "intelligence"?
LSAT results correlate closely with standard IQ tests. The LSAT is, however, more coachable (to a point).
Post by da pickle
I think you have stumbled on a gigantic minefield.
blah blah blah. You should try to develop the skill and habit of just stating clearly what point you are trying to make. The cryptic comments in almost every post you make is an obvious defense mechanism. It's a little pathetic.
da pickle
2018-08-10 19:50:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
Post by da pickle
BillB believes that our "intelligence" is genetic?
It is a proven fact that intelligence has both genetic and early childhood environmental influences. "Race" is not a good independent biological predictor of intelligence. It is a decent predictor of social/environmental influences on intelligence, because race is a social construct.
What is this word "race" that you are using? "It" (race) is "not" a
good independent biological predictor of "intelligence". "It" (race)
"is" a "decent" predictor of influences on "intelligence" BECAUSE "race"
is a social construct.

WOW ... how good are you are determining this "race" that you reference?
When you plug "race" into the [unnamed] "independent biological
predictor" how do you distinguish one "race" from another "race"?
Post by BillB
And he believes that
Post by da pickle
tests such as the LSAT measures that genetic "intelligence"?
LSAT results correlate closely with standard IQ tests. The LSAT is, however, more coachable (to a point).
So, one can measure "intelligence" with tests and human beings can be
placed into categories based on a social construct called "race". What
are the results of your tests?
Post by BillB
Post by da pickle
I think you have stumbled on a gigantic minefield.
blah blah blah. You should try to develop the skill and habit of just stating clearly what point you are trying to make. The cryptic comments in almost every post you make is an obvious defense mechanism. It's a little pathetic.
We await your explanations ... we are eager to hear how you word your words.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
da pickle
2018-08-11 16:24:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
Post by da pickle
BillB believes that our "intelligence" is genetic?
It is a proven fact that intelligence has both genetic and early
childhood environmental influences. "Race" is not a good independent
biological predictor of intelligence. It is a decent predictor of
social/environmental influences on intelligence, because race is a
social construct.
What is this word "race" that you are using?  "It" (race) is "not" a
good independent biological predictor of "intelligence".  "It" (race)
"is" a "decent" predictor of influences on "intelligence" BECAUSE "race"
is a social construct.
WOW ... how good are you are determining this "race" that you reference?
 When you plug "race" into the [unnamed] "independent biological
predictor" how do you distinguish one "race" from another "race"?
Post by BillB
   And he believes that
Post by da pickle
tests such as the LSAT measures that genetic "intelligence"?
LSAT results correlate closely with standard IQ tests. The LSAT is,
however, more coachable (to a point).
So, one can measure "intelligence" with tests and human beings can be
placed into categories based on a social construct called "race".  What
are the results of your tests?
Post by BillB
Post by da pickle
I think you have stumbled on a gigantic minefield.
blah blah blah. You should try to develop the skill and habit of just
stating clearly what point you are trying to make. The cryptic
comments in almost every post you make is an obvious defense
mechanism. It's a little pathetic.
We await your explanations ... we are eager to hear how you word your words.
Still cannot defend your straw men/trolls ... eh?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Bill Vanek
2018-08-10 20:59:04 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 12:26:09 -0700 (PDT), BillB
Post by BillB
Post by da pickle
BillB believes that our "intelligence" is genetic?
It is a proven fact that intelligence has both genetic and early childhood environmental influences. "Race" is not a good independent biological predictor of intelligence. It is a decent predictor of social/environmental influences on intelligence, because race is a social construct.
Intelligence is a social construct. So I guess that means that we are
all equal. So why don't you just shut up about this? And everything
else.
fffurken
2018-08-10 20:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mossingen
Post by BillB
You don't give yourself enough credit for intelligence, but at the same
time you have unrealistic expectations for the abilities of average people.
There's something a little unseemly about it, >because you are denying the
privilege with which you were gifted, and attributing it all to "hard
work". It's all very self-serving false modesty.
I suppose that's one way to look at it. I certainly didn't feel privileged
when I was growing up.


I recommend watching the full video, it can be found in this post - https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/9uEiq3xeCM0/6VYGKD3jDAAJ
Tim Norfolk
2018-08-11 18:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
Post by Mossingen
Post by Tim Norfolk
That is the claim of the left. It's one of the driving premises for the
'college for all' movement. The idea, promulgated in colleges of education,
is that anyone can succeed, if they are taught >'correctly'.
You disagree with that? I tend to that that is true. Sure, there are the
tails of the bell curve with retarded people on the one end and a small
number of super geniuses who can conceptualize complex ideas in their heads
in a way most people can't, but the for the bulk of the folks like us inside
the bell curve, I think parental example and instruction to young children
is probably the single greatest indicator of "intelligence" there is.
I grew up in rural Oklahoma at a time with no internet and with three
television stations at my house out in the country. But, my Dad valued
reading and education and he quizzed me on spelling words and went over my
homework with me, and he brought books home and a set of encyclopedias so
that I could look things up for myself. My mom would drive the half-hour to
the next city that had a library and would take me with her and spend the
day there.
In high school, I could really tell whose parents were involved and whose
were not, and I was one of the smartest in my class, probably the school,
but I have come to realize that there is nothing special about me. I just
learned to value learning and reading from an early age and remained
inquisitive. I am probably a guy of average intelligence who has worked
really hard through life to learn and think as much as I can. I think most
folks are like that.
If you were a person of "average intelligence" (~100 IQ), that is said to
translate to an LSAT score of about 125. That means ~99% if LSAT test takers
outscored you. Is that what happened? lol I don't think so. You would not
have been accepted into any accredited law school in North America.
iirc you went to law school at the University of Oklahoma. The median LSAT
score is 157 and the bottom 25% score in 155 (i.e. not a lot of standard
deviation in scores). An LSAT score of 157 is said to roughly translate to
an IQ of 128, or two almost two standard deviations above "average". That
makes sense, as my recollection is that the average undergraduate student in
first tier university has an IQ of 115-120 (96 in Ireland). An IQ of 128
would put your IQ somewhere around the 96th percentile...hardly "average".
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to deduct 10 IQ points for making that
stupid self-effacing comment in the first place, and another 10 for
believing that freedom of speech should be absolute, which makes no logical
sense whatsoever.
__________________
Those numbers don't mean much to me because I think the LSAT was scaled
differently when I took it around 1989 or 1990. I think I scored somewhere
in the high 70s percentile-wise, like the 78% or around there. Not
spectacular, but coupled with my good grades it was enough to get me in.
But, that is a good example of what I mean. The LSAT is just a written
exam. A person of average intelligence as a child who values book-learning,
reading, and is curious about things in the world can acquire the skills to
take tests like that.
I suspect that you don't like to hear things like that because you raise law
school and LSAT scores frequently and it appears that these things are tied
to your identity. Remember, I grew up in a town of less than 1,500 people,
with less than 150 kids in my entire high school--let me repeat that---less
than 150 kids in all four high school grades (my graduating class had 28).
I managed to learn quite a bit in that environment. I think if I grew up in
Tulsa or OKC in a large school with a lot more resources I would probably be
more well off than I am.
I graduated in a class of about 60, but those 60 were consolidated from a whole county, including several larger cities. Then again, most left school at 16 in those days.
Mossingen
2018-08-11 20:28:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Norfolk
I graduated in a class of about 60, but those 60 were consolidated from a
whole county, including several larger cities. Then again, most left school
at 16 in those days.
I was the youngest in my class in high school and graduated when I was 17,
went to college and have lived on my own ever since. I went to my 30th
class reunion and out of the 28, many are very successful people.
Tim Norfolk
2018-08-10 16:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mossingen
Post by Tim Norfolk
That is the claim of the left. It's one of the driving premises for the
'college for all' movement. The idea, promulgated in colleges of education,
is that anyone can succeed, if they are taught >'correctly'.
You disagree with that? I tend to that that is true. Sure, there are the
tails of the bell curve with retarded people on the one end and a small
number of super geniuses who can conceptualize complex ideas in their heads
in a way most people can't, but the for the bulk of the folks like us inside
the bell curve, I think parental example and instruction to young children
is probably the single greatest indicator of "intelligence" there is.
I grew up in rural Oklahoma at a time with no internet and with three
television stations at my house out in the country. But, my Dad valued
reading and education and he quizzed me on spelling words and went over my
homework with me, and he brought books home and a set of encyclopedias so
that I could look things up for myself. My mom would drive the half-hour to
the next city that had a library and would take me with her and spend the
day there.
In high school, I could really tell whose parents were involved and whose
were not, and I was one of the smartest in my class, probably the school,
but I have come to realize that there is nothing special about me. I just
learned to value learning and reading from an early age and remained
inquisitive. I am probably a guy of average intelligence who has worked
really hard through life to learn and think as much as I can. I think most
folks are like that.
I do.

