Just listened to Prince Harry's interview with Obama. Worth a listen.
Printable View
Just listened to Prince Harry's interview with Obama. Worth a listen.
Holy shit Prince Harry is gonna get royally murdered if he keeps this shit up. It's one thing to marry a black, but lowering himself to journalism? Jesus.
The jew on jew emotional violence that happens on this site is honestly alot
They aren't exactly being gentile are they.
President Hitler..errr...I mean Trump at it again...
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/New...r-Trump-520135
I mean, come on.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare...-nursing-homes
Yes. Are you actually this math challenged or is it some kind of joke?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintjewlips
Lol @ trump fans.
It is true, the left ignores science when it suggests uncomfortable things. However if the end result is encouraging people to be better, then who cares. (As much at least)
Ironically all thus is tied into a racism and sexism. 2 things that charge up Druff !
Outside of the social science sphere it isn't true.
I am not sure if policy is effected at all by the examples given.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
The rest of the world has signed on to carbon emission reduction. The USA is actively fighting it. No other countries. You literally couldn't be more wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff..... and that's the other problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintjewlips
Environmentalism can only work if it's a cooperative effort.
If the US takes care of the environment for the sake of the planet, but huge third world countries pollute badly and don't give a shit, then our efforts are mainly feelgood with little actual utility.
Unfortunately this issue is rarely addressed by the left, who will sometimes quietly lament it, but they don't let it affect US policy.
They have taken more of the position of, "We'll set the example, and eventually everyone else will follow", which simply isn't true when it comes to the third world.
The problem -- one which is very difficult to solve -- is the fact that it's much easier to care about the environment when enjoying a high standard of living. When large portions of your population are poor and struggling to get by, everyone's mind goes to what's best for right now, rather than what's best for the planet decades or centuries down the line.
You argument is one of entitlement. You are doing things where future generations have to pay all consequences. You feel this is deserved for some reason. Awful.
All parties except for greens don't represent future generations so future generations have no impact in these debates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TellafriendI have posted it all you clumsy imbecile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Lurker
You really are a bitch. go find something else to fall off of today. or, go find someone else to commit adultery with. either way, first expound on how my screws are loose a little........
As for giving you an example that you "have a screw loose" we can start with this post. The simple facts are that you posted your response after I made my post, yet you still chose to berate me with "I already posted it you clumsy imbecile" pretty much is proof that you are a fucking wackjob.
Pro tip: all post have a time stamp
You get worked up on being called out for your climate change denials.
Why have I never seen *1* rightwinger argue against global warming by attacking the basics of the science. How the sun interacts with CO2 etc. If that is actually true, then it seems to follow that climate change is manmade. So why not explain to me what is wrong with it?
Instead, it is always from the other side. The weather is so incredibly complex and no one can understand it, therefore we know little about climate change.
It is all because the reasoning is political in nature and basically bullshit. Republicans have had this repeated in their little heads "there are too many unknowns to act now!" and then they just repeat it themselves...
but they aren't in denial ! ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff"An Inconvenient Truth" was written in 2006. You're thinking of his similar "The Earth in the Balance" from 1992.Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyB
Did you read the report at the link I posted? As I said, it's nonbiased and gives factual data regarding where Gore was mostly wrong, where he was partially/mostly right, and where the dangers he mentioned actually got worse than expected.
On the "not nearly as bad as predicted" side was the hurricane situation.
Admittedly, this article was written in 2016. before the horrendous 2017 hurricane season. However, the article pointed out that hurricanes actually decreased in both frequency and intensity since the book was written, which was contrary to the doomsday scenario presented by Gore.
Note that Gore's book was written in 2006, which followed the terrible 2005 hurricane season -- the Katrina one.
Many on the left were insisting that 2005 was the new normal, and that we should expect Katrinas every year from now on. Anyone who doubted that was shouted down as a climate change denier.
