Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Zimmerman To Face Charges


Recommended Posts

Um, no. My stance is not that blacks vote solely on the basis of party affiliation, but that they're extremely loyal to the Democratic Party and hostile to the Republican Party. Like any other voting bloc, they have a myriad of issues that they consider.

 

How you can sit there and blast derbyshire's statistics but glorify your own is hypocritical. Either statistics tell the whole story and derbyshire is right, or they don't and yours mean nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Now you're really reaching.

 

My problem with Derbyshire isn't that he posts IQ statistics. Those disparities have been researched, published, and debated for years. Hell, we were talking about The Bell Curve when I was in college. Maybe those numbers were new for some people in here, but they're not for others.

 

The problem with Derbyshire is that he makes leaps from those studies/statistics that aren't borne out by the studies/statistics themselves, but rest on his personal prejudices. Also that a few of his links don't represent statistical evidence at all, but anecdotal evidence that proves nothing, except that he doesn't like black people much. This is why he's being pilloried by just about everyone on the staff of the magazine he worked for - he's not arguing very well, and using those poor arguments to come to some pretty revolting conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you're really reaching.

 

My problem with Derbyshire isn't that he posts IQ statistics. Those disparities have been researched, published, and debated for years. Hell, we were talking about The Bell Curve when I was in college. Maybe those numbers were new for some people in here, but they're not for others.

 

The problem with Derbyshire is that he makes leaps from those studies/statistics that aren't borne out by the studies/statistics themselves, but rest on his personal prejudices. Also that a few of his links don't represent statistical evidence at all, but anecdotal evidence that proves nothing, except that he doesn't like black people much. This is why he's being pilloried by just about everyone on the staff of the magazine he worked for - he's not arguing very well, and using those poor arguments to come to some pretty revolting conclusions.

 

All of a sudden his iq data is relevant, eh? All I'm saying is your statistics include elections that get little attention. For instance, I only voted for congress on the base of party affiliation. The black voters that bother to show up may do that as well. There's never been an election where black people had the option to vote for a realistic black president. Ever. To deny that they voted for someone they view as like and for them is ridiculous. Laughable. Put yourself in their shoes. Of course they did. Of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a wonderful argument based on nothing concrete and, like I said, you can have it. I just wouldn't expect anyone to be wowed by it. I'm certainly not.

 

And I don't know what your point about IQ statistics is. I really don't.

 

You don't want to see. My point is you're pointing your finger at your cherry picked statistics and saying 'this is absolute truth' and then pointing at someone else's statistics and saying 'that's a false, damnable lie'. Live in the real world. Statistics arent the whole story and there isn't enough empirical data to support your assertion that blacks would vote for a white democratic presidential candidate over a black republican one. Sorry, there just isn't. Do you think it matters to this arguement who blacks voted for when their only choices were whites?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha. I guess I'll have to start living in the real world, where you get to say that blacks only vote on skin color without any evidence, and then deny that all the available evidence suggests that's not true.

 

Yes, there aren't many instances of black Republicans versus white Democrats. (Somehow this suggests nothing to you about the popularity of black Republicans, but we'll set that aside.) But there is lots of other evidence about what types of issues are important to black voters, how black voters have voted in the past, etc. And all of it suggests that blacks do not view the Republican Party favorably, nor take their positions on the issues that are important to them.

 

So, if you'd like to cast all of that aside, plus any knowledge of American politics you might have, and believe that blacks vote only on skin color, like I said, what do you want me to do about it?

 

I find it an odd position to take, especially when you're defending it the way you have. because all you want to be able to say is that blacks don't care about anything but which color their representative is. That's sort of, you know, belittling, don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha. I guess I'll have to start living in the real world, where you get to say that blacks only vote on skin color without any evidence, and then deny that all the available evidence suggests that's not true.

 

Yes, there aren't many instances of black Republicans versus white Democrats. (Somehow this suggests nothing to you about the popularity of black Republicans, but we'll set that aside.) But there is lots of other evidence about what types of issues are important to black voters, how black voters have voted in the past, etc. And all of it suggests that blacks do not view the Republican Party favorably, nor take their positions on the issues that are important to them.

 

So, if you'd like to cast all of that aside, plus any knowledge of American politics you might have, and believe that blacks vote only on skin color, like I said, what do you want me to do about it?

 

I find it an odd position to take, especially when you're defending it the way you have. because all you want to be able to say is that blacks don't care about anything but which color their representative is. That's sort of, you know, belittling, don't you think?

 

I'm saying barack Obama got nearly the entire black vote because he was the only visable black candidate. You say its only because he's a democrat. That's ridiculous. You say they only vote based in party affiliation without giving anything else any thought. How ,specifically, is that any less demeaning to them?

