Missouri KKK Threaten Use of Lethal Force Against Ferguson Protestors - Polidicks

[QUOTE=kurgan;46493834]Find a more compact version of the standard model and you'll have a Nobel Prize. Remember I didn't say the most likely conclusion was the least complex. I said the most likely hypothesis from a set that each give identical predictions is the least complex. If there's stuff your hypothesis can't account for, you can "buy" more predictive power by "spending" more complexity - you add more epicycles to explain the new stuff. Which is something we can at least grapple with. Whereas "racism" and "oppression" and so on are abstractions that you can't really pin down. No, it's more complex, because in order to generate the sensory information you see, the Demon has to be at least as complex as the world it is simulating, plus additional overhead. It is more complex by definition. "Russel's Teapot Considered Reasonable"[/QUOTE] There is no "most likely" explanation among a set of unproven hypotheses. "Most likely" implies ideas are proven right or wrong based on chance. The standard model is proven as far as it has been shown to be applicable. It says that light will function in a certain way, and light functions as it predicts. It cannot be reduced. That is not how physics works. The search for a unified theory is not the search to find a more "compact" standard model, it's to find a more expansive one which accounts for more. Science is additive, not reductive. Racism in this context refers to unsubstantiated fears and ideas about people of specific ethnic groups and skin colors resulting in prejudicial actions and behavior. Which is a well documented phenomenon, both historically and today. That assumes that human perception is accurate, and that the imaginary world actually is complex rather than simply appearing to be complex to you. Dreams appear coherent while you're dreaming, but that doesn't mean they are. russel's teapot is unreasonable because it's an unsubstantiated claim, nothing more, nothing less

[QUOTE=MetricLuvsU;46493906]You [I]literally[/I] said that it's because black people are black, you want to actually explain it?[/QUOTE] There is such a thing as "reading inbetween the lines" It's a skill you lack along with comprehension and critical thinking. What do you even look to gain by proving BDA is somehow a racist by using verifiable facts about the purely statistical correlation between race and poverty (and therefore crime) in his arguments?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46493926]There is no "most likely" explanation among a set of unproven hypotheses. "Most likely" implies ideas are proven right or wrong based on chance. The standard model is proven as far as it has been shown to be applicable. It says that light will function in a certain way, and light functions as it predicts. It cannot be reduced. That is not how physics works. The search for a unified theory is not the search to find a more "compact" standard model, it's to find a more expansive one which accounts for more. Science is additive, not reductive. Racism in this context refers to unsubstantiated fears and ideas about people of specific ethnic groups and skin colors resulting in prejudicial actions and behavior. Which is a well documented phenomenon, both historically and today. That assumes that human perception is accurate, and that the imaginary world actually is complex rather than simply appearing to be complex to you. Dreams appear coherent while you're dreaming, but that doesn't mean they are. russel's teapot is unreasonable because it's an unsubstantiated claim, nothing more, nothing less[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, russel's teapot is just soooo unsubstantial

[QUOTE=kurgan;46493908]The criminality hypothesis is 70% "Because the black IQ distribution is shifted a standard deviation to the left of the white distribution and this is mostly genetic in origin", 10% "Other partially-genetically-mediated non-IQ cognitive differences between blacks and whites", 20% nongenetic factors (including prejudice) fuuuck i was trying to get that in the automerge so it looked like BDA rated it agree[/QUOTE] where exactly do these percentages come from

[QUOTE=Milkdairy;46493933]There is such a thing as "reading inbetween the lines" It's a skill you lack along with comprehension and critical thinking. What do you even look to gain by proving BDA is somehow a racist by using verifiable facts about the purely statistical correlation between race and poverty (and therefore crime) in his arguments?[/QUOTE] But he didn't say it was because of poverty, in fact he said [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46493723]One of links I posted addresses this specifically: Blacks are, historically [I]and[/I] contemporarily, the most disadvantaged demographic in this country. They dominate the demographics for urban poverty, and urban poverty presents unique conditions for crime that will not exist, or exist on a much smaller scale, in whiter areas with similar poverty levels. [/QUOTE] He said that even in areas where whites are poor, there is still less crime.

[QUOTE=MetricLuvsU;46493807]I'm just saying, you can't just go around saying minorities are criminals.[/QUOTE] are you crazy or something? due to an inherently racist system many racial minorities in many countries are forced into poverty and poverty breeds crime. i'm not saying all minorities are criminals, i'm saying a disproportionate number are criminals due to circumstances they are not in control of [editline]15th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=MetricLuvsU;46493948]But he didn't say it was because of poverty, in fact he said He said that even in areas where whites are poor, there is still less crime.[/QUOTE] URBAN poverty

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;46493953]are you crazy or something? due to an inherently racist system many racial minorities in many countries are forced into poverty and poverty breeds crime. i'm not saying all minorities are criminals, i'm saying a disproportionate number are criminals due to circumstances they are not in control of [editline]15th November 2014[/editline] URBAN poverty[/QUOTE] As in...their race?