Then 2006 had a calmer than average hurricane season. And just in case you thought that was variance, the entire following decade of 2007-2016 had a cumulative lighter-than-average hurricane incidence.
Sure, this year was bad, but so were various other individual years, long before climate change was occurring.
The problem was that, in 2005, the rhetoric from the left was, "See, we told you so! Here are the hurricanes we've been warning you about! Get used to them!", rather than a more calm, reasoned, "This was a bad season, and there's a chance it had to do with global warming, but clearly we need to wait to see the following years before determining they're related."
The article does state that rising sea levels -- honestly the main danger of global warming -- will be the actual culprit for additional damage from hurricanes. With higher sea levels, coastal damage will be worse, and the damage will extend farther inland.
So what's my point here?
It is impossible to have a discussion with most leftists about climate change unless you 100% agree with all their points. If you could go back to 2005 and tell a leftist that the next 11 hurricane seasons would overall be below average, you would get lambasted for your ignorance and stupidity.
This is an example of how we really DON'T know all that much about climate change, and it is both arrogant and dangerous to assume that we do.
That's not to say we should ignore the problem. That's not to say we shouldn't set sensible policies to mitigate the possible damage and worsening of the situation. However, just as stubborn people on the right need to acknowledge the climate change which exists, the left needs to concede that they don't know everything (no one does), and that histrionic sky-is-falling claims for political purposes will simply hurt the cause in the long run.
I think this is the basic view of many educated liberals, that even if you are saying shit you know isn't true, it is for the best. Also, this is an argument for why the current iteration of the Democrat party might be better than the Republican one, because even if their methods are atrocious (to many) they are actually trying to make the country a better place, instead of just cynically trying to fleece the country while they can like the Republicans.Quote:
Originally Posted by donkdowndonedied
However, for good or bad most people who work in STEM fields or related fields (scientist/computer science/engineers/etc.) tend towards the aspire side and just seeing someone who should know better saying shit that just isn't true bugs the hell out of them. You can definitely tell that is probably what happened in the Google guy case that Druff referred to. No-one was coming after that guy or threatening his job. He could have just said nothing and rolled with the flow and been fine. But all the PC social engineering going on within the company bugged him, so he spoke up, and then the media got a hold of what he wrote and completely distorted it, and the PC social justice mob got riled up and Google decided to sacrifice him to it.
One thing is for certain, if you go back to saying women are bad at math and blacks are bad at school, then these things have a way of self-fulfilling themselves even more. I'd rather live in a place where everyone gives everyone else an attempt at thinking they're as good at things so they *can* reach their full potential. It is hard to not be racist. It actually takes work after leaving my white city.Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaardI think this is the basic view of many educated liberals, that even if you are saying shit you know isn't true, it is for the best. Also, this is an argument for why the current iteration of the Democrat party might be better than the Republican one, because even if their methods are atrocious (to many) they are actually trying to make the country a better place, instead of just cynically trying to fleece the country while they can like the Republicans.Quote:
Originally Posted by donkdowndonedied
However, for good or bad most people who work in STEM fields or related fields (scientist/computer science/engineers/etc.) tend towards the aspire side and just seeing someone who should know better saying shit that just isn't true bugs the hell out of them. You can definitely tell that is probably what happened in the Google guy case that Druff referred to. No-one was coming after that guy or threatening his job. He could have just said nothing and rolled with the flow and been fine. But all the PC social engineering going on within the company bugged him, so he spoke up, and then the media got a hold of what he wrote and completely distorted it, and the PC social justice mob got riled up and Google decided to sacrifice him to it.
Unfortunately there are victims in affirmative action. I understand why people are pissed. Think about it, if being white is the best thing you got going for you and that is held against you? Fuck, I'd be pissed off too! Most things have a downside.
