6,867 Forum Posts by "SadisticMonkey"
At 12/23/14 02:08 AM, Musician wrote: Yep if police profile based on sex that's sexist. Not sure why you have such difficulty grasping this concept Sadistic. Police should make judgements based on observable facts not on their own prejudices with regards to race, sex, religion, whatever.
That's stupid. Profiling makes sense and america would be a lot less safe without it.
Also for someone crying so hard about sticking the facts, you sure seem to be aloof of them yourself. Mainstream biological science has rejected the theory of biologically determined race for over half a century. What is your counter evidence?
Counter-evidence to what? What studies are you referring to?
IQ tests aren't particularly indicative of anything, and even if they were disparities could be the result of social-economic differences rather than biological ones.
Except for the facts that:
- IQ actually IS indicative of a something. It predicts how well you will go in school and how much money you will make: http://www.mega.nu/ampp/murray_income_iq.pdf, http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222403422_Intelligence_and_educational_achievement as well as most of other socio-economic outcomes (Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, The Bell Curve).
- Intelligence is hereditary: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qij_wD7_kQ, twin adoption studies etc.)
-Whites of all wealth levels out-perform blacks on IQ tests (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NVog3RMxi6U/U8ZIAvvoz4I/AAAAAAAAAC0/tVmE5pkIcAI/s1600/Race+IQ+Gap+by+Income.PNG - http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/correlation/intelligence.pdf).
- Poor white children perform better of academic tests than rich black kids do: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2999198?uid=3739616&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104497148173
Testosterone, while biological is far from hereditary so that's not a good argument for black people being inherently inferior either.
Musician: "Testosterone...is far from hereditary"
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/819409: "Circulating testosterone...concentrations exhibit substantial heritability in adult men."
Who's disagreeing with science now?
Your claim that racial differences can be told with 99% accuracy by DNA and skeletal structures is simply untrue. Some studies claim to show this, but attempts at replicating their results always fail. It must be tough being a full blown racist in the 21st century Sadistic. First science abandons you some seventy years ago. Now public opinion is increasingly abandoning you. A tough situation indeed.
Look, you're simply being in denial of reality.
Race in biology and anthropology: A study of college texts and professors
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.3660290308/abstract
"Responses to surveys of faculty at Ph.D-granting departments indicate that 67% of biologists accept the concept of biological races in the species Homo sapiens, while only 50% of physical anthropologists do so. Content analysis of college textbooks indicates a significant degree of change over time (1936–1984) in physical anthropology but a lesser degree in biology."
"The idea that race is only skin deep is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm. The complete denial of the opposing evidence seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all.
Not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship.”
Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
"On the other hand, several studies have shown that individuals tend to cluster genetically with others of the same ancestral geographic origins. Prior studies have generally been performed on a relatively small number of individuals and/or markers. A recent study examined 377 autosomal micro-satellite markers in 1,056 individuals from a global sample of 52 populations and found significant evidence of genetic clustering, largely along geographic (continental) lines. We have shown a nearly perfect correspondence between genetic cluster and SIRE [self-reported ethnicity] for major ethnic groups living in the United States, with a discrepancy rate of only 0.14%."
http://archlab.uindy.edu/documents/AAFS2006Vars.pdf
The flipside of serendipity: human genetics rediscovers race
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The%20flipside%20of%20serendipity:%20human%20genetics%20rediscovers%20race.-a0171539427
"In this paper I investigate the recent re-emergence of race in human genetics."
The Whole Side of It—An Interview with Neil Risch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Risch)
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0010014
"A view widespread among many social scientists, endorsed in official statements by the American Sociological Association and the American Anthropological Association, is that race is not a valid biological concept. But biologists, particularly the population geneticists who study genetic variation, have found that there is a structure in the human population.
