This is as they say, YUGE...
http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...ibility-report
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.Originally Posted by verminaard
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...
"Druff would suck his own dick if it were long enough"- Brandon "drexel" Gerson
"ann coulter literally has more common sense than pfa."-Sonatine
"Real grinders supports poker fraud"- Ray Davis
"DRILLED HER GOOD"- HONGKONGER
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.
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
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.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.
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.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.
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]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.
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.
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.
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."
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?
Do you have a cheerleader outfit?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?
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.
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.
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.
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
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).
There are currently 23 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 23 guests)
Reply With Quote