The problem with the people the PC police attack is that people pretty much know where the complaints are coming from psychologically. I've been attacked by PC people lots lately and I just hammer it in their heads they are wrong. Since I'm basically a liberal, they really can't get very far. I used to know understand what PC was, but now I do. A lot of people are complaining for far different reasons. "must protect my race" sort of thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donkdowndonediedOne thing is for certain, if you go back to saying women are bad at math and blacks are bad at school, then these things have a way of self-fulfilling themselves even more. I'd rather live in a place where everyone gives everyone else an attempt at thinking they're as good at things so they *can* reach their full potential. It is hard to not be racist. It actually takes work after leaving my white city.Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaard
Unfortunately there are victims in affirmative action. I understand why people are pissed. Think about it, if being white is the best thing you got going for you and that is held against you? Fuck, I'd be pissed off too! Most things have a downside.
The problem with the people the PC police attack is that people pretty much know where the complaints are coming from psychologically. I've been attacked by PC people lots lately and I just hammer it in their heads they are wrong. Since I'm basically a liberal, they really can't get very far. I used to know understand what PC was, but now I do. A lot of people are complaining for far different reasons. "must protect my race" sort of thoughts.
at some point, the left does need to have an adult conversation about the damage affirmative action and thought-policing has done to the black community, but given that the republican alternative is to literally re-institutionalize slavery via the prison industrial complex, its laughable for the right to point fingers.
not to mention, long before the left starts to write checks for its mistakes, the black community itself needs to explain why it would allow its own members to absolutely and utterly squander the entirety of the civil rights movement by completely refusing to police its own culture (which was exactly what they insisted they were willing to do if the left held the right accountable for its rampant unchecked racism).
Quote:
Originally Posted by donkdowndonediedOne thing is for certain, if you go back to saying women are bad at math and blacks are bad at school, then these things have a way of self-fulfilling themselves even more. I'd rather live in a place where everyone gives everyone else an attempt at thinking they're as good at things so they *can* reach their full potential. It is hard to not be racist. It actually takes work after leaving my white city.Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaard
Unfortunately there are victims in affirmative action. I understand why people are pissed. Think about it, if being white is the best thing you got going for you and that is held against you? Fuck, I'd be pissed off too! Most things have a downside.
The problem with the people the PC police attack is that people pretty much know where the complaints are coming from psychologically. I've been attacked by PC people lots lately and I just hammer it in their heads they are wrong. Since I'm basically a liberal, they really can't get very far. I used to know understand what PC was, but now I do. A lot of people are complaining for far different reasons. "must protect my race" sort of thoughts.
The irony is that most of the people who use "science" to support their agenda of racial/sex superiority don't even understand or use it correctly. Say that men are on average slightly better at math related thinking than women (which at this point is pretty obviously true). The way intelligence distribution works at a statistical level in the population is the vast majority of men and women are well within the normal part of the curve, so the difference really is negligible. Where it really matters is that a small difference in mean actually equates to a very large difference at the tail ends, so there is going to be many more male mathematical geniuses than female. But most of the people who try to use the "men are better than women at math argument" dont understand this, and even if they did it certainly doesn't apply to them anyways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donkdowndonediedThe rest of the world has signed on to carbon emission reduction. The USA is actively fighting it. No other countries. You literally couldn't be more wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
You argument is one of entitlement. You are doing things where future generations have to pay all consequences. You feel this is deserved for some reason. Awful.
All parties except for greens don't represent future generations so future generations have no impact in these debates.
From 2014, before China and India had an excuse to back out of the Paris climate change agreement, that excuse being President Trumps decision to pull out
https://www.politico.eu/article/pari...s-china-obama/
Quote:
Beyond that, it’s nearly impossible even to evaluate or compare them. Developing countries actually blocked a requirement that the plans use a common format and metrics, so an INDC need not even mention emissions levels. Or a country can propose to reduce emissions off a self-defined “business-as-usual” trajectory, essentially deciding how much it wants to emit and then declaring it an “improvement” from the alternative. To prevent such submissions from being challenged, a group of developing countries led by China and India has rejected “any obligatory review mechanism for increasing individual efforts of developing countries.” And lest pressure nevertheless build on the intransigent, no developing country except Mexico submitted an INDC by the initial deadline of March 31 — and most either submitted no plan or submitted one only as the final September 30 cut-off approached.