Let me clarify by saying that everyone can learn more, but not everyone can learn everything.

I have seen these attempts in education reform for years.

It is long known that math scores on tests and college courses are the best predictors of college success, regardless of major. Because people fail math courses, there is now huge pressure to water down the grades, in order to improve graduation rates. Sadly, as at Georgia State, those students with inflated grades then go to other courses, like accounting, and fail there.

I looked at this for years, and discovered that the pass rate for a standard Calculus I course is about 60% worldwide, including AP courses.

Math is the indicator, and only a minority can do the material. If I knew exactly why, or how to fix it, I would be very rich and famous.

For another set of data points, there was an effort some years ago in New York State to get more African-American males into medical school. They recruited young men from good, middle-class families, and nurtured them in the necessary STEM areas. When time came to take the MCAT, all of that effort was in vain.
Mossingen
2018-08-10 17:52:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mossingen
Post by Tim Norfolk
That is the claim of the left. It's one of the driving premises for the
'college for all' movement. The idea, promulgated in colleges of education,
is that anyone can succeed, if they are taught >'correctly'.
You disagree with that? I tend to that that is true. Sure, there are the
tails of the bell curve with retarded people on the one end and a small
number of super geniuses who can conceptualize complex ideas in their heads
in a way most people can't, but the for the bulk of the folks like us inside
the bell curve, I think parental example and instruction to young children
is probably the single greatest indicator of "intelligence" there is.
I grew up in rural Oklahoma at a time with no internet and with three
television stations at my house out in the country. But, my Dad valued
reading and education and he quizzed me on spelling words and went over my
homework with me, and he brought books home and a set of encyclopedias so
that I could look things up for myself. My mom would drive the half-hour to
the next city that had a library and would take me with her and spend the
day there.
In high school, I could really tell whose parents were involved and whose
were not, and I was one of the smartest in my class, probably the school,
but I have come to realize that there is nothing special about me. I just
learned to value learning and reading from an early age and remained
inquisitive. I am probably a guy of average intelligence who has worked
really hard through life to learn and think as much as I can. I think most
folks are like that.
I do.

Let me clarify by saying that everyone can learn more, but not everyone can
learn everything.

I have seen these attempts in education reform for years.

It is long known that math scores on tests and college courses are the best
predictors of college success, regardless of major. Because people fail math
courses, there is now huge pressure to water down the grades, in order to
improve graduation rates. Sadly, as at Georgia State, those students with
inflated grades then go to other courses, like accounting, and fail there.

I looked at this for years, and discovered that the pass rate for a standard
Calculus I course is about 60% worldwide, including AP courses.

Math is the indicator, and only a minority can do the material. If I knew
exactly why, or how to fix it, I would be very rich and famous.

For another set of data points, there was an effort some years ago in New
York State to get more African-American males into medical school. They
recruited young men from good, middle-class families, and nurtured them in
the necessary STEM areas. When time came to take the MCAT, all of that
effort was in vain.


_________________


Yes, it is an interesting topic.
da pickle
2018-08-10 18:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Norfolk
I looked at this for years, and discovered that the pass rate for a standard Calculus I course is about 60% worldwide, including AP courses.
Math is the indicator, and only a minority can do the material. If I knew exactly why, or how to fix it, I would be very rich and famous.
Or you would be ignored and possibly not able to find work because of
your obviously prejudicial thoughts.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Bill Vanek
2018-08-10 20:53:33 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 13:40:11 -0500, da pickle
Post by da pickle
Post by Tim Norfolk
I looked at this for years, and discovered that the pass rate for a standard Calculus I course is about 60% worldwide, including AP courses.
Math is the indicator, and only a minority can do the material. If I knew exactly why, or how to fix it, I would be very rich and famous.
Or you would be ignored and possibly not able to find work because of
your obviously prejudicial thoughts.
Charles Murray? Life is hard for honest people.
Tim Norfolk
2018-08-11 18:53:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Vanek
On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 13:40:11 -0500, da pickle
Post by da pickle
Post by Tim Norfolk
I looked at this for years, and discovered that the pass rate for a standard Calculus I course is about 60% worldwide, including AP courses.
Math is the indicator, and only a minority can do the material. If I knew exactly why, or how to fix it, I would be very rich and famous.
Or you would be ignored and possibly not able to find work because of
your obviously prejudicial thoughts.
Charles Murray? Life is hard for honest people.
Except that mathematicians who analyzed his statistics in 'The Bell Curve' showed that his conclusions were not valid. The American Math Monthly had a piece on it years ago.
da pickle
2018-08-12 13:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by Bill Vanek
On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 13:40:11 -0500, da pickle
Post by da pickle
Post by Tim Norfolk
I looked at this for years, and discovered that the pass rate for a standard Calculus I course is about 60% worldwide, including AP courses.
Math is the indicator, and only a minority can do the material. If I knew exactly why, or how to fix it, I would be very rich and famous.
Or you would be ignored and possibly not able to find work because of
your obviously prejudicial thoughts.
Charles Murray? Life is hard for honest people.
Except that mathematicians who analyzed his statistics in 'The Bell Curve' showed that his conclusions were not valid. The American Math Monthly had a piece on it years ago.
Really? He (and his co author) had quite a few reviews of his work.
Who are these "mathematicians"? Citations from their work? So,
"exactly" which statistical calculation was not valid ... and exactly
which "conclusion" was not valid.

Cherry picking "statistics" is always fun ... if Charles Murray did it,
he deserves all the criticism anyone can level on him. However, if the
cherry pickers are the critics ... they need the same analysis.

Tim, you are an educated man ... do you believe that there is any
genetic component at all in what we call "intelligence"?

Do you think that groups of human beings can legitimately be congregated
into "groups" that have distinguishing "characteristics" (maybe
"instincts" could be used) and statistical differences ... of which
"intelligence" might also be included?

Do believe that "political" leaning can "taint" results even when
"scientists" are involved? (Maybe even "mathematicians.)

Is there any way reasonably to compare the words "breed" and "race"?

If a specific breed reproduces with a different breed, are there more
than "physical" "differences in the offspring? Any "difference" in any
"instinct" passed on?





---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Tim Norfolk
2018-08-12 21:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by Bill Vanek
On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 13:40:11 -0500, da pickle
Post by da pickle
Post by Tim Norfolk
I looked at this for years, and discovered that the pass rate for a standard Calculus I course is about 60% worldwide, including AP courses.
Math is the indicator, and only a minority can do the material. If I knew exactly why, or how to fix it, I would be very rich and famous.
Or you would be ignored and possibly not able to find work because of
your obviously prejudicial thoughts.
Charles Murray? Life is hard for honest people.
Except that mathematicians who analyzed his statistics in 'The Bell Curve' showed that his conclusions were not valid. The American Math Monthly had a piece on it years ago.
Really? He (and his co author) had quite a few reviews of his work.
Who are these "mathematicians"? Citations from their work? So,
"exactly" which statistical calculation was not valid ... and exactly
which "conclusion" was not valid.
Cherry picking "statistics" is always fun ... if Charles Murray did it,
he deserves all the criticism anyone can level on him. However, if the
cherry pickers are the critics ... they need the same analysis.
Tim, you are an educated man ... do you believe that there is any
genetic component at all in what we call "intelligence"?
Do you think that groups of human beings can legitimately be congregated
into "groups" that have distinguishing "characteristics" (maybe
"instincts" could be used) and statistical differences ... of which
"intelligence" might also be included?
Do believe that "political" leaning can "taint" results even when
"scientists" are involved? (Maybe even "mathematicians.)
Is there any way reasonably to compare the words "breed" and "race"?
If a specific breed reproduces with a different breed, are there more
than "physical" "differences in the offspring? Any "difference" in any
"instinct" passed on?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
There was an analysis of taking two different normal distributions, and combining them in a single population. You do not get a single normal distribution.

