Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/23/13 07:51 PM, AxTekk wrote: THE QUADRUPLE POST RAISES ITS MAJESTIC HEAD ONCE AGAIN, TO BRING SAUCE TO A MAYBE DUBIOUS PEOPLE

Thank you for eloquently putting into words how I felt initially when I stumbled onto this thread, what you just cited was insightful, interesting and validated by evidence, now prepare for it to be categorically ignored by pox.

At 7/21/13 04:38 PM, NordicThunder88 wrote:

At 7/21/13 04:36 PM, Fim wrote:

At 7/21/13 04:14 PM, NordicThunder88 wrote: Anyway what do you guys think of the English Defense League?

I quiver at their intellectual prowess

Judge an entire group by 1 member? Seems credible

They are all like that. Sadly I even know a few of them. It's drunken racist hooliganism in political form. I don't know of any other political body that ALWAYS requires a police presence whenever they get together in large numbers

At 7/21/13 04:31 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 7/21/13 12:11 PM, Fim wrote:

At 7/19/13 01:47 AM, poxpower wrote:

Race and Intelligence : Science's Last Taboo

Why are you so determined to believe this warped and largely criticized theory? Rushton was interviewed in that documentary I sent you, and immediately afterwards his argument was dissected and disproved by actual geneticists and neuroscientists. Did you even watch it?

At 7/21/13 04:14 PM, NordicThunder88 wrote: Anyway what do you guys think of the English Defense League?

I quiver at their intellectual prowess

At 7/19/13 01:47 AM, poxpower wrote:

Race and Intelligence : Science's Last Taboo

How about you take responsibility for how you behave as a person before you go around defining yourself by millions of other people who you never met and who have been dead for a long time.

Biggie smalls is the illest.

SMACKIN BABIES AT THEY CHRISTENIN

She's not a whistleblower, saying that 9/11 was a phony justification for the Iraq war, and that there were peaceful alternative for going in there is something that's been said repeatedly by a number of people for a decade.

At 7/19/13 09:06 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote:

At 7/19/13 07:04 AM, DarkMatter wrote: Hey guys guess what?

this case was probably brought to light in order to test the racial tension across the country, for some diabolical purpose I'm sure! <.<

>.>

I didn't need this case to know that in America you can achieve anything if you're white.

I'm pretty sure the reason this case was brought to light was because Zimmerman wasn't even arrested for 2 months.

And he was Hispanic, which I guess was close enough for the jury and the supporters who helped fund his defence lawyers.

At 7/18/13 08:15 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 7/18/13 08:09 PM, Fim wrote:
Are you seriously that much of a dick?

yes I am.

;{

At 7/19/13 04:58 AM, Light wrote: Does anyone have a reason why there are U.S. troops in so many nations around the world?

I don't want to go to the most sinister angle possible.

Was just going to say that, last check I think the US have just over 170,000 troops in about 150 countries worldwide. *

This is fairly normal practise. Military often move around for strategic or training purposes, and Russia is buddies with the US despite what call of duty would have you believe :)

At 7/18/13 02:04 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Trayvons parent's are doint the rounds on all the networks with waterworks. I wish I could lick those tasty tears.

Are you seriously that much of a dick? These are parents mourning the murder of their 17 year old son. Have some respect.

That wasn't ironic..

At 7/18/13 12:48 PM, poxpower wrote: So basically you read nothing on there.
It has many sources that you can freely check. Go right ahead.

I read it, I just don't know what you're getting out of the information that some races have genetically larger genitalia than others, there's no correlation between that and intelligence, just as height, weight, hair colour etc are not factors.

No, intellectual potential is set at birth. That is not even controversial at all.
No matter what you do you can't raise a kid's IQ to 150 when his genes are set to a 120 max.