China and India were never truly committed to the Paris treaty, it was all lip service and virtue signalling, all while they were negotiating to e exempt from the treaty
:lol4
So to Todd's point, if every country is not held to the same standards then an agreement is useless......not to mention the obvious transfer of wealth and jobs to those countries that don't have to follow the same rules...
fuck you jewlips
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakedruff, i'm curious. considering your rant is about how liberals are "science deniers" when it suits them, you appear to be outright saying that black people are genetically prone to criminality. but you didn't actually say those words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
can you please confirm that your actual position is that black people are genetically prone to criminality or did you just "misspeak" and, upon further reflection, would like to completely reverse your position and say that the black crime rate is a product of external factors.
bump cause i need to see how druff spins this
I don't think it is clear at all whether the elevated criminality is genetic or environmental, and I don't think Druff insinuated he had a strong opinion either way, and you are reaching.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeQuote:
Originally Posted by blake
bump cause i need to see how druff spins this
I think a lot of it is just how value systems in different social groups work. Say you are walking down the street with your friends and some guy walking by aggressively bumps your shoulder. Now if you and your friends are all Jews, chances are you just shrug it off, and keep walking and no-one in your group thinks any less of you.
But if you and your friends are black, it is a necessity that you respond aggressively to such a transgression, or you will lose stature in the group. So you "step up," things escalate, someone gets stabbed or shot, and someone ends up in jail.
On the flip side, if you were a Jewish guy and you impregnated your GF when you were 15 and had to drop out of high school to support the baby, you would be shamed in your community. But if you were black no-one would really care all that much.
I will say, if one day every black teenage girl/woman decided she was only attracted to black men who studied hard and graduated high school and went to college, the retention rate in high school and college enrollment rate would skyrocket overnight.
Riveting analysis from dicklick..............just riveting..............
This is as they say, YUGE...
http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...ibility-report
Sonatine, is this true?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nati...191857354.html
Careful. While I agree with the first bolded statement here, that there could be a difference in the means of two populations also means that other aspects of their respective distributions can differ. For example, the second bolded statement above assumes that the higher moments of the male and female intelligence distributions are sufficiently similar for a small difference in the means to push more of the tail for males to the right of that of females.Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaardQuote:
Originally Posted by donkdowndonedied
The irony is that most of the people who use "science" to support their agenda of racial/sex superiority don't even understand or use it correctly. Say that men are on average slightly better at math related thinking than women (which at this point is pretty obviously true). The way intelligence distribution works at a statistical level in the population is the vast majority of men and women are well within the normal part of the curve, so the difference really is negligible. Where it really matters is that a small difference in mean actually equates to a very large difference at the tail ends, so there is going to be many more male mathematical geniuses than female. But most of the people who try to use the "men are better than women at math argument" dont understand this, and even if they did it certainly doesn't apply to them anyways.
That being said, I agree with the general idea that you trying to convey.
Countdown to the announcement that the Trump campaign aided Russian troll farms with target areas.
Just like bitcoins are donkdown...
Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
ive seen this percolating down through fairly trusted channels and no one is exactly surprised, but i also dont see anyone in the industry saying they exactly believe him.
first up, announcing this shit while in a russian jail? they slipped polonium into a motherfuckers london tea and he was a fucking citizen. so right off the bat, i have concerns regarding the 'why' part of his confession.
second off.. "He was arrested in Russia in late 2016 on treason charges in a high-profile incident that included the arrest of another FSB cyber leader."
fascinating, because..:
“I haven't met with Kozlovsky and, therefore, have never cooperated with him,” Dokuchaev’s lawyer cites his client, as quoted by RBC.