 

Don't be a bunker. Re read I initially stated they voted for Obama because he was black. Show me fifty black guys who voted for john mccain. You can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying barack Obama got nearly the entire black vote because he was the only visable black candidate. You say its only because he's a democrat. That's ridiculous. You say they only vote based in party affiliation without giving anything else any thought. How ,specifically, is that any less demeaning to them?

 

Don't be a bunker. Re read I initially stated they voted for Obama because he was black. Show me fifty black guys who voted for john mccain. You can't.

 

Except heck is showing you census polling results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except heck is showing you census polling results.

 

You guys are manipulating this to read what you want out of it.if you think the blacks didn't vote for barack Obama because he was black you're fucking stupid. I'm not talking about any other election. None at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying barack Obama got nearly the entire black vote because he was the only visable black candidate. You say its only because he's a democrat. That's ridiculous. You say they only vote based in party affiliation without giving anything else any thought. How ,specifically, is that any less demeaning to them?

 

Don't be a bunker. Re read I initially stated they voted for Obama because he was black. Show me fifty black guys who voted for john mccain. You can't.

 

Oh, boy. You're really losing me. Not to mention reality.

 

First of all, you want to see 50 black guys who voted for John McCain? And you think that can't be shown? This is embarrassing for you.

 

McCain/Palin won 4% of the black vote. That's miserably low. But 15.9 million blacks voted in 2008. 4% of the black vote in 2008 is ...636,000.

 

636,000 blacks voted for McCain and Palin in 2008.

 

...Is that more than 50?

 

There's nothing more embarrassing that being asked not to be "bunker" - aka stupid - by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

 

Secondly, you're putting words in my mouth, and arguing with shit I didn't say. Go back and read what I've written. I don't deny that Obama's race helps him with black voters. What I'm suggesting, and what the data shows, is that race is hardly the only motivating factor for black voters. And what you're alleging is that all black voters care about is whether the candidate is black, and if he were a Republican they wouldn't care about that and just vote for him anyway because he's black. And if we don't agree, the rest of us are stupid. This is nonsense, unsupportable, and rather offensive.

 

Maybe you should give up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'm saying barack Obama got nearly the entire black vote because he was the only visable black candidate. You say its only because he's a democrat. That's ridiculous."

 

A) Not what I'm saying. I'm saying the most important consideration for black voters is clearly party affiliation, not race.

 

B If what you're saying above is true, then why do white Democrats get nearly the entire black vote? Did Al Gore fool them into thinking he was black? John Kerry?

 

C) Could you be losing this argument more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'm saying barack Obama got nearly the entire black vote because he was the only visable black candidate. You say its only because he's a democrat. That's ridiculous."

 

A) Not what I'm saying. I'm saying the most important consideration for black voters is clearly party affiliation, not race.

 

B If what you're saying above is true, then why do white Democrats get nearly the entire black vote? Did Al Gore fool them into thinking he was black? John Kerry?

 

C) Could you be losing this argument more?

 

You can't win or lose an arguement based on opinion. You have no empirical evidence to support your assertion he would have been voted down if he were republican and I have no evidence he would have been elected. What you have is historical evidence that blacks have traditionally voted democrat but that's not what I'm arguing. If you think any black people were going to miss a realistic chance to get one of thier own into the white house regardless of party affiliation, I assert you couldn't be more wrong. If that makes you feel like your opinion is winning so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't win or lose an arguement based on opinion. You have no empirical evidence to support your assertion he would have been voted down if he were republican and I have no evidence he would have been elected. What you have is historical evidence that blacks have traditionally voted democrat but that's not what I'm arguing. If you think any black people were going to miss a realistic chance to get one of thier own into the white house regardless of party affiliation, I assert you couldn't be more wrong. If that makes you feel like your opinion is winning so be it.

 

Cysko, this is getting a little rich. You're stating something that is nothing more than an opinion, without a single shred of evidence to back it up, which you are now saying is a hypothetical, and then actually uttering the words "You have no empirical evidence to support your assertion..."

 

That's balls. Or something else. You decide.

 

Of course, this is after you asked/dared me to try and show you that 50 blacks voted for McCain, and I showed you evidence of how 636,000 did. This is after I've shown you how blacks have overwhelmingly voted for a white Democrat before, and in numbers similar - but slightly less - to the overwhelming majority they gave to Obama. This is after I've also shown you that black primary voters actually preferred Hillary Clinton in the early stages of the primary campaign against Obama. This is after I've shown you that not once before have a majority of blacks supported a Republican candidate for Congress. And to this we could also add the fact that there were little to no black support for Herman Cain's presidential campaign, nor Alan Keyes' multiple runs for president in the past. If what you say is true, and that blacks just want a realistic chance to vote for one of their own, they have a funny way of showing it - by never supporting a black Republican candidate for either president or Congress.