That's the thing, unless you can show me specific evidence for that claim, I don't think that's correct. I've done more research than I need to on this, and I can tell you've just got your info from a bad source, although there are differences in IQ between different races "no genetic factor has been conclusively shown to have a causal relation with group difference in intelligence test". And the man with the 3rd highest IQ in the world is black. He's got an IQ of 190.

Mind you this had nothing whatsoever to do with race research, this is a fact that is widely accepted and discussed in books such as Stephen Pinker's Blank Slate for instance.
like I've said before, we can control for upbringing via adopted Twin studies.
You don't know what you're talking about. At least admit it.

I think you've chosen to believe a theory that fits your world view, or maybe you've just not researched this from both angles.

I know exactly why they criticize him and it's because it's not OK in the USA to be white or talk badly about races other than whites.

Science is always submissive to factual evidence. Like I've said, if there was legitimate grounds here there would be a wider debate in the scientific community, not just between scientists and people with questionable motives and backgrounds, like Rushton.

You know this, I know this we all know this. People in the media and even in academic circles lose their jobs over this routinely, for saying things that, were they of any ethnicity other than white, they would be praised for.

Here's a thought, because it's often racist? Like saying a black person can't attain an IQ higher than 120.

Someone starting a "Study of the importance of white culture" program in school would get fired where someone starting a "Study of the importance of black culture" would get media praise and government grants.

Maybe because in America you already live in a white culture and have no need to bring it into the spotlight because it's already the norm.

I really don't have the time lol.

Then shut your mouth?

;'(

I have just linked you to an article which is EXTREMELY specific about the data and where it came from and you ignored it.

You linked me a study that quotes Rushton quite heavily right from the start.

All I've ever found from his critics were what you just did:
A. Personal attacks

Reviews by scientists are not personal attacks, scientists have a better insight on his publications than either of us.

B. Cherry-picking weak data points while ignoring dozens/ hundreds of others.

I think you're being fairly guilty of doing that yourself. You ignored 11/12 points I made in my first post.

Is it ok to steal bread to feed your starving family?

Is it ok to start cooking crystal meth if you need the money for your cancer treatments, paraplegic son and unborn baby?

At 7/18/13 11:03 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 7/18/13 09:31 AM, Fim wrote: Also, how can he claim that brain tissue is a factor in correlation to IQ when whites have the most, (according to him) and blacks have less and score lower, yet asians also have less but score higher?

Well since this is your only actual argument against him, I will address it. The rest is just the typical name-calling that he has dealt with his entire career.
For instance they love to mock the penis data he got because some of his data points were old and weak yet there's much new research and new surveys on this and they predictably show the same results that Rushton claimed. But you don't see these clowns taking a look at them, even up to Rushton's death.

http://www.everyoneweb.com/worldpenissize
Even if some data points are weak, the global picture is extremely clear. There's no big-dicked asian populations and micropenised african countries.
Even if the average length varies depending on the study, the order is always the same: black, white asians.

If Rushton was lying, then the order would be mixed every time. Both by surveys, self-reporting, measuring, medical records or anecdotal evidence from people who have seen a ton of dicks ( i.e. prostitutes ).

Did you really just link me to a site that looks like it was made on MS Paint? lmao Anyway, the point I was making was that it's a bit fucking weird for a supposed learned academic professor to ask a bunch of first year students how big their dicks are, and how far they can ejaculate, that's a bit on the ethically dodgy side.

I'm not disputing that there's biological differences between different races; blacks have a higher bone density so they're better at running, whereas whites are better suited to swimming, but intelligence is a learned characteristic. You aren't born naturally smarter just because you're white, it's about how you're raised. You could just as easily point to data that shows women are superior intellectually than men, or the other way around, but that would prove that the difference was INNATE. That's the important distinction. Do you not think it's weird that so many scientists would criticise his studies if there weren't legitimate concerns?

Anyway here's a sampling of data on IQ correlating with brain size, which sites multiple studies:
http://abc102.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/brain-size-and-correl ates-with-iq/

Again Rushton critics ignored all recent data and pretend like this is just some kind of hilarious frenology-like pseudoscience where we now have MRI measurements and tons of further studies that keep producing the same results.