[QUOTE=MetricLuvsU;46493948]But he didn't say it was because of poverty, in fact he said He said that even in areas where whites are poor, there is still less crime.[/QUOTE] that is a factual observation pointing out that there are differences between black populations and white populations is not racism, assuming the cause is the genetic inferiority of one or the other is [editline]15th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=MetricLuvsU;46493962]As in...their race?[/QUOTE] no

[QUOTE=MetricLuvsU;46493906]You [I]literally[/I] said that it's because black people are black, you want to actually explain it?[/QUOTE] Dude. [B]"What is [I]your[/I] explanation for black crime?"[/B] [I]Meaning: how does he explain the statistical skew showing that black people commit more crimes, per capita, than white people, if he discounts the mountain of evidence that this skew only exists because of sociopolitical reasons.[/I] [B]"Currently it seems there isn't one,"[/B] [I]Meaning: he has failed to give an explanation yet.[/I] "[B]other than the fact that they are black.[/B]" [I]Meaning: it is an accusation that the lack of an explanation means that he does not have any other explanation other than the racist belief that black people are just naturally prone to crime.[/I] That's the best I can do, dude. If that doesn't clear shit up for you, nothing will. I'm a bit embarrassed, having to explain this. I feel like you're probably just fucking with me, but the thought that you might seriously be this out of touch is deeply concerning.

SOMEONE PM A MODERATOR I THINK I'M BEING TROLLED

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46493967]Dude. [B]"What is [I]your[/I] explanation for black crime?"[/B] [I]Meaning: how does he explain the statistical skew showing that black people commit more crimes, per capita, than white people, if he discounts the mountain of evidence that this skew only exists because of sociopolitical reasons.[/I] [B]"Currently it seems there isn't one,"[/B] [I]Meaning: he has failed to give an explanation yet.[/I] "[B]other than the fact that they are black.[/B]" [I]Meaning: it is an accusation that the lack of an explanation means that he does not have any other explanation other than the racist belief that black people are just naturally prone to crime.[/I] That's the best I can do, dude. If that doesn't clear shit up for you, nothing will. I'm a bit embarrassed, having to explain this. I feel like you're probably just fucking with me, but the thought that you might seriously be this out of touch is deeply concerning to me.[/QUOTE] Personally I'm having a whale of a time, so I don't really care if he's trolling or not. :V

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46493964]that is a factual observation pointing out that there are differences between black populations and white populations is not racism, assuming the cause is the genetic inferiority of one or the other is [editline]15th November 2014[/editline] no[/QUOTE] But he said it was [I]because[/I] they were black See the quotes in: [QUOTE=MetricLuvsU;46493906]You [I]literally[/I] said that it's because black people are black, you want to actually explain it?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46493926]There is no "most likely" explanation among a set of unproven hypotheses. "Most likely" implies ideas are proven right or wrong based on chance.[/quote] No, it represents your level of uncertainty regarding the hypothesis. [quote]The standard model is proven as far as it has been shown to be applicable. It says that light will function in a certain way, and light functions as it predicts. It cannot be reduced. That is not how physics works. The search for a unified theory is not the search to find a more "compact" standard model, it's to find a more expansive one which accounts for more. Science is additive, not reductive.[/quote] No, the most important advances in Science are reductive. e.g. the reduction of the behavior of falling bodies on Earth with the motion of the heavenly bodies. Before Newton, they were thought to obey different laws. Newton reduced them both into a single compact framework that described them even better (and made new predictions). Other examples: Maxwell's unification of the Electric force and the Magnetic force, the Neo-Darwinian synthesis that united Mendelism with natural selection. [quote]Racism in this context refers to unsubstantiated fears and ideas about people of specific ethnic groups and skin colors resulting in prejudicial actions and behavior. Which is a well documented phenomenon, both historically and today.[/quote] Presuppositions: "unsubstantiated", "prejudicial" [quote]That assumes that human perception is accurate, and that the imaginary world actually is complex rather than simply appearing to be complex to you. Dreams appear coherent while you're dreaming, but that doesn't mean they are.[/quote] Coherency is not the same as complexity.