You can find the article in the AMM, probably 10 years ago now.
da pickle
2018-08-13 12:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by da pickle
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by Bill Vanek
On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 13:40:11 -0500, da pickle
Post by da pickle
Post by Tim Norfolk
I looked at this for years, and discovered that the pass rate for a standard Calculus I course is about 60% worldwide, including AP courses.
Math is the indicator, and only a minority can do the material. If I knew exactly why, or how to fix it, I would be very rich and famous.
Or you would be ignored and possibly not able to find work because of
your obviously prejudicial thoughts.
Charles Murray? Life is hard for honest people.
Except that mathematicians who analyzed his statistics in 'The Bell Curve' showed that his conclusions were not valid. The American Math Monthly had a piece on it years ago.
Really? He (and his co author) had quite a few reviews of his work.
Who are these "mathematicians"? Citations from their work? So,
"exactly" which statistical calculation was not valid ... and exactly
which "conclusion" was not valid.
Cherry picking "statistics" is always fun ... if Charles Murray did it,
he deserves all the criticism anyone can level on him. However, if the
cherry pickers are the critics ... they need the same analysis.
Tim, you are an educated man ... do you believe that there is any
genetic component at all in what we call "intelligence"?
Do you think that groups of human beings can legitimately be congregated
into "groups" that have distinguishing "characteristics" (maybe
"instincts" could be used) and statistical differences ... of which
"intelligence" might also be included?
Do believe that "political" leaning can "taint" results even when
"scientists" are involved? (Maybe even "mathematicians.)
Is there any way reasonably to compare the words "breed" and "race"?
If a specific breed reproduces with a different breed, are there more
than "physical" "differences in the offspring? Any "difference" in any
"instinct" passed on?
There was an analysis of taking two different normal distributions, and combining them in a single population. You do not get a single normal distribution.
You can find the article in the AMM, probably 10 years ago now.
Super dodge ... I do not blame you. Thanks.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Tim Norfolk
2018-08-13 16:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by da pickle
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by Bill Vanek
On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 13:40:11 -0500, da pickle
Post by da pickle
Post by Tim Norfolk
I looked at this for years, and discovered that the pass rate for a standard Calculus I course is about 60% worldwide, including AP courses.
Math is the indicator, and only a minority can do the material. If I knew exactly why, or how to fix it, I would be very rich and famous.
Or you would be ignored and possibly not able to find work because of
your obviously prejudicial thoughts.
Charles Murray? Life is hard for honest people.
Except that mathematicians who analyzed his statistics in 'The Bell Curve' showed that his conclusions were not valid. The American Math Monthly had a piece on it years ago.
Really? He (and his co author) had quite a few reviews of his work.
Who are these "mathematicians"? Citations from their work? So,
"exactly" which statistical calculation was not valid ... and exactly
which "conclusion" was not valid.
Cherry picking "statistics" is always fun ... if Charles Murray did it,
he deserves all the criticism anyone can level on him. However, if the
cherry pickers are the critics ... they need the same analysis.
Tim, you are an educated man ... do you believe that there is any
genetic component at all in what we call "intelligence"?
Do you think that groups of human beings can legitimately be congregated
into "groups" that have distinguishing "characteristics" (maybe
"instincts" could be used) and statistical differences ... of which
"intelligence" might also be included?
Do believe that "political" leaning can "taint" results even when
"scientists" are involved? (Maybe even "mathematicians.)
Is there any way reasonably to compare the words "breed" and "race"?
If a specific breed reproduces with a different breed, are there more
than "physical" "differences in the offspring? Any "difference" in any
"instinct" passed on?
There was an analysis of taking two different normal distributions, and combining them in a single population. You do not get a single normal distribution.
You can find the article in the AMM, probably 10 years ago now.
Super dodge ... I do not blame you. Thanks.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
What dodge? Look up the article.
da pickle
2018-08-13 17:31:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by da pickle
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by da pickle
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by Bill Vanek
On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 13:40:11 -0500, da pickle
Post by da pickle
Post by Tim Norfolk
I looked at this for years, and discovered that the pass rate for a standard Calculus I course is about 60% worldwide, including AP courses.
Math is the indicator, and only a minority can do the material. If I knew exactly why, or how to fix it, I would be very rich and famous.
Or you would be ignored and possibly not able to find work because of
your obviously prejudicial thoughts.
Charles Murray? Life is hard for honest people.
Except that mathematicians who analyzed his statistics in 'The Bell Curve' showed that his conclusions were not valid. The American Math Monthly had a piece on it years ago.
Really? He (and his co author) had quite a few reviews of his work.
Who are these "mathematicians"? Citations from their work? So,
"exactly" which statistical calculation was not valid ... and exactly
which "conclusion" was not valid.
Cherry picking "statistics" is always fun ... if Charles Murray did it,
he deserves all the criticism anyone can level on him. However, if the
cherry pickers are the critics ... they need the same analysis.
Tim, you are an educated man ... do you believe that there is any
genetic component at all in what we call "intelligence"?
Do you think that groups of human beings can legitimately be congregated
into "groups" that have distinguishing "characteristics" (maybe
"instincts" could be used) and statistical differences ... of which
"intelligence" might also be included?
Do believe that "political" leaning can "taint" results even when
"scientists" are involved? (Maybe even "mathematicians.)
Is there any way reasonably to compare the words "breed" and "race"?
If a specific breed reproduces with a different breed, are there more
than "physical" "differences in the offspring? Any "difference" in any
"instinct" passed on?
There was an analysis of taking two different normal distributions, and combining them in a single population. You do not get a single normal distribution.
You can find the article in the AMM, probably 10 years ago now.
Super dodge ... I do not blame you. Thanks.
What dodge? Look up the article.
Now you are starting to sound like Jerry.

I still do not blame you.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Tim Norfolk
2018-08-13 21:04:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by da pickle
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by da pickle
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by Bill Vanek
On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 13:40:11 -0500, da pickle
Post by da pickle
Post by Tim Norfolk
I looked at this for years, and discovered that the pass rate for a standard Calculus I course is about 60% worldwide, including AP courses.
Math is the indicator, and only a minority can do the material. If I knew exactly why, or how to fix it, I would be very rich and famous.
Or you would be ignored and possibly not able to find work because of
your obviously prejudicial thoughts.
Charles Murray? Life is hard for honest people.
Except that mathematicians who analyzed his statistics in 'The Bell Curve' showed that his conclusions were not valid. The American Math Monthly had a piece on it years ago.
Really? He (and his co author) had quite a few reviews of his work.
Who are these "mathematicians"? Citations from their work? So,
"exactly" which statistical calculation was not valid ... and exactly
which "conclusion" was not valid.
Cherry picking "statistics" is always fun ... if Charles Murray did it,
he deserves all the criticism anyone can level on him. However, if the
cherry pickers are the critics ... they need the same analysis.
Tim, you are an educated man ... do you believe that there is any
genetic component at all in what we call "intelligence"?
Do you think that groups of human beings can legitimately be congregated
into "groups" that have distinguishing "characteristics" (maybe
"instincts" could be used) and statistical differences ... of which
"intelligence" might also be included?
Do believe that "political" leaning can "taint" results even when
"scientists" are involved? (Maybe even "mathematicians.)
Is there any way reasonably to compare the words "breed" and "race"?
If a specific breed reproduces with a different breed, are there more
than "physical" "differences in the offspring? Any "difference" in any
"instinct" passed on?
There was an analysis of taking two different normal distributions, and combining them in a single population. You do not get a single normal distribution.
You can find the article in the AMM, probably 10 years ago now.
Super dodge ... I do not blame you. Thanks.
What dodge? Look up the article.
Now you are starting to sound like Jerry.
I still do not blame you.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
This has nothing to do with Murray's views on race. According to the piece that I discussed, his Mathematics is wrong.
Tim Norfolk
2018-08-11 18:49:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
Post by Tim Norfolk
I looked at this for years, and discovered that the pass rate for a standard Calculus I course is about 60% worldwide, including AP courses.
Math is the indicator, and only a minority can do the material. If I knew exactly why, or how to fix it, I would be very rich and famous.
Or you would be ignored and possibly not able to find work because of
your obviously prejudicial thoughts.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
No. I have observed, and been part of, reform movements in STEM education for 5 decades. Not a single one has produced consistent results. At some point, one has to ask whether it is genetics, preconditioning or whatever, rather than pedagogy. This question itself is considered unacceptable in colleges of education, by most parents, and by politicians.
da pickle
2018-08-12 13:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by da pickle
Post by Tim Norfolk
I looked at this for years, and discovered that the pass rate for a standard Calculus I course is about 60% worldwide, including AP courses.
Math is the indicator, and only a minority can do the material. If I knew exactly why, or how to fix it, I would be very rich and famous.
Or you would be ignored and possibly not able to find work because of
your obviously prejudicial thoughts.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
No. I have observed, and been part of, reform movements in STEM education for 5 decades. Not a single one has produced consistent results. At some point, one has to ask whether it is genetics, preconditioning or whatever, rather than pedagogy. This question itself is considered unacceptable in colleges of education, by most parents, and by politicians.
That is what I meant. I admit to being obscure at times.