Reconstructing the Population Genetic History of the Caribbean
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003925
Significant genetic clustering of racial groups in the Caribbean: http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003925.g001&representation=PNG_L
Rapid Assessment of Genetic Ancestry in Populations of Unknown Origin by Genome-Wide Genotyping of Pooled Samples
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000866
"In this study, we were able to measure genetic ancestry in populations of mixed ancestry by genotyping pooled, rather than individual, DNA samples. This represents a rapid and inexpensive means for modeling genetic ancestry and thus could facilitate future association or population-genetic studies in populations of unknown ancestry for which whole-genome data do not already exist."
Rapid Assessment of Genetic Ancestry in Populations of Unknown Origin by Genome-Wide Genotyping of Pooled Samples
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000866
At 12/22/14 10:32 PM, Musician wrote: That's still racism though. Even if you try to rationalize it by saying "people of this skin color, on average, have higher crime rates so I should be more suspicious of them", you're still profiling people based on race. Police officers who do that are racist.
That doesn't mean it isn't justified. Police officers undoubtedly profile men relative to women, is that sexist? Does that mean they shouldn't do it?
And the idea that blacks commit crime because they're profiled is stupid. If I thought that the police and justice system had it in for me I'd be pretty terrified of committing any crimes. Rather than, you know, deciding to commit MORE crimes than other people.
At 12/22/14 09:09 PM, Light wrote: I'd love nothing more than for the concept of race to be abandoned along with other ignorant beliefs, such as phrenology and astrology, but that will take a long time, if it ever happens.
It's possible to identify someone's self-identified race on the basis of their DNA or their skeleton with >99% accuracy.
That should be impossible if these groups were separated only by skin color and 'social constructs'.
At 12/22/14 08:28 PM, LordJaric wrote: The closer you are to the poles the lighter you skin tone will be. The closer to the equator you are the darker you skin tone will be. If someone from the equator were to move closer to the pulls, after several generations the descendants will start to show signs of adapting to the new angle and vice versa.
Well actually no, if you understood how evolution works, you would know they probably wouldn't change at all. Adaptation works on the basis of selective pressures affecting populations. Individuals are not subject to selective pressures and so do not 'adapt'. Furthermore, even if a population did move from tropical to temperate climates, they still probably wouldn't adapt because there would be no different in fitness between them because having lighter skin won't meaningfully affect their survival and reproduction.
For the love of god, don't lecture me on something when you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
It’s no different than the strength of the lungs compared to the altitude you live in.
Except that skin color is by no means the only biological difference between races and nobody who accepts the biological reality of race would claim that it is.
So no, "race" has nothing to do with any of that.
Funny then that IQ is strongly correlated with race and yet is also highly hereditary. Funny also that the differences in violent crime rate between two socially constructed groups would also be accompanied by a difference in the level of hormone associated with aggressive behavior between said groups.
Ferguson protesters chanting "pigs in a blanket": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dAthWB_7QA
and they were long before the shooting: http://twitchy.com/2014/09/26/pigs-in-a-blanket-fry-em-like-bacon-its-2-a-m-and-this-is-what-ferguson-agitators-are-doing-photos-vine/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/22/psa-encourages-kids-to-steal-parents-guns-hand-ove/
So you wouldn't condemn military action by the Greeks against Turkey then?
At 12/22/14 07:02 PM, Light wrote: It should be noted that SadisticMonkey has gone on record in this forum as saying that black people are less intelligent than people of other races and more aggressive, so he's an ignorant racist.
Black people literally are less intelligent than other races by all major measures of intelligence (IQ, academic scores etc.) and they commit more violent crime than any other race of people. What planet are you living on where I'm the ignorant one?
You should also take note, @LazyDrunk.@Musician is right in calling out SadisticMonkey as the racist that he is.
Racism is a meaningless word used by easily-offended idiots who would rather argue like a trained-parrot than to actually take the time to explain what they're trying to say.