so russian spin is 'oh they've never met' which of course means they 100% worked together tightly.
but this is where things get murky for me:
so around the same time those two ended up in an actual dungeon, this went down as well:
"Sergei Mikhailov, who worked for the FSB, the successor to the KGB, was arrested in December, along with Ruslan Stoyanov, a top manager for Russia's largest cybersecurity firm, according to the economic newspaper Kommersant. Stoyanov was also charged with suspicion of treason."
and that second name is important;
https://www.google.com/search?q=rusl...anov+kaspersky
yeah remember Kaspersky? whom israel allegedly busted for spying on the NSA by breaking into their computers and ghosting their terminals while they pilfered the NSA crown jewels? (fucking seriously, israel?)
ruslan stoyanov was in the middle of a meeting when the door was kicked in by russian agents, who led him out of that meeting and that building with his hands bound and a fucking hood over his head.
some people say he dimed out kozlovsky and/or dokuchaev to the fbi. others are saying he exchanged some low-interest malware data with the fbi, which is something someone in his position would be doing regularly, but putin wanted more pieces in play on this chessboard so they spun up an arrest.
but the timing is wow, right? who the fuck is diming who?
btw i think within what, 90 days on either side of the kaspersky raid, something like 16 russian embassy workers (spooks) all died of the same sudden heart attack or something..
so again, does kozlovsky have a fucking death wish or is he being set up to do some sort of limited release of information where he primes the pump with a few gems like the DNC hack then pivots to a few breadcrumbs about 'how the UN are supplying North Korea with bioterror delivery systems through a Clinton Foundation shell corp with the help of some guy named Mueller'.. etc etc etc
my point is, dont expect to hear the truth, and if you do, dont expect to recognize it.
blyad.
druff literally used liberals' supposed denial of black people's higher criminal rates as an example of how they are "science deniers." he then went on to explain that it's not just a matter of poverty because poor white people don't have the same criminal rates.Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaardI don't think it is clear at all whether the elevated criminality is genetic or environmental, and I don't think Druff insinuated he had a strong opinion either way, and you are reaching.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
at the very least, druff is strongly insinuating that black people are genetically prone to criminality.
there's a reason druff hasn't responded here, even though he's been in the thread.
he doesn't want to say that black people's elevated criminal rates are the result of external factors as he doesn't want to cave to political correctness. (lol, he doesn't want to be a science denier.) yet he knows he can't say black people are genetically prone to criminal behavior as his name is out there.
which is why he chose to not answer.
anyway, if druff chimes in, he can let me know that i'm wrong. if he doesn't, that will speak just as loudly.
How does someone declining to say something that is very politically incorrect equate to them being a hypocrite. This whole chain of posts just makes you come off as a bad person.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakedruff literally used liberals' supposed denial of black people's higher criminal rates as an example of how they are "science deniers." he then went on to explain that it's not just a matter of poverty because poor white people don't have the same criminal rates.Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaard
at the very least, druff is strongly insinuating that black people are genetically prone to criminality.
there's a reason druff hasn't responded here, even though he's been in the thread.
he doesn't want to say that black people's elevated criminal rates are the result of external factors as he doesn't want to cave to political correctness. (lol, he doesn't want to be a science denier.) yet he knows he can't say black people are genetically prone to criminal behavior as his name is out there.
which is why he chose to not answer.
anyway, if druff chimes in, he can let me know that i'm wrong. if he doesn't, that will speak just as loudly.