The very "question" you say is "unacceptable" is exactly what I am
talking about.

Is that question unacceptable for legitimate/scientific reasons?

Why do you think the question is unacceptable?

Is it possible that current political climates do not allow certain
"possible" real-science to be "proven" to be "true" ... it must be
deemed an unacceptable area to even consider?
da pickle
2018-08-13 12:39:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by da pickle
Post by Tim Norfolk
I looked at this for years, and discovered that the pass rate for a
standard Calculus I course is about 60% worldwide, including AP
courses.
Math is the indicator, and only a minority can do the material. If I
knew exactly why, or how to fix it, I would be very rich and famous.
Or you would be ignored and possibly not able to find work because of
your obviously prejudicial thoughts.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
No. I have observed, and been part of, reform movements in STEM
education for 5 decades. Not a single one has produced consistent
results. At some point, one has to ask whether it is genetics,
preconditioning or whatever, rather than pedagogy. This question
itself is considered unacceptable in colleges of education, by most
parents, and by politicians.
That is what I meant.  I admit to being obscure at times.
The very "question" you say is "unacceptable" is exactly what I am
talking about.
Is that question unacceptable for legitimate/scientific reasons?
Why do you think the question is unacceptable?
Is it possible that current political climates do not allow certain
"possible" real-science to be "proven" to be "true" ... it must be
deemed an unacceptable area to even consider?
I agree, it is unacceptable to even consider.
Dutch
2018-08-10 03:36:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by BillB
Nope. Every party is doing its best to ignore serious science and facts. For the >GOP, it's things like global warming and evolution. For the Democrats, it's >things like the genetic component of intelligence. The fringe parties are even >worse.
What do you mean by "the genetic component of intelligence?" Democrats are denying that intelligent parents tend to have intelligent children? I don't remember ever seeing that, even once. Meanwhile, the entire Republican platform is based on denying science. I can't believe you had the gall to even compare the two parties on this issue. Way off base.
That is the claim of the left. It's one of the driving premises for the 'college for all' movement. The idea, promulgated in colleges of education, is that anyone can succeed, if they are taught 'correctly'.
I've never heard of such an idea. The one I've heard from the right
explicitly and implicitly, is that if a student comes from a poor family
that can't afford college tuition that means they almost surely lack the
ability to be a success at higher education. That is one of the most
insidious forms of racism out there, tragic, and a waste of precious
human resources. It's the first cousin to 'if you can't afford health
insurance you deserve to suffer'.
fffurken
2018-08-10 03:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Tim Norfolk
That is the claim of the left. It's one of the driving premises for the 'college for all' movement. The idea, promulgated in colleges of education, is that anyone can succeed, if they are taught 'correctly'.
I've never heard of such an idea.
Have you ever heard of affirmative action, equality of outcome, Africa's a shithole?
Post by Dutch
The one I've heard from the right explicitly and implicitly, is that if a student comes from a poor family that can't afford college tuition that means they almost surely lack the ability to be a success at higher education. That is one of the most insidious forms of racism...
I think you're imagining things.

Of course, Dutch has also been brainwashed in Marxism, white guilt etc.
Dutch
2018-08-10 05:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by fffurken
Post by Dutch
Post by Tim Norfolk
That is the claim of the left. It's one of the driving premises for the 'college for all' movement. The idea, promulgated in colleges of education, is that anyone can succeed, if they are taught 'correctly'.
I've never heard of such an idea.
Have you ever heard of affirmative action, equality of outcome, Africa's a shithole?
babble
Post by fffurken
Post by Dutch
The one I've heard from the right explicitly and implicitly, is that if a student comes from a poor family that can't afford college tuition that means they almost surely lack the ability to be a success at higher education. That is one of the most insidious forms of racism...
I think you're imagining things.
You and Vanek et al prove my point every day,
Post by fffurken
Of course, Dutch has also been brainwashed in Marxism, white guilt etc.
ffffurken the buzzword king.
fffurken
2018-08-10 05:33:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by fffurken
Post by Dutch
Post by Tim Norfolk
That is the claim of the left. It's one of the driving premises for the 'college for all' movement. The idea, promulgated in colleges of education, is that anyone can succeed, if they are taught 'correctly'.
I've never heard of such an idea.
Have you ever heard of affirmative action, equality of outcome, Africa's a shithole?
babble
Post by fffurken
Post by Dutch
The one I've heard from the right explicitly and implicitly, is that if a student comes from a poor family that can't afford college tuition that means they almost surely lack the ability to be a success at higher education. That is one of the most insidious forms of racism...
I think you're imagining things.
You and Vanek et al prove my point every day,
Post by fffurken
Of course, Dutch has also been brainwashed in Marxism, white guilt etc.
ffffurken the buzzword king.
Translation: I have nothing
Tim Norfolk
2018-08-10 16:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by BillB
Nope. Every party is doing its best to ignore serious science and facts. For the >GOP, it's things like global warming and evolution. For the Democrats, it's >things like the genetic component of intelligence. The fringe parties are even >worse.
What do you mean by "the genetic component of intelligence?" Democrats are denying that intelligent parents tend to have intelligent children? I don't remember ever seeing that, even once. Meanwhile, the entire Republican platform is based on denying science. I can't believe you had the gall to even compare the two parties on this issue. Way off base.
That is the claim of the left. It's one of the driving premises for the 'college for all' movement. The idea, promulgated in colleges of education, is that anyone can succeed, if they are taught 'correctly'.
I've never heard of such an idea. The one I've heard from the right
explicitly and implicitly, is that if a student comes from a poor family
that can't afford college tuition that means they almost surely lack the
ability to be a success at higher education. That is one of the most
insidious forms of racism out there, tragic, and a waste of precious
human resources. It's the first cousin to 'if you can't afford health
insurance you deserve to suffer'.
Just read some of the crap labeled as 'research' coming out of the colleges of education.
da pickle
2018-08-10 18:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by Dutch
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by BillB
Nope. Every party is doing its best to ignore serious science and facts. For the >GOP, it's things like global warming and evolution. For the Democrats, it's >things like the genetic component of intelligence. The fringe parties are even >worse.
What do you mean by "the genetic component of intelligence?" Democrats are denying that intelligent parents tend to have intelligent children? I don't remember ever seeing that, even once. Meanwhile, the entire Republican platform is based on denying science. I can't believe you had the gall to even compare the two parties on this issue. Way off base.
That is the claim of the left. It's one of the driving premises for the 'college for all' movement. The idea, promulgated in colleges of education, is that anyone can succeed, if they are taught 'correctly'.
I've never heard of such an idea. The one I've heard from the right
explicitly and implicitly, is that if a student comes from a poor family
that can't afford college tuition that means they almost surely lack the
ability to be a success at higher education. That is one of the most
insidious forms of racism out there, tragic, and a waste of precious
human resources. It's the first cousin to 'if you can't afford health
insurance you deserve to suffer'.
Just read some of the crap labeled as 'research' coming out of the colleges of education.
Good advice, but it will be ignored. Our current process of rewarding
failure will continue ... as you already know.