At 12/21/14 09:07 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: So, two wrongs make a right? If others act badly, it's cool if I do the same? Seriously dude. Do you understand how immature and unproductive that sounds?
white people are racist
At 12/22/14 02:12 AM, Ranger2 wrote:At 12/21/14 07:39 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: So Israel's existence is non-negotiable. Palestine, well, not so much...Neither are negotiable.
tell that to israel then
At 12/21/14 10:12 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: When we eventually have all the pieces of the puzzle, we will find out that this crime was just simple psychotic rage. Why? Because no healthy human mind murders their girlfriend, and two officers in cold blood. There's nothing to gain from such atrocities. It doesn't make any sense.
I'd rather people injected psychology and criminology into crime stories rather than politics and grief.
You might have a point if there weren't people celebrating the shootings.
And I guess Michael Brown was psychotic too. Son't tell the protesters that though, it might tarnish the image of saint din' do nuffin'.
At 12/21/14 04:11 AM, Warforger wrote: You can go look back in history for things like the KKK, the Nazi's or Japanese Interment Camps which were acceptable in their respective societies cherished even, but were shameful afterwards.
That's doesn't mean they are evil.
At 12/20/14 03:15 PM, naronic wrote: The source actually says that although the rates of drug use denial among criminally active persons is not accounted for,: blacks and whites were equally as likely to be drug use deniers upon arrest.
Upon arrest is not what the drug-use statistics refer to though.
"There is good data that police stop blacks more often, both on the road and in neighborhoods. Studies conflict over whether the extra stops are justifiable; likely this varies by jurisdiction. Extra neighborhood stops are most likely neighborhood-related effects rather than race-related per se, but the neighborhood effects do disproportionately target black people."
You already posted this and I responded to it.
"Blacks appear to be arrested for drug use at a rate four times that of whites. Adjusting for known confounds reduces their rate to twice that of whites."
Which conflicts with the study you posted yourself.
Yes they do.
http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html
If the conclusion of the color of crime is "Police and the justice system are not biased against minorities", and we can repeatedly show that they are in certain respects, the entire study can get called into question.
Where is the report that refutes it directly? They use different methodologies and I haven't seen anything to show the CoC's methodology is flawed.
Why isn't this study peer reviewed or in any reputable journal?
Because the entire peer review system is somehow biased against it's position?
Give me a break.
Sorry but you're a fucking moron.
http://theweek.com/article/index/273736/how-academias-liberal-bias-is-killing-social-science
It was originally featured on American Renaissance, making any and every claim that it makes is no more valid coming from it than if it came from a buzzfeed article.
The fact that it uses FBI statistics makes no difference, most of the studies used here use national or federal statistics or studies of some sort.
And none of them have shown that blacks don't commit more crime than anyone else
Refute this claim or fuck off
Even Tim Wise can use national or federal level studies to refute the color of crime
Nope, that's it. We're done. I've already explained why this article is completely bullshit but you completely ignored it, alogn with the rest of my post. If you're not going to read what I post I'm not going to engage with you any more.
Now the broad category of "blacks" being referred to do commit more crimes on average. I'm not going to lie, there are large problems with the culture that certain African Americans surround themselves with- however what were looking at here is more of a feedback loop with extra variables. Different treatment by authorities coupled with different cultures surrounding blacks generally feed into the different behaviors that may, in turn, cause the different treatment. I don't think we should absolve either side.
Again, I ALREADY RESPONDED TO THIS EXACT ARGUMENT.
Black people commit more crime, end of story.
At 12/20/14 03:30 PM, Feoric wrote: Peer review is code word for anti-white, don't you know? Scientists hate white people, or whatever stupid shit.
fuck off
http://theweek.com/article/index/273736/how-academias-liberal-bias-is-killing-social-science
At 12/20/14 02:11 AM, Ranger2 wrote: It's not 1948, where the existence of the Israeli state was brand new and its elimination not implausible. It's 2014, we need to accept Israel's existence, and move on.