We get it. You are a morally virtuous person. You should feel very proud of yourself for your moral outrage.
can you show me where in this post or any on this subject, i called him a hypocrite for his beliefs? [cliffs -- moron, you're confusing a post where i called trump a hypocrite for continuously criticizing obama's golfing while golfing more than any other president in history combined]Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaardHow does someone declining to say something that is very politically incorrect equate to them being a hypocrite. This whole chain of posts just makes you come off as a bad person.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
We get it. You are a morally virtuous person. You should feel very proud of yourself for your moral outrage.
and only on pfa can i be called a bad person for challenging the notion that black people are genetically predisposed to criminality.
jesus christ you're bad at this
No, you are coming off as a bad person for the way you are going after Druff. You seem to be one of those people where somewhere between reading a post, processing it and responding, everything gets distorted. I don’t really like to engage such people because you just spend all your time arguing what you said, instead of the topic at hand. Like Barry. I will just stop engaging you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaardHow does someone declining to say something that is very politically incorrect equate to them being a hypocrite. This whole chain of posts just makes you come off as a bad person.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
We get it. You are a morally virtuous person. You should feel very proud of yourself for your moral outrage.
You see far too much "moral outrage" when it doesn't really seem exist to anyone else.
I don’t agree with him in a lot of topics, but I will give Sonatine credit for actually being able to coherently read a post and honestly respond to it, so you aren’t wasting all your time arguing about what you said and wondering whether the obtuseness is intentional or not.
yes, i noticed that this is your modus operandi whenever you get boxed into a corner for your idiotic positions. like where you stated i called druff a hypocrite. i pointed out that never happened, at which time you decided it is the appropriate moment to "stop engaging me" and "agree to disagree."Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaard
issue spotting and debate are not your strong points. you would never pass the bar exam.
to the point i raised, there isn't a person on this board who thinks i distorted what druff said. neither do you, which is why you moved on.
besides, druff can set the record straight if he wanted to.
honestly, i sympathize a little with druff's situation. my views in the "great tranny debate" of 3 or 4 months ago were not politically correct. if my name was out there, i wouldn't have been able to say them.
anyway, i was pretty surprised that druff publicly took the position he did. just wanted to see if he would expand on them.
Blake's work with special needs kids at Christmas is to be commended.
And I'm just heartbroken over it. Can you recommend a fellow member of Team Sexual Assault of Children that will still interact with me?Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaard
Do you have a cheerleader outfit?Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyBAnd I'm just heartbroken over it. Can you recommend a fellow member of Team Sexual Assault of Children that will still interact with me?Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaard
Black people are genetically prone too violence , its a scientific fact..
Also..
Black violence and hate crimes are seriously UNDER REPORTED.. THATS A FACT.
Is there study that proves it as a scientific fact? I was under the impression that no reputable study has ever been done as the topic is far too controversial.Quote:
Originally Posted by thesparten
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter mcneilIs there study that proves it as a scientific fact? I was under the impression that no reputable study has ever been done as the topic is far too controversial.Quote:
Originally Posted by thesparten
i believe a scientist at rockefeller university in nyc (where dna was discovered btw) came up with some fairly disturbing data when he started unraveling race based dna analysis but he was absolutely crushed during peer review.
whether or not that response was emotionally based or based on valid flaws in the study is one of those questions that i genuinely dont think the world is in any rush to answer.
From a purely scientific viewpoint, without getting into politics at all, most studies indicate blacks have the highest testosterone levels (there are different metrics that can be tested, i.e. free testosterone, total testosterone, DHT:testosterone ratio, but all of them come to the same basic conclusion). You could also just look at people with their shirts off or watch the fast-twitch events (sprinting, jumping) in a track and field meet and notice black people on average are much more mesomorphic and explosive, and come to the exact same conclusion with zero science.
Given what we know about the link between testosterone levels and aggression in every single mammalian species, from a purely scientific perspective blacks having higher genetic propensity towards aggression/criminality it is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis to make. That being said the sociological implications are such that I would tend to agree it is probably best we don't go down that rabbit hole.
That being said, I tend to think it would be much more productive to acknowledge how certain value systems lead to poor outcomes, and address those value systems, and I don't think focusing mainly on white privilege and police brutality is productive or helpful for anyone (except of course rich people who get to continue fleecing all the poor people while they are fighting/arguing amongst each other).