We should be more concerned with "opportunity" being provided and less
concerned about those that "choose" to ignore those opportunities. I
know that we need to protect some folks that continue to fall behind,
but opportunity needs more encouragement not more gifts.

Our "welfare" systems are NOT working ... they do NOT provide
encouragement to go forward, learn more, work harder, provide for
yourself and your loved ones. They do provide a giant disincentive to
marry and take care of family.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Bill Vanek
2018-08-11 01:17:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by BillB
Nope. Every party is doing its best to ignore serious science and facts. For the >GOP, it's things like global warming and evolution. For the Democrats, it's >things like the genetic component of intelligence. The fringe parties are even >worse.
What do you mean by "the genetic component of intelligence?" Democrats are denying that intelligent parents tend to have intelligent children? I don't remember ever seeing that, even once. Meanwhile, the entire Republican platform is based on denying science. I can't believe you had the gall to even compare the two parties on this issue. Way off base.
That is the claim of the left. It's one of the driving premises for the 'college for all' movement. The idea, promulgated in colleges of education, is that anyone can succeed, if they are taught 'correctly'.
I've never heard of such an idea. The one I've heard from the right
explicitly and implicitly, is that if a student comes from a poor family
that can't afford college tuition that means they almost surely lack the
ability to be a success at higher education. That is one of the most
insidious forms of racism out there, tragic, and a waste of precious
human resources. It's the first cousin to 'if you can't afford health
insurance you deserve to suffer'.
Where do you get this stuff from? What the right (realists) claim, is
that pushing people into college is setting many, or most, of them up
for failure. It's not a belief, it's a proven fact.
Dutch
2018-08-11 03:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Vanek
Post by Dutch
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by BillB
Nope. Every party is doing its best to ignore serious science and facts. For the >GOP, it's things like global warming and evolution. For the Democrats, it's >things like the genetic component of intelligence. The fringe parties are even >worse.
What do you mean by "the genetic component of intelligence?" Democrats are denying that intelligent parents tend to have intelligent children? I don't remember ever seeing that, even once. Meanwhile, the entire Republican platform is based on denying science. I can't believe you had the gall to even compare the two parties on this issue. Way off base.
That is the claim of the left. It's one of the driving premises for the 'college for all' movement. The idea, promulgated in colleges of education, is that anyone can succeed, if they are taught 'correctly'.
I've never heard of such an idea. The one I've heard from the right
explicitly and implicitly, is that if a student comes from a poor family
that can't afford college tuition that means they almost surely lack the
ability to be a success at higher education. That is one of the most
insidious forms of racism out there, tragic, and a waste of precious
human resources. It's the first cousin to 'if you can't afford health
insurance you deserve to suffer'.
Where do you get this stuff from? What the right (realists) claim, is
that pushing people into college is setting many, or most, of them up
for failure. It's not a belief, it's a proven fact.
I see, so providing talented youth the *opportunity* to access higher
education is "pushing them into college"?

Why not call it what it is, opening a door to higher education? And call
what you're doing what it is, narrow-minded conservative stupidity.

It's the same thing over and over with the American right, nobody should
have anything they don't "deserve", and the deserving ones are those who
are well-off financially.

Someone said America's greatness is coming to an end, and if that is
true, this is one of the reasons.
Bill Vanek
2018-08-11 04:03:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Bill Vanek
Post by Dutch
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by BillB
Nope. Every party is doing its best to ignore serious science and facts. For the >GOP, it's things like global warming and evolution. For the Democrats, it's >things like the genetic component of intelligence. The fringe parties are even >worse.
What do you mean by "the genetic component of intelligence?" Democrats are denying that intelligent parents tend to have intelligent children? I don't remember ever seeing that, even once. Meanwhile, the entire Republican platform is based on denying science. I can't believe you had the gall to even compare the two parties on this issue. Way off base.
That is the claim of the left. It's one of the driving premises for the 'college for all' movement. The idea, promulgated in colleges of education, is that anyone can succeed, if they are taught 'correctly'.
I've never heard of such an idea. The one I've heard from the right
explicitly and implicitly, is that if a student comes from a poor family
that can't afford college tuition that means they almost surely lack the
ability to be a success at higher education. That is one of the most
insidious forms of racism out there, tragic, and a waste of precious
human resources. It's the first cousin to 'if you can't afford health
insurance you deserve to suffer'.
Where do you get this stuff from? What the right (realists) claim, is
that pushing people into college is setting many, or most, of them up
for failure. It's not a belief, it's a proven fact.
I see, so providing talented youth the *opportunity* to access higher
education is "pushing them into college"?
Why not call it what it is, opening a door to higher education? And call
what you're doing what it is, narrow-minded conservative stupidity.
It's the same thing over and over with the American right, nobody should
have anything they don't "deserve", and the deserving ones are those who
are well-off financially.
Look up the term "moral hazard". The right believes that everyone
deserves equal opportunity, and the left believes in equal outcomes.
That's where moral hazard comes in. If you give people money, there is
no reason to work. No incentive whatsoever. If you give people a
"free" education, what is the incentive to learn, and to work hard to
excel? And if there is no incentive to learn and excel, that is money
totally wasted.
Post by Dutch
Someone said America's greatness is coming to an end, and if that is
true, this is one of the reasons.
No, people like you *are* *the* reason. The left has lots of great
ideas, all of them unworkable and unrealistic. And they all use other
people's money, and lots of it.
Dutch
2018-08-11 04:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Vanek
Post by Dutch
Post by Bill Vanek
Post by Dutch
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by BillB
Nope. Every party is doing its best to ignore serious science and facts. For the >GOP, it's things like global warming and evolution. For the Democrats, it's >things like the genetic component of intelligence. The fringe parties are even >worse.
What do you mean by "the genetic component of intelligence?" Democrats are denying that intelligent parents tend to have intelligent children? I don't remember ever seeing that, even once. Meanwhile, the entire Republican platform is based on denying science. I can't believe you had the gall to even compare the two parties on this issue. Way off base.
That is the claim of the left. It's one of the driving premises for the 'college for all' movement. The idea, promulgated in colleges of education, is that anyone can succeed, if they are taught 'correctly'.
I've never heard of such an idea. The one I've heard from the right
explicitly and implicitly, is that if a student comes from a poor family
that can't afford college tuition that means they almost surely lack the
ability to be a success at higher education. That is one of the most
insidious forms of racism out there, tragic, and a waste of precious
human resources. It's the first cousin to 'if you can't afford health
insurance you deserve to suffer'.
Where do you get this stuff from? What the right (realists) claim, is
that pushing people into college is setting many, or most, of them up
for failure. It's not a belief, it's a proven fact.
I see, so providing talented youth the *opportunity* to access higher
education is "pushing them into college"?
Why not call it what it is, opening a door to higher education? And call
what you're doing what it is, narrow-minded conservative stupidity.
It's the same thing over and over with the American right, nobody should
have anything they don't "deserve", and the deserving ones are those who
are well-off financially.
Look up the term "moral hazard". The right believes that everyone
deserves equal opportunity, and the left believes in equal outcomes.
Bullshit, and strawman. I am arguing for equal opportunity, you are
arguing against it.