Btw he died in 2012, hardly any argument to show "how old is videos are" lol.

The original video you posted looks like it's from the 90s, the fact that there's been no further research into his claims and information like this has not been widely circulated kinda proves that he was exploring an intellectual cul-de-sac.

Again I invite anyone to go and watch the videos for themselves. Skip to the Q and A if you want, you judge for yourselves whether or not their opponents are interested in the truth.

I really don't have the time lol. This Rushton guy seems too skeptical to take seriously, and I won't waste my life researching him in any more depth than I have already had to since he wasn't very specific about his data in that lecture you posted, especially when you've got experts in the field weighing in on this, and saying stuff like -

"RushtonâEUTMs racist propaganda is tantamount to publishing ads for white supremacy and the neo-Nazi party. If you have any question about the validity of the "science" of RushtonâEUTMs trash you should read any one of his articles and the many rebuttals by ashamed scientists."

It's one of the only professions where women get paid more than men, in my opinion if it's between consenting adults than there's no problem. People who watch porn assign their own beliefs and prejudices to it.

It's a shame that most people will watch this talk and accept what he is saying without doing any independent research, since there is little quantifiable data in this video I think what's important is that before we debate the validity of his claims we talk a little bit more about who J.Philippe Rushton is.

a) He's dead now (irrelevant, but I just thought I'd just highlight how fucking old this talk was).

b) He spent his early childhood in South Africa, a country with notably volatile relationships between blacks and whites, this may also be irrelevant but it's a fact we shouldn't ignore completely.

c) From 2002 he was head of the Pioneer Fund, a research foundation accused of being racist.

d) In 2005, Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson of New York University wrote an article noting that Rushton ignored evidence that failed to support his position that IQ test score gaps represent a genetic racial hierarchy.

e) Throughout his career he has been accused of "basing his work on statistically flawed evidence, Rushton's theory has been accused of failing to take into account that many other traits, ranging from age, sex, social and political group membership, are observably more important in predicting altruistic behavior between non-kin than genetic similarity".

f) John Hartung criticized him for failing to conduct an adequate control group study and for ignoring contradictory evidence.

g) Biologist Joseph L. Graves argues that "not only is Rushton's book on selection theory considered to be virtually useless when applied to human life history evolution, but Rushton does not apply the theory correctly, and displays a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory in general, Graves also says that Rushton misrepresented the sources for the biological data he gathered in support of his hypothesis, and that much of his social science data was collected by dubious means."

h) He went onto say that "Bad science and virulent racial prejudice drip like pus from nearly every page of this despicable book."

i) In 2009 Rushton spoke at the Preserving Western Civilization conference in Baltimore. In his speech, Rushton said that Islam was not just a cultural, but also a genetic problem. He thought the religion and issues associated with it were not just a condition of the belief system. His theory was that Muslims have an aggressive personality with relatively closed, simple minds, and were less amenable to reason. The Anti-Defamation League described the conference attendees as "racist academics, conservative pundits and anti-immigrant activists"

j) The Canadian press reported that in interviews, first-year psychology students who took Rushton's classes said that he had conducted a survey of students' sexual habits in 1988, asking "such questions as how large their penises are, how many sex partners they have had, and how far they can ejaculate." LOL

j) Rushton's controversial work on race is under attack within the scientific community for the quality of the research.

So yeah. Basically what he's saying is pretty fundamentally flawed, and not accepted by most of the scientific community. Shit like this is pretty disgusting and it just validates people with racist opinions. Also, how can he claim that brain tissue is a factor in correlation to IQ when whites have the most, (according to him) and blacks have less and score lower, yet asians also have less but score higher? Nature < Nurture imo. He's ignored cultural, historical, economic, factors, & plus the IQ system as a measure of 'intelligence' is pretty retarded, in order to make his points. I hate to go against the grain on this one but it looks like he's talking complete BS, I'm not convinced by him at all, but if you give me any contradictory evidence that says that I'm wrong I will happily take a look at it.