So Israel's existence is non-negotiable. Palestine, well, not so much...
At 12/21/14 07:15 AM, Musician wrote: Well let's see. Are "black people" a single monolithic entity in favor of killing cops? No. So I guess your post was factually inaccurate. Not to mention the whole tone of an argument for what kind of behavior one would expect from "black people on twitter" is pretty clearly racist.
Strange how people like you are oddly silent when black people routinely make comparable claims about the entirety of 'white people'.
At 12/21/14 05:28 AM, Musician wrote:At 12/21/14 05:23 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: What a great and intelligent contribution!Yep, calling out thinly veiled racism is in fact both great and intelligent.
What exactly is the point of calling my post racist?
Seriously, am I supposed to say "oh, I didn't realize that, I shouldn't have said what I did sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings."
If you think I posted something factually inaccurate, show why I'm wrong, otherwise fuck off.
At 12/21/14 04:22 AM, Musician wrote: I know you're not self aware enough to recognize it, but this post was racist.
What a great and intelligent contribution!
At 12/20/14 08:55 PM, Feoric wrote: Normal people dont kill their SO, two police officers, and then themselves. I don't think there's any way this person was not mentally ill.
Are the people celebrating the murders mentally ill too?
And...black people/progressives on twitter responding pretty much how you would expect them to.
http://rt.com/usa/216367-nypd-police-officers-shot/
Two NYPD officers have been shot by a suspect who ambushed their patrol car ‘execution style’ in Brooklyn. The perpetrator was chased by police and reportedly died of a self-inflicted gun wound.
According to AP sources, both officers have succumbed to gunshot wounds. Earlier reports suggested that one was still alive butin critical condition in hospital.
The shooting took place in Brooklyn outside of the Tompkins Houses at around 3pm. The shooter reportedly came out of the building before shooting the officers patrolling the area. According to the witnesses he then ran away into the subway where he was either shot by police chasing him or died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
The wounded officers were rushed to Woodhull Hospital in “grave” condition as at least one of them was hit in the head.
“It’s an execution,” a law enforcement source told The Post about the ambush.
According to preliminary reports, the uniformed officers were working overtime as part of an anti-terrorism drill as they sat in their marked police car on a Bedford–Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, street corner.
According to the Post sources, the gunman could be a fugitive who recently murdered his girlfriend in Baltimore. Several hours before the shooting the suspected gunman posted a picture of an automatic pistol with a message on Instagram.
“I’m Putting Wings on Pigs Today,” he wrote with hashtags #RIPErivGarner and #RIPMikeBrown. “They Take 1 Of Ours … Let’s Take 2 of Theirs.”
The incident occurred as New York officers and police nationwide are being widely criticized for their brutal tactics against suspects, especially African Americans. Over the past weeks tens of thousands of Americans across the country joined in massive marches against the killing of unarmed black men by police.
The protesters spoke out against grand jury decisions not to indict the white officers responsible for the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. They staged rallies and ‘die-ins’ under the banners ‘Black Lives Matter’ and ‘Justice for All.’
Oh and guess what, the hashtag campaign was started by a woman who is vitriolically anti-white.
At 12/19/14 09:47 PM, AxTekk wrote: If you claim any statistics sourcing arrests/ convictions correctly represent the true number and nature of actual crimes committed, then you assume there is no bias in arrests/ convictions relative to actual crime.
Except if you actually fucking read the report I posted you would know that it sources the FBI National crime victimization survey.
I've got half a dozen or so people responding to my posts already, I don't need another moron who doesn't actually read the things he's responding to before he posts.
At 12/19/14 09:57 PM, AxTekk wrote: Also, if a key finding of a study you're citing is well known to be factually incorrect, it loses pretty much any authority.
It hasn't been shown to be factually incorrect. Different methodologies are used, and I stated I believe that the CoC uses a more robust one and I pointed out what is in my opinion a methodological problem with a report as an example.