The right believes in white privilege, own it, asshole.
Bill Vanek
2018-08-11 04:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Bill Vanek
Post by Dutch
Post by Bill Vanek
Post by Dutch
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by BillB
Nope. Every party is doing its best to ignore serious science and facts. For the >GOP, it's things like global warming and evolution. For the Democrats, it's >things like the genetic component of intelligence. The fringe parties are even >worse.
What do you mean by "the genetic component of intelligence?" Democrats are denying that intelligent parents tend to have intelligent children? I don't remember ever seeing that, even once. Meanwhile, the entire Republican platform is based on denying science. I can't believe you had the gall to even compare the two parties on this issue. Way off base.
That is the claim of the left. It's one of the driving premises for the 'college for all' movement. The idea, promulgated in colleges of education, is that anyone can succeed, if they are taught 'correctly'.
I've never heard of such an idea. The one I've heard from the right
explicitly and implicitly, is that if a student comes from a poor family
that can't afford college tuition that means they almost surely lack the
ability to be a success at higher education. That is one of the most
insidious forms of racism out there, tragic, and a waste of precious
human resources. It's the first cousin to 'if you can't afford health
insurance you deserve to suffer'.
Where do you get this stuff from? What the right (realists) claim, is
that pushing people into college is setting many, or most, of them up
for failure. It's not a belief, it's a proven fact.
I see, so providing talented youth the *opportunity* to access higher
education is "pushing them into college"?
Why not call it what it is, opening a door to higher education? And call
what you're doing what it is, narrow-minded conservative stupidity.
It's the same thing over and over with the American right, nobody should
have anything they don't "deserve", and the deserving ones are those who
are well-off financially.
Look up the term "moral hazard". The right believes that everyone
deserves equal opportunity, and the left believes in equal outcomes.
Bullshit, and strawman. I am arguing for equal opportunity, you are
arguing against it.
No, you are arguing for free shit, nothing else. By your "reasoning",
*everything* should be free.
Post by Dutch
The right believes in white privilege, own it, asshole.
Aren't you white? Safe from the blacks in Vancouver?
Dutch
2018-08-11 07:19:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Vanek
Post by Dutch
Bullshit, and strawman. I am arguing for equal opportunity, you are
arguing against it.
No, you are arguing for free shit, nothing else. By your "reasoning",
*everything* should be free.
What horseshit. Public school is already "free". Maybe the poor should
remain illiterate, then they can pick fruit and you won't need all those
dirty immigrants.

I'm just arguing for the education system to continue beyond high school
so ambitious students can get enough education to have a real shot.
Public colleges don't have to be Harvard, but they can teach computer
science and lots of other marketable skills. Nothing would do more to
help stop the cycle of poverty and dependence. Even Canada doesn't have
this, why don't you lead the way for a change and be truly progressive
in the best sense of the word?

The answer is obvious, there are too many people like you in the U.S.
VegasJerry
2018-08-11 13:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Bill Vanek
Post by Dutch
Bullshit, and strawman. I am arguing for equal opportunity, you are
arguing against it.
No, you are arguing for free shit, nothing else. By your "reasoning",
*everything* should be free.
What horseshit. Public school is already "free". Maybe the poor should
remain illiterate, then they can pick fruit and you won't need all those
dirty immigrants.
I'm just arguing for the education system to continue beyond high school
so ambitious students can get enough education to have a real shot.
Like they do in may other countries....
Post by Dutch
Public colleges don't have to be Harvard, but they can teach computer
science and lots of other marketable skills.
Rather than the right-wing way (during Vietnam and after) of increasing immigration, helping illegals come over our southern borders, (filling jobs) blocking college doorways… The only way for the right wing to dodge making a Military Draft (they know American’s wouldn’t stand for).

“Can’t get a job? Need training? We need people to fight our (illegal) wars (and make money for the military industrial complex). Join the military (don’t burn your draft card, bring it) and get “free” education and training.”
Post by Dutch
Nothing would do more to help stop the cycle of poverty and dependence. Even Canada doesn't have
this, why don't you lead the way for a change and be truly progressive in the best sense of the word?
The answer is obvious, there are too many people like you in the U.S.
popinjay
2018-08-11 07:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
The right believes in white privilege, own it, asshole.
And why not? Whites deserve privilege. We're better than other people.
fffurken
2018-08-11 08:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by popinjay
Post by Dutch
The right believes in white privilege, own it, asshole.
And why not? Whites deserve privilege. We're better than other people.
What the fuck is he (Dutch) even talking about?

It's the 'left' that invented the term (and believes in) 'white privilege'.

And is Dutch suggesting that other races reject their "privilege"? lol.. does the average gibs-me-dat do that? And of course, the (insane) level of entitlement (and racism) in non-whites is fuelled by the 'left' (/anti-whites).

And does he (Dutch) think that non-whites are going to be as nice to whites when they (white people) are the minority? lol Dutch lives in commie white guilt la-la land.
Dutch
2018-08-11 08:52:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by fffurken
Post by popinjay
Post by Dutch
The right believes in white privilege, own it, asshole.
And why not? Whites deserve privilege. We're better than other people.
What the fuck is he (Dutch) even talking about?
It's the 'left' that invented the term (and believes in) 'white privilege'.
And is Dutch suggesting that other races reject their "privilege"? lol.. does the average gibs-me-dat do that? And of course, the (insane) level of entitlement (and racism) in non-whites is fuelled by the 'left' (/anti-whites).
And does he (Dutch) think that non-whites are going to be as nice to whites when they (white people) are the minority? lol Dutch lives in commie white guilt la-la land.
The darkies are coming. OOGA BOOGA!
fffurken
2018-08-11 08:55:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by fffurken
Post by popinjay
Post by Dutch
The right believes in white privilege, own it, asshole.
And why not? Whites deserve privilege. We're better than other people.
What the fuck is he (Dutch) even talking about?
It's the 'left' that invented the term (and believes in) 'white privilege'.
And is Dutch suggesting that other races reject their "privilege"? lol.. does the average gibs-me-dat do that? And of course, the (insane) level of entitlement (and racism) in non-whites is fuelled by the 'left' (/anti-whites).
And does he (Dutch) think that non-whites are going to be as nice to whites when they (white people) are the minority? lol Dutch lives in commie white guilt la-la land.
The darkies are coming. OOGA BOOGA!
Oh shut up
Bill Vanek
2018-08-11 16:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by fffurken
Post by popinjay
Post by Dutch
The right believes in white privilege, own it, asshole.
And why not? Whites deserve privilege. We're better than other people.
What the fuck is he (Dutch) even talking about?
It's the 'left' that invented the term (and believes in) 'white privilege'.
And is Dutch suggesting that other races reject their "privilege"? lol.. does the average gibs-me-dat do that? And of course, the (insane) level of entitlement (and racism) in non-whites is fuelled by the 'left' (/anti-whites).
And does he (Dutch) think that non-whites are going to be as nice to whites when they (white people) are the minority? lol Dutch lives in commie white guilt la-la land.
The darkies are coming. OOGA BOOGA!
Not to Vancouver, they're not... unless y'all keep them in a zoo up
there.
Dutch
2018-08-11 08:47:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by popinjay
Post by Dutch
The right believes in white privilege, own it, asshole.
And why not? Whites deserve privilege. We're better than other people.
An honest answer, thank you.
fffurken
2018-08-11 08:56:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Vanek
Look up the term "moral hazard". The right believes that everyone
deserves equal opportunity, and the left believes in equal outcomes.
lol.. Look at a couple of leftists literally reel at the idea that equal outcomes is a bad idea in an interview with Jordan Peterson on the BBC (the full video can be watched here - https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/VWruZguKyMY/DlRxvMb8CAAJ) -