I think this debate gets a little misunderstood by some American participants so I'll just clarify a few key things.

For starters, some police in the UK are actually deployed with firearms. If you walk around Heathrow you'll see armed police, any high ranking politician will have armed police protection, and if any situation arises that actually requires heavy response like a homicide, terrorist attack, hostage taking, bank robbery, anything, there will be police deployed with an adequate arsenal. Each police force has its own firearms unit.

As I have already mentioned in extremely long winded and draining debates on gun control beforehand, in a country where guns are illegal, very very few criminals are actually armed. So the risk of having to defend yourself against an armed opponent is low. In whole of 2012 there was only 3 British police officers who were shot by criminals.

Lastly, I feel as though the police loose their standing and approachability in the UK if they were to suddenly start walking around with guns. There's a mood here that the police should serve the public more than the state, and I think that's a much more beneficial way to operate. I certainly don't want the police turning into the trigger happy shoot-first-think-later culture that seems to be the norm in certain parts of the US, we've already had cases like the Jean Charles de Menezes incident which proves that even with the pretty timid gun policies that are in place in the UK the police still make mistakes.

At 7/16/13 06:50 AM, Ceratisa wrote:
Sorry Fim, not sure what is like where you live but the United States is a nation of laws. And when the prosecution can't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, people don't go to prison for the rest of their life.

Yes, a nation of truly baffling and seemingly backward and fucked up laws, where you can go out armed and confront an innocent child, shoot them to death, and be completely within the law.

At 7/16/13 05:18 AM, Ceratisa wrote:

If we don't just execute them..... Murders still happen in the prison system...

that's a compelling argument you got there

Groups like La Eme and the TS run many prisons.
EXECUTE THE BANGERS!!

I know it's completely off topic, but you should really check out the prison industrial complex.

And completely on topic, prison is where Zimmerman should be right now.

At 7/14/13 10:48 PM, Enatyx wrote: your probably curious about why I need a team and what that team might consist of...
well I need a team because I want to make an animated series with voices and fun animations.
I have a storyboard layed out but
4 voices
1 animator
2 script writer's
and last but not least 1 story board artist
I will help by starting off with an idea and helping the script writers correct my mistakes and/or add to them

Seems like you don't really have much input yourself on this, you must have a pretty dynamite idea

At 7/14/13 10:48 PM, Enatyx wrote: your probably curious about why I need a team and what that team might consist of...
well I need a team because I want to make an animated series with voices and fun animations.
I have a storyboard layed out but
4 voices
1 animator
2 script writer's
and last but not least 1 story board artist
I will help by starting off with an idea and helping the script writers correct my mistakes and/or add to them

Seems like you don't really have much input yourself on this, you must have a pretty dynamite idea

At 7/16/13 03:04 AM, Ceratisa wrote:

At 7/16/13 02:54 AM, Mechwarrior300 wrote:

At 7/14/13 05:48 PM, Memorize wrote: Also, 17 year olds are 50% more likely to commit murder than 28.

we should put 50% of all 17 year olds in jail just to be safe

If we don't just execute them..... Murders still happen in the prison system...

that's a compelling argument you got there

At 7/14/13 03:58 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/14/13 01:35 PM, Fim wrote:

Just because a lawyer can convincingly argue that narrative doesn't make it right by any stretch. From what I've researched there was enough evidence here for manslaughter at the very least. How can he justify following around a kid who hadn't committed any crime besides 'looking suspicious', against the advise of a 911 operative, and carrying a loaded weapon? I don't understand how it can be classed as SYG when he knowingly and deliberately put himself into a situation that spiralled into an altercation.