 

Despite not having any historical examples where a black Republican is up against a white Democrat for President, all of this suggests that what you're saying is wildly off the mark. In order to make the case that you're making you'd have to show that at least some black Republicans were supported by the black community. Except you can't name a single instance where this has happened. And I can name a bunch of examples where it hasn't happened.

 

And now you saying you're not arguing any of this, but that "black people were [not] going to miss a realistic chance to get one of thier own into the white house regardless of party affiliation."

 

It's a little too much to take.

 

But I would ask you this: if this is your view, what is it that you think explains why black voters don't vote on financial issues, or social issues, on crime, education, foreign policy, veterans issues, etc., and base their vote solely on whether or not the candidate is black?

 

What makes them different from white voters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creationism: "Its my theory! I have no real proof... but I believe it!"

 

Evolution: "My theory. I have a shit load of evidence"

 

 

Apparently we can't pick one... bummer...

 

So, there's evidence of natural selection. That really doesn't prove evolution at all. It certainly doesn't discredit Creationism. Natural selection is common sense, basic stuff that anyone can understand, and it doesn't equal evolution. Not that the two concepts are at odds with each other, but they are not synonymous. There is still absolutely no evidence that a fish turned into a human. Yes, there's evidence that species have adapted advantages (and disadvantages)over long periods of time, but little definitive evidence that one species has ever evolved into another. There's still no evidence that inanimate compounds suddenly came to life one day. So your smugness on this issue is a little unwarranted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 is proving creationism

10 is proving evolution

 

We are at like a 9 now. We aren't entirely at 10 but its pretty obvious...

 

Creationists want to cling to the fact its not completely proven... therefore they think there is an equal chance between the two, which is kind ridiculous

 

 

 

I am seeing the same thing here between Heck and Cysko

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying barack Obama got nearly the entire black vote because he was the only visable black candidate. You say its only because he's a democrat. That's ridiculous. You say they only vote based in party affiliation without giving anything else any thought. How ,specifically, is that any less demeaning to them?

 

Don't be a bunker. Re read I initially stated they voted for Obama because he was black. Show me fifty black guys who voted for john mccain. You can't.

Like I said you have to get the base to the polls.

From a white supremacist site.....

;)

WSS

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/us/july-dec08/obama_1105.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, there's evidence of natural selection. That really doesn't prove evolution at all. It certainly doesn't discredit Creationism. Natural selection is common sense, basic stuff that anyone can understand, and it doesn't equal evolution. Not that the two concepts are at odds with each other, but they are not synonymous. There is still absolutely no evidence that a fish turned into a human. Yes, there's evidence that species have adapted advantages (and disadvantages)over long periods of time, but little definitive evidence that one species has ever evolved into another. There's still no evidence that inanimate compounds suddenly came to life one day. So your smugness on this issue is a little unwarranted.

 

Dude, you clearly do not have any idea what you're talking about.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

 

Q:I have a friend who says since we have never seen a species actually split into two different species during recorded history that he has trouble believing in the theory of evolution. Is this bogus and have humans seen animals bred into different species? (The various highly bred english dogs come to mind but I suppose this would be easier to find in vegetation. Corn, wheat strains? Donkeys and mules? )

 

A:"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

 

Have you ever heard of MRSA? You know, the staph infections that plagued the Browns? Look up what MRSA stands for. You think they just always, innately had a resistance to antibiotics? No. Certain individuals adapted genetic changes that allowed for them to combat antibiotics. That part is natural selection. However, all of the offspring of these individuals now carry this gene, and in turn have the resistance. This is evolution. No shit we haven't seen an insect evolve into a duck. This isn't pokemon. We've only been studying it for 400 years. It really blows my mind how people could be okay with taking medicine that is based on genetic techniques yet still deny evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, you clearly do not have any idea what you're talking about.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

 

 

 

Have you ever heard of MRSA? You know, the staph infections that plagued the Browns? Look up what MRSA stands for. You think they just always, innately had a resistance to antibiotics? No. Certain individuals adapted genetic changes that allowed for them to combat antibiotics. That part is natural selection. However, all of the offspring of these individuals now carry this gene, and in turn have the resistance. This is evolution. No shit we haven't seen an insect evolve into a duck. This isn't pokemon. We've only been studying it for 400 years. It really blows my mind how people could be okay with taking medicine that is based on genetic techniques yet still deny evolution.

 

yay smart people!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yay smart people!

Smart people?

keep in mind we have nothing but theories, which are actually educated guesses, based on the science of the last few years.

And modern scientific knowledge grows exponentially, and doubles itself in fewer and fewer years since the 1930s.

So im just this particular case, since we have no examples of the missing links between most of the species, you are basically bragging about having a great sounding story to tell about a subject you really have no idea about.