I'm prepared to give them some credit.. because I think they may not fully understand what that is/entails (which is fairly standard when leftists interview Peterson because he's relatively smart and the leftists are invariably dumb (/indoctrinated commies)).
popinjay
2018-08-11 11:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by fffurken
Post by Bill Vanek
Look up the term "moral hazard". The right believes that everyone
deserves equal opportunity, and the left believes in equal outcomes.
lol.. Look at a couple of leftists literally reel at the idea that equal outcomes is a bad idea in an interview with Jordan Peterson on the BBC (the full video can be watched here - https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/VWruZguKyMY/DlRxvMb8CAAJ) -
http://youtu.be/InjeKKH6EVc
I'm prepared to give them some credit.. because I think they may not fully understand what that is/entails (which is fairly standard when leftists interview Peterson because he's relatively smart and the leftists are invariably dumb (/indoctrinated commies)).
3:00 a.m. and the paramedics just left. Didn't take me to the hospital this time, but this is getting ridiculous. Anxiety, hypertensive crisis, and reading dumb mutherfuckers like Dutch just contributes to my problems. Blood pressure was 190/117. It's been much higher before, so I didn't think I was going to die or stroke out. But I'm going to close RGP right now, before Jerry (retard 'n Vegas) wakes up and sets me off, or finishes me off. I may be gone for a few days. You guys have fun.
fffurken
2018-08-11 13:28:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by popinjay
Post by fffurken
Post by Bill Vanek
Look up the term "moral hazard". The right believes that everyone
deserves equal opportunity, and the left believes in equal outcomes.
lol.. Look at a couple of leftists literally reel at the idea that equal outcomes is a bad idea in an interview with Jordan Peterson on the BBC (the full video can be watched here - https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/VWruZguKyMY/DlRxvMb8CAAJ) -
http://youtu.be/InjeKKH6EVc
I'm prepared to give them some credit.. because I think they may not fully understand what that is/entails (which is fairly standard when leftists interview Peterson because he's relatively smart and the leftists are invariably dumb (/indoctrinated commies)).
3:00 a.m. and the paramedics just left. Didn't take me to the hospital this time, but this is getting ridiculous. Anxiety, hypertensive crisis, and reading dumb mutherfuckers like Dutch just contributes to my problems. Blood pressure was 190/117. It's been much higher before, so I didn't think I was going to die or stroke out. But I'm going to close RGP right now, before Jerry (retard 'n Vegas) wakes up and sets me off, or finishes me off. I may be gone for a few days. You guys have fun.
Be well.
VegasJerry
2018-08-11 13:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by popinjay
Post by fffurken
Post by Bill Vanek
Look up the term "moral hazard". The right believes that everyone
deserves equal opportunity, and the left believes in equal outcomes.
lol.. Look at a couple of leftists literally reel at the idea that equal outcomes is a bad idea in an interview with Jordan Peterson on the BBC (the full video can be watched here - https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/VWruZguKyMY/DlRxvMb8CAAJ) -
http://youtu.be/InjeKKH6EVc
I'm prepared to give them some credit.. because I think they may not fully understand what that is/entails (which is fairly standard when leftists interview Peterson because he's relatively smart and the leftists are invariably dumb (/indoctrinated commies)).
3:00 a.m. and the paramedics just left. Didn't take me to the hospital this time, but this is getting ridiculous. Anxiety, hypertensive crisis, and reading dumb mutherfuckers like Dutch just contributes to my problems. Blood pressure was 190/117. It's been much higher before, so I didn't think I was going to die or stroke out. But I'm going to close RGP right now, before Jerry (retard 'n Vegas) wakes up and sets me off, or finishes me off.
I say my doctor Wednesday. "Your numbers are down. No need for cancer treatment. we'll just monitor this for a few decades."

I'm beating cancer just like I beat you...











I may be gone for a few days. You guys have fun.
VegasJerry
2018-08-11 13:18:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Vanek
Post by Dutch
Post by Bill Vanek
Post by Dutch
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by BillB
Nope. Every party is doing its best to ignore serious science and facts. For the >GOP, it's things like global warming and evolution. For the Democrats, it's >things like the genetic component of intelligence. The fringe parties are even >worse.
What do you mean by "the genetic component of intelligence?" Democrats are denying that intelligent parents tend to have intelligent children? I don't remember ever seeing that, even once. Meanwhile, the entire Republican platform is based on denying science. I can't believe you had the gall to even compare the two parties on this issue. Way off base.
That is the claim of the left. It's one of the driving premises for the 'college for all' movement. The idea, promulgated in colleges of education, is that anyone can succeed, if they are taught 'correctly'.
I've never heard of such an idea. The one I've heard from the right
explicitly and implicitly, is that if a student comes from a poor family
that can't afford college tuition that means they almost surely lack the
ability to be a success at higher education. That is one of the most
insidious forms of racism out there, tragic, and a waste of precious
human resources. It's the first cousin to 'if you can't afford health
insurance you deserve to suffer'.
Where do you get this stuff from? What the right (realists) claim, is
that pushing people into college is setting many, or most, of them up
for failure. It's not a belief, it's a proven fact.
I see, so providing talented youth the *opportunity* to access higher
education is "pushing them into college"?
Why not call it what it is, opening a door to higher education? And call
what you're doing what it is, narrow-minded conservative stupidity.
It's the same thing over and over with the American right, nobody should
have anything they don't "deserve", and the deserving ones are those who
are well-off financially.
Look up the term "moral hazard". The right believes that everyone
deserves equal opportunity,
No, they do not. They metaphorically (and literally) stand in the doorway of schools and colleges. To you, “deserves” means, “being able to pay for it.” i.e. Brown v. Board of education.
Post by Bill Vanek
and the left believes in equal outcomes.
“Equal outcomes?” Show us what you mean.
Post by Bill Vanek
That's where moral hazard comes in. If you give people money, there is
no reason to work.
Gee, all that money we gave the rich in the form of tax cuts…
All that money we give to farmers to not grow crops…

So what people are you giving money to and for what and why?
Post by Bill Vanek
No incentive whatsoever. If you give people a "free" education, what is the incentive to learn,
Ask those that are given a free ride (full scholarship).
Post by Bill Vanek
and to work hard to excel? And if there is no incentive to learn and excel, that is money
totally wasted.
So… No more full scholarships?
Post by Bill Vanek
Post by Dutch
Someone said America's greatness is coming to an end, and if that is
true, this is one of the reasons.
No, people like you *are* *the* reason. The left has lots of great
ideas,
Yea, and “lots” of them are paying off.
Post by Bill Vanek
all of them unworkable and unrealistic.
Give us the list…
fffurken
2018-08-10 02:29:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Norfolk
Every party is doing its best to ignore serious science and facts. For the GOP, it's things like global warming and evolution. For the Democrats, it's things like the genetic component of intelligence. The fringe parties are even worse.
'BillB' (who's a Marxist) doesn't believe in (average) IQ differences between races. Despite it being a fact.
Dutch
2018-08-08 01:57:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by BillB
Post by Tim Norfolk
To some people, making fun of people from a given nation is racist. Is there another word for that?
Thinly veiled racism is still racism. There are even some especially dim-witted Islamophobes who refuse to admit that their Islamophobia is grounded in racial animus. That doesn't really fool anyone, or change the way the disorder is perceived by normal people. It's still seen for what it is, an obvious form of racism.
How do you know how normal people think?
Post by BillB
The same goes for animus toward certain countries. If someone says, "I don't want those dirty Mexicans coming to our country," I don't think there is much doubt he is a racist, even if he didn't mention the name of a race by name. Same thing if you say, "The [Mexicans] are bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." It's obvious racism, even though a specific race isn't "named".
We're all adults here. No need to play dumb.
To a hammer everything is a nail. To an SJW, everybody is a racist.
Bill Vanek
2018-08-08 03:55:13 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:37:32 -0700 (PDT), BillB
Post by BillB
"I don't want those dirty Mexicans coming to our country
What's a Mexican? Another social construct? Or is there maybe a
tortilla gene?
BillB
2018-08-08 04:25:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Vanek
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:37:32 -0700 (PDT), BillB
Post by BillB
"I don't want those dirty Mexicans coming to our country
What's a Mexican? Another social construct? Or is there maybe a
tortilla gene?
My understanding of the term Mexican is "a citizen of Mexico". Why do you ask so many stupid questions? What is white? What is black? What is a Mexican? You sound like a complete idiot. Do you think you're going to trick me or something?
Bill Vanek
2018-08-08 04:44:09 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 21:25:59 -0700 (PDT), BillB
Post by BillB
Post by Bill Vanek
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:37:32 -0700 (PDT), BillB
Post by BillB
"I don't want those dirty Mexicans coming to our country
What's a Mexican? Another social construct? Or is there maybe a
tortilla gene?
My understanding of the term Mexican is "a citizen of Mexico". Why do you ask so many stupid questions? What is white? What is black? What is a Mexican? You sound like a complete idiot. Do you think you're going to trick me or something?
Why do you keep using the terms, if the race construct is inaccurate
and useless? Do you think that construct might be useful, and that's
why it is used by everyone, including you, and not for nefarious
purposes? You've wasted a lot of words telling us that using race is
bad bad bad, and you keep telling us that you aren't even conscious of
race. But you keep talking about blacks, Mexicans, Aborigines, and the
list goes on. There is no need to trick you.