Imagine me citing a paper on astrophysics that claimed the sun orbited the earth - even if it had nothing to do with the point I was making by citing the study (and the point Naronic debunked DOES have direct consequences for your argument) citing a shitty study by people who don't know their facts isn't necessarily any better than not citing any study. In fact, it shows that the only people who agree with you are fucking idiots.
Except the report is claiming something insane like that and nobody has yet disproved the claims directly. If the claims are so loony then show that they are directly.
Also, the claims of the report I posted have not been refuted, which if they are so wrong should be easy to do. These claims are also entirely independent of whether or not the legal system is biased against blacks or not.
Turns out this whole thing is just another case of "white privilege" (!!!)
http://twitchy.com/2014/12/17/jamilah-lemieux-sides-with-north-korea-because-of-white-privilege/
Apparently being white is a greater sin than Kim Jong Un's actual crimes against humanity.
At 12/17/14 03:42 PM, Feoric wrote: On the one hand I'm glad the Obama administration didn't bluff and actually took a really hard line on Putin.
Why? That's stupid.
At 12/14/14 02:34 PM, Warforger wrote: Yes. The right wing is being completely honest as it is in every other issue, especially those for which there is no evidence on their side for.
You mean like those calling the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown and Eric Garner murders?
At 12/14/14 01:24 PM, naronic wrote: You cited the source more than 2 times and how it's key findings are not a part of your argument?
I used the study to show that blacks commit more violent crime than any other race even when accounting for socio-economic factors and that they commit more interracial violence than any other race. Nothing you have posted has proven otherwise.
The blog post you cite ddoesn't even agree with your source that the justice system isn't biased against minorities.
None of these studies actually refute the color of crime itself, and I would argue that the methodology it employs is more robust than many of these studies which depend on the right factors being controlled for, which are easily excluded.
But do you admit that you are wrong about black police shootings?
"There is good data that police stop blacks more often, both on the road and in neighborhoods. Studies conflict over whether the extra stops are justifiable; likely this varies by jurisdiction. Extra neighborhood stops are most likely neighborhood-related effects rather than race-related per se, but the neighborhood effects do disproportionately target black people."
I never said this wasn't the case. I admitted it occurs and I support it.
citation of the very study cited in the blog, I suggest you take the time to read all of it
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rdusda.pdf
The study shows that when accounting for the difference in behavior of the races, the disparity between black drug users and arrests is actually only 13%, much lower than most progressives claim. This value doesn't take into account the different rates of criminality between races and it also admits that this value is assumes accurate survey results regarding drug use and that this is not necessarily a valid assumption. Which means that the 13% value is in all likelihood even lower.
"Most recent studies suggest a racial sentencing disparity of about 15%, contradicting previous studies that showed lower or no disparity."
"There seems to be a strong racial bias in capital punishment and a moderate racial bias in sentence length and decision to jail. "
Where is this from? It's not in the link you posted above.
You do realize that most of what you're citing disagrees with you, right?
It's crucial that you understand this.
It's crucial you understand that you're attacking things that have nothing to do with the points I'm making.
At 12/17/14 01:31 PM, Feoric wrote: Why wasn't this guy extradited to Iran?
He was an Iranian refugee and was granted political asylum
which just goes to show how strict australia's racist immigration policies are :^)
At 12/17/14 11:39 AM, LordJaric wrote: It would appear that the US and Cuba will be improving relations with one another. So after decades the embargo on Cuba will be lifted. Really what has it ever done? This could actually help Cuba's conditions improve.
Ending it will be good, because commies won't be able to blame cuba's shitty economy on the sanctions anymore. Of course, they still will...
At 12/17/14 04:41 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Bill Clinton made numerous pushes in the 90s to open up trade with Cuba.
funny considering his sanctions against iraq which resulted in possibly hundreds of thousands of children dying
The Real Victims of Sydney Siege