[QUOTE=MetricLuvsU;46493971]But he said it was [I]because[/I] they were black See the quotes in:[/QUOTE] he doesn't use the word 'because' a single time in the post you're quoting

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46493967]Dude. [B]"What is [I]your[/I] explanation for black crime?"[/B] [I]Meaning: how does he explain the statistical skew showing that black people commit more crimes, per capita, than white people, if he discounts the mountain of evidence that this skew only exists because of sociopolitical reasons.[/I] [B]"Currently it seems there isn't one,"[/B] [I]Meaning: he has failed to give an explanation yet.[/I] "[B]other than the fact that they are black.[/B]" [I]Meaning: it is an accusation that the lack of an explanation means that he does not have any other explanation other than the racist belief that black people are just naturally prone to crime.[/I] That's the best I can do, dude. If that doesn't clear shit up for you, nothing will. I'm a bit embarrassed, having to explain this. I feel like you're probably just fucking with me, but the thought that you might seriously be this out of touch is deeply concerning.[/QUOTE] Except, you didnt say that it was [I]his[/I] view, you implied that it was the only one that had some sort of proof behind it

Can't we just have all those who rated winner banned? If I remember correctly, then Racism used to be a valid ban reason, right?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46493939]where exactly do these percentages come from[/QUOTE] my drug-addled brain that doesn't want to write a 50k word effortpost with citations and footnotes, defending state-of-the-art cutting edge scientific racism

Please somebody help me. Mods? Hello? Got a troller in here and I am going to [B]freak out.[/B] [QUOTE=kurgan;46493978]No, it represents your level of uncertainty regarding the hypothesis. No, the most important advances in Science are reductive. e.g. the reduction of the behavior of falling bodies on Earth with the motion of the heavenly bodies. Before Newton, they were thought to obey different laws. Newton reduced them both into a single compact framework that described them even better (and made new predictions). Other examples: Maxwell's unification of the Electric force and the Magnetic force, the Neo-Darwinian synthesis that united Mendelism with natural selection. Presuppositions: "unsubstantiated", "prejudicial" Coherency is not the same as complexity.[/QUOTE] You're drifting farther and farther into a field of existential bullshit.

[QUOTE=kurgan;46493908]The criminality hypothesis is 70% "Because the black IQ distribution is shifted a standard deviation to the left of the white distribution and this is mostly genetic in origin", 10% "Other partially-genetically-mediated non-IQ cognitive differences between blacks and whites", 20% nongenetic factors (including prejudice) fuuuck i was trying to get that in the automerge so it looked like BDA rated it agree[/QUOTE] no doubt you've probably read the works of murray, rushton and jensen, so i'll just leave this here: [url]http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles%20for%20Online%20CV/Nisbett%20(2012)%20Group.pdf[/url] and offer the simple phrase: "correlation does not imply causation," in other words, the correlation between race and IQ does not necessarily translate to a genetic cause, and in the meantime the racial IQ gap is slowly closing.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46493983]he doesn't use the word 'because' a single time in the post you're quoting[/QUOTE] No, he doesn't. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46493723]If you are discounting this, then what is [I]your[/I] explanation for black crime? Currently, it seems there isn't one, other than the fact that black people are black. [/QUOTE] But he [I]does[/I] say that 'the fact that black people are black' is an explanation (and implies it is the only one) for black crime. It's called paraphrasing

So now that it's clear the whole rscism thing was due to misinterpreted implications, is that all we have to discuss for that fiasco? No one should have to spend a page and a half explaining themselves to someone because their logical argument was seen as 'prejudiced' and unrightly so

What the hell are you two even arguing anymore? That poverty leads to more crime?

[QUOTE=kurgan;46493978]No, it represents your level of uncertainty regarding the hypothesis. No, the most important advances in Science are reductive. e.g. the reduction of the behavior of falling bodies on Earth with the motion of the heavenly bodies. Before Newton, they were thought to obey different laws. Newton reduced them both into a single compact framework that described them even better (and made new predictions). Other examples: Maxwell's unification of the Electric force and the Magnetic force, the Neo-Darwinian synthesis that united Mendelism with natural selection. Presuppositions: "unsubstantiated", "prejudicial" Coherency is not the same as complexity.[/QUOTE] Your uncertainty is irrelevant. Either it has explanatory and predictive power or it does not. In all of those cases you're confusing the elimination of redundancy with the reduction of a theory's complexity. Relativity is not "less complex" than Newtonian mechanics, it just predicts a wider range of events and situations. If you have one theory that says there's a force that makes things red, and another that says there's a force that makes things blue, and it's discovered that they're the same, the science has not been made less complex. You've just eliminated some redundancy in the literature. Are you saying that there isn't a single documented case of a person making or believing claims about the general competence or morality of a certain ethnic group without proper scientific justification? No it is not. I don't see how that's relevant. If you can't trust your senses or your sanity, then in what position are you to say something is definitely complex or not? Who is to say it doesn't just have the illusion of complexity? [editline]15th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=kurgan;46494002]my drug-addled brain that doesn't want to write a 50k word effortpost with citations and footnotes, defending state-of-the-art cutting edge scientific racism[/QUOTE] If you cannot produce evidence for your claim then I can only assume you have none. Feel free to come back later.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46494041]Your uncertainty is irrelevant. Either it has explanatory and predictive power or it does not. In all of those cases you're confusing the elimination of redundancy with the reduction of a theory's complexity. Relativity is not "less complex" than Newtonian mechanics, it just predicts a wider range of events and situations. If you have one theory that says there's a force that makes things red, and another that says there's a force that makes things blue, and it's discovered that they're the same, the science has not been made less complex. You've just eliminated some redundancy in the literature. Are you saying that there isn't a single documented case of a person making or believing claims about the general competence or morality of a certain ethnic group without proper scientific justification? No it is not. I don't see how that's relevant. If you can't trust your senses or your sanity, then in what position are you to say something is definitely complex or not? Who is to say it doesn't just have the illusion of complexity? [editline]15th November 2014[/editline] If you cannot produce evidence for your claim then I can only assume you have none. Feel free to come back later.[/QUOTE] You are also drifting pretty far into a field of existential bullshit.