And I keep asking you this question: if "white" is the absence of
melanin, are Chinese white?
Dutch
2018-08-08 01:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by Dutch
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by BTSinAustin
Post by Dutch
The only question asked was:-
"Please give your honest opinion about possible solutions
to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"
The survey was a complete failure because..
In South America they didn't know what “please” meant.
In Eastern Europe they didn't know what “honest” meant.
In China they didn't know what “opinion” meant.
In the Middle East they didn't know what “solution” meant.
In Africa they didn't know what “food” meant.
In Western Europe they didn't know what “shortage” meant.
In the USA they didn't know what “the rest of the world” meant.
And in Canada everyone hung up as soon as they heard the Indian accent!
Racist maybe, funny yes!
Unacceptable now, but funny indeed, like the old heaven/hell one.
What is racist about it? It doesn't actually mention any particular
race. Is it that is generalizes about countries and pokes fun at them?
Oh, the Indian accent part, is that what you mean?
To some people, making fun of people from a given nation is racist.
People who have no sense of humor.
Post by Tim Norfolk
Is there another word for that?
Just about every nation is included, that should count for something.
Clave
2018-08-08 02:01:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by Dutch
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by BTSinAustin
Post by Dutch
The only question asked was:-
"Please give your honest opinion about possible solutions
to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"
The survey was a complete failure because..
In South America they didn't know what “please” meant.
In Eastern Europe they didn't know what “honest” meant.
In China they didn't know what “opinion” meant.
In the Middle East they didn't know what “solution” meant.
In Africa they didn't know what “food” meant.
In Western Europe they didn't know what “shortage” meant.
In the USA they didn't know what “the rest of the world” meant.
And in Canada everyone hung up as soon as they heard the Indian accent!
Racist maybe, funny yes!
Unacceptable now, but funny indeed, like the old heaven/hell one.
What is racist about it? It doesn't actually mention any particular
race. Is it that is generalizes about countries and pokes fun at them?
Oh, the Indian accent part, is that what you mean?
To some people, making fun of people from a given nation is racist. Is there another word for that?
Stereotyping I guess, but it doesn't seem strong enough.

Does anyone think "Blazing Saddles" could be made today?
Dutch
2018-08-08 02:09:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clave
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by Dutch
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by BTSinAustin
Post by Dutch
The only question asked was:-
"Please give your honest opinion about possible solutions
to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"
The survey was a complete failure because..
In South America they didn't know what “please” meant.
In Eastern Europe they didn't know what “honest” meant.
In China they didn't know what “opinion” meant.
In the Middle East they didn't know what “solution” meant.
In Africa they didn't know what “food” meant.
In Western Europe they didn't know what “shortage” meant.
In the USA they didn't know what “the rest of the world” meant.
And in Canada everyone hung up as soon as they heard the Indian accent!
Racist maybe, funny yes!
Unacceptable now, but funny indeed, like the old heaven/hell one.
What is racist about it? It doesn't actually mention any particular
race. Is it that is generalizes about countries and pokes fun at them?
Oh, the Indian accent part, is that what you mean?
To some people, making fun of people from a given nation is racist. Is
there another word for that?
Stereotyping I guess, but it doesn't seem strong enough.
Does anyone think "Blazing Saddles" could be made today?
How about "All in the Family"? Oh, that's right, we're living it.

It'll be a sad day wen we are no longer allowed to make fun of the human
condition.
Bill Vanek
2018-08-08 04:06:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Clave
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by Dutch
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by BTSinAustin
Post by Dutch
The only question asked was:-
"Please give your honest opinion about possible solutions
to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"
The survey was a complete failure because..
In South America they didn't know what “please” meant.
In Eastern Europe they didn't know what “honest” meant.
In China they didn't know what “opinion” meant.
In the Middle East they didn't know what “solution” meant.
In Africa they didn't know what “food” meant.
In Western Europe they didn't know what “shortage” meant.
In the USA they didn't know what “the rest of the world” meant.
And in Canada everyone hung up as soon as they heard the Indian accent!
Racist maybe, funny yes!
Unacceptable now, but funny indeed, like the old heaven/hell one.
What is racist about it? It doesn't actually mention any particular
race. Is it that is generalizes about countries and pokes fun at them?
Oh, the Indian accent part, is that what you mean?
To some people, making fun of people from a given nation is racist. Is
there another word for that?
Stereotyping I guess, but it doesn't seem strong enough.
Does anyone think "Blazing Saddles" could be made today?
How about "All in the Family"? Oh, that's right, we're living it.
It'll be a sad day wen we are no longer allowed to make fun of the human
condition.
Then why are you on the side of Progressives? *They* are the speech
police, and the thought police.
Dutch
2018-08-09 05:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Vanek
Post by Dutch
Post by Clave
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by Dutch
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by BTSinAustin
Post by Dutch
The only question asked was:-
"Please give your honest opinion about possible solutions
to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"
The survey was a complete failure because..
In South America they didn't know what “please” meant.
In Eastern Europe they didn't know what “honest” meant.
In China they didn't know what “opinion” meant.
In the Middle East they didn't know what “solution” meant.
In Africa they didn't know what “food” meant.
In Western Europe they didn't know what “shortage” meant.
In the USA they didn't know what “the rest of the world” meant.
And in Canada everyone hung up as soon as they heard the Indian accent!
Racist maybe, funny yes!
Unacceptable now, but funny indeed, like the old heaven/hell one.
What is racist about it? It doesn't actually mention any particular
race. Is it that is generalizes about countries and pokes fun at them?
Oh, the Indian accent part, is that what you mean?
To some people, making fun of people from a given nation is racist. Is
there another word for that?
Stereotyping I guess, but it doesn't seem strong enough.
Does anyone think "Blazing Saddles" could be made today?
How about "All in the Family"? Oh, that's right, we're living it.
It'll be a sad day wen we are no longer allowed to make fun of the human
condition.
Then why are you on the side of Progressives? *They* are the speech
police, and the thought police.
I'm neither on the side of runaway political correctness nor slanderous
hate speech. There's a place in the middle called sanity.
VegasJerry
2018-08-08 14:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Clave
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by Dutch
Post by Tim Norfolk
Post by BTSinAustin
Post by Dutch
The only question asked was:-
"Please give your honest opinion about possible solutions
to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"
The survey was a complete failure because..
In South America they didn't know what “please” meant.
In Eastern Europe they didn't know what “honest” meant.
In China they didn't know what “opinion” meant.
In the Middle East they didn't know what “solution” meant.
In Africa they didn't know what “food” meant.
In Western Europe they didn't know what “shortage” meant.
In the USA they didn't know what “the rest of the world” meant.
And in Canada everyone hung up as soon as they heard the Indian accent!
Racist maybe, funny yes!
Unacceptable now, but funny indeed, like the old heaven/hell one.
What is racist about it? It doesn't actually mention any particular
race. Is it that is generalizes about countries and pokes fun at them?
Oh, the Indian accent part, is that what you mean?
To some people, making fun of people from a given nation is racist. Is
there another word for that?
Stereotyping I guess, but it doesn't seem strong enough.
Does anyone think "Blazing Saddles" could be made today?
How about "All in the Family"? Oh, that's right, we're living it.
It'll be a sad day wen we are no longer allowed to make fun of the human
condition.
But don't you get upset when we make fun of you?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...