 

Even a theater kid understands that in an in depth discussion of what shakespeare may or may not have meant by a particular passage it's a guess, or better what lay people call bullshit.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smart people?

keep in mind we have nothing but theories, which are actually educated guesses, based on the science of the last few years.

And modern scientific knowledge grows exponentially, and doubles itself in fewer and fewer years since the 1930s.

So im just this particular case, since we have no examples of the missing links between most of the species, you are basically bragging about having a great sounding story to tell about a subject you really have no idea about.

 

Even a theater kid understands that in an in depth discussion of what shakespeare may or may not have meant by a particular passage it's a guess, or better what lay people call bullshit.

WSS

 

Shakespeare is just some fiction some dude wrote. It has no bearing on the world today. It can't be tested. There's no science behind it.

 

Evolution has evidence. It has the scientific method. The science revolving around evolution has been going on longer than "the last few years."

 

I;m just saying you are trying to argue science with a medical student and an engineering student. If I ever have a question about symbolism in Macbeth I'll hit you up.

 

 

Oh, and I know about bullshitting Shakespeare and other fiction. That's how I got through honors and AP english in HS. That and sparknotes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shakespeare is just some fiction some dude wrote. It has no bearing on the world today. It can't be tested. There's no science behind it.

 

Evolution has evidence. It has the scientific method. The science revolving around evolution has been going on longer than "the last few years."

 

I;m just saying you are trying to argue science with a medical student and an engineering student. If I ever have a question about symbolism in Macbeth I'll hit you up.

 

 

Oh, and I know about bullshitting Shakespeare and other fiction. That's how I got through honors and AP english in HS. That and sparknotes

I'm not arguing anything.

I am saying that despite your super advanced learning and obviously superior IQs your opinions and guesses as to the origins of life etcetra are much more advanced than those of your genetic predecessors.

" Listen to him, he's in pre med."

" I thought you were in pre law?"

" What's the difference?"

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing anything.

I am saying that despite your super advanced learning and obviously superior IQs your opinions and guesses as to the origins of life etcetra are much more advanced than those of your genetic predecessors.

" Listen to him, he's in pre med."

" I thought you were in pre law?"

" What's the difference?"

WSS

 

80% of pre-med kids are a joke. As an engineer I had to take Chem my freshman year and you know how many kids said they were "pre-med" in that class and then couldn't even handle basic chem? The average in that class was like a C, it was a joke. So many kids come in pre-med, can't handle it (even though its not that crazy to begin with) and switch to like psych or something. It's like all the engineers in Mech E or Chem E or something that can't handle it and switch to Industrial Operations Engineering or just fall out completely and switch to business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smart people?

keep in mind we have nothing but theories, which are actually educated guesses, based on the science of the last few years.

And modern scientific knowledge grows exponentially, and doubles itself in fewer and fewer years since the 1930s.

So im just this particular case, since we have no examples of the missing links between most of the species, you are basically bragging about having a great sounding story to tell about a subject you really have no idea about.

 

This is baffling. On one hand you seem to understand what a theory is. On the other hand, you refer to them as nothing more than a "great sounding story" in the next sentence, then claim scientists have no idea what they're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is baffling. On one hand you seem to understand what a theory is. On the other hand, you refer to them as nothing more than a "great sounding story" in the next sentence, then claim scientists have no idea what they're talking about.

I suppose 1 basic difference between humans and lowers species is that we, humans, while having no ability to understand things abstract, can still wonder about them.

Because of that many things we cannot understand we invent stories to explain them.

To meet the big bang sounds about as likely as a guy and a robe with long white hair clapping his hands.

of course if the guy in a robe story makes people happy, fine.

if the big bang theory makes other guys feel like they're smarter, fine.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose 1 basic difference between humans and lowers species is that we, humans, while having no ability to understand things abstract, can still wonder about them.

Because of that many things we cannot understand we invent stories to explain them.

To meet the big bang sounds about as likely as a guy and a robe with long white hair clapping his hands.

of course is the guy in a robe story makes people happy, fine.

if the big bang theory makes other guys feel like they're smarter, fine.

WSS

 

You're confusing science and religion.

 

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it must just be some made up story to make scientists feel smart. I think that is why so many people are religious and believe in creationism. They don't understand the science and would rather believe an invisible man made everything and is watching out for them...

 

Scientists didn't just one day say "Hey, what is the most ridiculous way we can say the universe started?" The big bang theory came about after years of research, scientific advancement, math and high level thinking...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're confusing science and religion.

 

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it must just be some made up story to make scientists feel smart. I think that is why so many people are religious and believe in creationism. They don't understand the science and would rather believe an invisible man made everything and is watching out for them...

 

Scientists didn't just one day say "Hey, what is the most ridiculous way we can say the universe started?" The big bang theory came about after years of research, scientific advancement, math and high level thinking...

And the lord of the rings was written after years and years of research and study.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...