[QUOTE=MetricLuvsU;46494007]No, he doesn't. But he [I]does[/I] say that 'the fact that black people are black' is an explanation (and implies it is the only one) for black crime. It's called paraphrasing[/QUOTE] He was referring to what kurgan was implying, not what he himself believes. [editline]15th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46494051]You are also drifting pretty far into a field of existential bullshit.[/QUOTE] if he wants to discuss minutiae, then minutiae I must discuss. I will leave it to others to ask why the conversation is being diverted in such a way.

[QUOTE=Xubs;46494052]BDA said poverty leads to more crime (this is true) and that black people tend to be in poverty more often than whites (this is also true), so logically, there's more crime in black communities because more black communities are poor than white communities. Metric is saying that BDA is saying black people are criminals because he's an idiot[/QUOTE] Thats what I thought what was being argued. Had to verify since some people's posts dont make sense.

[QUOTE=joes33431;46494006]no doubt you've probably read the works of murray, rushton and jensen, so i'll just leave this here: [url]http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles%20for%20Online%20CV/Nisbett%20(2012)%20Group.pdf[/url] and offer the simple phrase: "correlation does not imply causation," in other words, the correlation between race and IQ does not necessarily translate to a genetic cause, and in the meantime the racial IQ gap is slowly closing.[/QUOTE] Without having time to read in detail, I would point out that it was not Rushton who advanced the hypothesis that the B/W difference was g-loaded as this article claims, but Spearman and Jensen ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearman's_hypothesis]in fact that's what it's called on Wikipedia[/url]). Furthermore I notice a glaring omission in the discussion of Saudi Arabian test scores. The data shows gains among young Saudis, but they peter out by adulthood, as if this is a challenge to the hereditarian hypothesis. The authors suggest it is due to poor secondary schooling, without even mentioning [url=http://i.imgur.com/5YVzQdM.png]the obvious and well-known phenomenon of increasing heritability with age.[/url] On top of that, it's not as if the Spearman effect is the only evidence for genetic basis for the B/W gap, e.g. transracial adoption studies, admixture analysis, and GWAS (currently a trickle but will be a flood in about a decade). And yeah, the gap is closing, but there are diminishing returns to it.

[QUOTE=MetricLuvsU;46494007]No, he doesn't. But he [I]does[/I] say that 'the fact that black people are black' is an explanation (and implies it is the only one) for black crime. It's called paraphrasing[/QUOTE] Can you actually start reading the posts or are you just going to troll more?

[QUOTE=kurgan;46494069]Without having time to read in detail, I would point out that it was not Rushton who advanced the hypothesis that the B/W difference was g-loaded as this article claims, but Spearman and Jensen ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearman's_hypothesis]in fact that's what it's called on Wikipedia[/url]). Furthermore I notice a glaring omission in the discussion of Saudi Arabian test scores. The data shows gains among young Saudis, but they peter out by adulthood, as if this is a challenge to the hereditarian hypothesis. The authors suggest it is due to poor secondary schooling, without even mentioning [url=http://i.imgur.com/5YVzQdM.png]the obvious and well-known phenomenon of increasing heritability with age.[/url] On top of that, it's not as if the Spearman effect is the only evidence for genetic basis for the B/W gap, e.g. transracial adoption studies, admixture analysis, and GWAS (currently a trickle but will be a flood in about a decade).[/QUOTE] if heritability increasing with age was relevant to this analysis, wouldn't it show itself among every group's results and not just the one's?

Well at least the dumb race card puller stopped posting.