1) Keeping an eye on someone and calling the police to report someone suspicious isn't illegal.
2) There had been a burglary problem in the neighborhood and Treyvon was someone new in the community who Zimmerman didn't recognize, who was wandering around looking at people's homes including standing around for a while on the property of someone who had recently been burglarized. Where upon Treyvon notices Zimmerman's truck, walks towards it, circles it, then starts running. All of which makes being suspicious reasonable. Zimmerman was told to keep an eye on him by the dispatcher.

3) Zimmerman then gets out of the truck to follow Treyvon at which point the dispatcher asks what he's doing and tells Zimmerman "you don't need to do that." Zimmerman responds with "ok". In that same audio a few seconds later the dispatcher asks Zimmerman his home address to which Zimmerman responds "I don't want to say because I don't know where he (Treyvon) went." Meaning he wasn't following him anymore. At which point the conversation ended.

4) This means that you can't even prove manslaughter because now you can't prove who confronted who first (Which isn't even illegal by itself), but nor can you prove who threw the first punch starting the fight.

5) Carrying a gun isn't illegal. Nor did he use it until 40 seconds into the fight while he was on his back getting beaten.

6) It wasn't classified as SYG. It was defended as classical self-defense which exists in every state. All SYG does is remedy a previous problem of obligated an attack victim to run away before fighting back. Because as we all know, the law should really protect the person starting the assault, right?

1) killing a unarmed 17 year old is a bad thing, regardless of whether 'he started it' thats a bullshit excuse coming from a grown adult who started the ball rolling in the first place.
2) doesn't treyvon have a right to defend himself against some strange guy who's following him around in a car in the rain?
3) there's a lot of grey area in this case, but mainly because the only other person who could have shed some light on what happened has been fucking killed.
4) America retains its title as the irony free zone after zimmermans lawyer had a party celebrating the case, where his daughter instagramed some photos with the hash tag #dadkilledit. I know I shouldn't laugh, but that's hilariously fucked.

At 7/14/13 11:19 AM, Camarohusky wrote: There was enough evidence that a jury could reasonable interpret that regardless of Zimmerman's action sin iniatiating the conflict, Martin escalated it.

Case closed.

Just because a lawyer can convincingly argue that narrative doesn't make it right by any stretch. From what I've researched there was enough evidence here for manslaughter at the very least. How can he justify following around a kid who hadn't committed any crime besides 'looking suspicious', against the advise of a 911 operative, and carrying a loaded weapon? I don't understand how it can be classed as SYG when he knowingly and deliberately put himself into a situation that spiralled into an altercation.

You are correct though, case closed. We can only wait and see what the repercussions for this are going to be.

At 7/14/13 09:03 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 7/14/13 09:02 AM, Fim wrote: Disgusting.

already a thread in the trayvon martin thread. and he was innocent to begin with as it was self defense under Stand Your Ground.

Him being acquitted is a different story from a developing case, and I really don't know how you can justify that opinion tony, although I've argued with you enough to know that we never agree on anything. If I made a thread about how awesome cake was you'd be right in there saying it was shit, immoral and against the constitution.

This was a 17 year old fucking unarmed kid who would have been alive if it weren't for this asshole, who's quoted as saying 'fucking punks. They always get away' prior to the attack. He went out armed, and shot a unarmed kid. It's as clear cut as that, he should be in prison. Justice has not prevailed today for this poor kids family, and ill bet there will be violent riots for this in the near future.

Disgusting.

lol@dailymail

bunch of scaremongering, semi racist stories pushing a murdoch narrative.

kind of related - the daily mail list of things that cause cancer

At 7/9/13 10:19 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: North Carolina: Bill to Prohibit Destruction of Firearms Signed into Law

this law will eliminate the option of destroying lawful firearms that are in safe working condition that have been seized or otherwise recovered by law enforcement. It will also require the firearms be transferred to a law enforcement agency for official use, be sold at public auction to Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders,

WIN!

Think of all the poor endangered guns who have now had their lives saved thanks to this bill! Great job on your priorities America!