AK-47 kills Tennis stars' Williams sister in Michael Moore's safe Compton suburb

[American]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/tennis/09/14/williams.obit/index.html


Michael Moore was not injured in the shooting.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by American
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/tennis/09/14/williams.obit/index.html


Michael Moore was not injured in the shooting.

We need to start treating these crack-gangs as terrorist groups and take them off the streets.

One solution would be to build massive camps in the desert to house the tens of thousands of them. The Mojave would be a good place. People that ignore all law have to be put away for life.

JK

[Mr Manifesto]

I realise I'm probably wasting my time, but can you clarify something, American? What's Michael Moore got to do with this?

[Frostbite]

Moore never said it was safe, he just said it was not as worse as the media says it is.

[Zep]

According to the report, ""This is extremely devastating news," Raymone Baine said about the death of Price, a 31-year-old resident of Corona, about 40 miles east of Compton. "They are a very close-knit family."

Yep, that must have been JUST close enough for American to put her in Moore's vicinity.

American, will you express ANY pity and concern for the lady's family now??

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Zep

Yep, that must have been JUST close enough for American to put her in Moore's vicinity.

Actually, it didn't occur in Corona, I think that is where the victim lived.
The shooting happened in the 1100 block of Greenleaf Boulevard in Compton, he said.
Compton it was.

[American]

Originally posted by Zep
According to the report, ""This is extremely devastating news," Raymone Baine said about the death of Price, a 31-year-old resident of Corona, about 40 miles east of Compton. "They are a very close-knit family."

Yep, that must have been JUST close enough for American to put her in Moore's vicinity.

American, will you express ANY pity and concern for the lady's family now??


Well, you were wrong.


And to boot, I have yet to meet an australian worth knowing. (Certain members of ACDC being the exception, and I'm betting they really don't want to talk to me.)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by American



Well, you were wrong.


And to boot, I have yet to meet an australian worth knowing. (Certain members of ACDC being the exception, and I'm betting they really don't want to talk to me.)

I have to meet an American worth knowing.

Either way, AK-47 type weapons are the type of thing Moore wants banned.

[American]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Either way, AK-47 type weapons are the type of thing Moore wants banned.


They are banned, except for grand-fathered/collectors' models (I think they have special licenses for that stuff). It didn't stop her from getting killed.


She shoulda had a handgun for protection, and then she might have killed all the gangsters before they even did anything, or maybe got some shots off after first-contact (but before she bit the big one).

[Zep]

OK, so I was wrong about where it happened versus where she lived. As a poster said before, what has Moore got to do with this?

I repeat, American, will you express ANY pity and concern for the lady's family now?? You haven't so far - I wonder why...?

And sure. I suppose she COULD have taken an AK47 blast to the chest, but then struggled, John Wayne-like, to her elbows and popped off a few retaliatory shots at the perps with the Dirty Harry Magnum she was packing. :rolleyes:

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by American

She shoulda had a handgun for protection, and then she might have killed all the gangsters before they even did anything, or maybe got some shots off after first-contact (but before she bit the big one).

Boy, I can't wait until someone goes after you with an AK-47.

[Shinytop]

1. It's a freaking shame that somebody as unAmerican as American holds that moniker. Please, Australians, do not believe that this moron represents any small part of American thought.

2. To all humanity for American's lack thereof.

[Tony]

What's the point of this thread?

The girl got killed, its sad. But why bring up Mike Moore?

This is a stupid thread and I think the AK-47 should be legal.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Boy, I can't wait until someone goes after you with an AK-47.

I have been shot at with an AK-47 and AKMS variants. I used an M-16 A1 in response (we didn't have M-16 A2's until Somalia).

JK

[Zep]

Thanks, ShinyTop. We know that already! Hal, can we have a smilie for a handshake, please?

[American]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Boy, I can't wait until someone goes after you with an AK-47.


Me too. Man do I feel sorry for them! :)


Really if it ever happens, I'm gonna try and talk them out of it first. Breathing exercises are the key. If they listen to my advice on how to breath, their anger will melt away in a big river of lava and sugar syrup. Only goodwill and friendship be left.

I don't know what the hell all of you are talking about, saying I'm no good and not a true American. I'm just like everybody else I know. Probly more like you than you want to admit! I think I'm only more honest than most, but otherwise just the same, and people don't like that for some reason.

Any one of yous could have taken a PATRIOT name too. You didn't. That says a lot about you.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight I have been shot at with an AK-47 and AKMS variants. I used an M-16 A1 in response (we didn't have M-16 A2's until Somalia).

JK Anybody hit anything?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Shinytop
1. It's a freaking shame that somebody as unAmerican as American holds that moniker. Please, Australians, do not believe that this moron represents any small part of American thought.

2. To all humanity for American's lack thereof.

Shinytop, when I said "I have never met an American worth knowing", it was a play on words, as his user name is 'American'. I have met actual Americans I liked, and others I couldn't care less about. I do not in any way think that 'American' is a typical American, though it does bother me that there are those out there like him and JK.

[Zep]

Here you go, American. Learn something. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=jingoism)

[American]

Originally posted by Zep
Here you go, American. Learn something. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=jingoism)


Not tonight!

Getting back to news in the correct hemisphere of the globe, I have to say I feel bad she got it that way and also that she didn't get any rounds off in a legal return-fire situation. So don't say I don't feel bad. I feel REALLY bad (even though I didn't know the poor woman personally).

My point about M.M. was stated above. Somebody jumped to conclusions without reading other people's posts.

[Zep]

Can't learn, or WON'T learn (which is worse), plus trolling activity. Self-typecast.

OK, can we have some SENSIBLE commentary instead, folks?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Zep
Anybody hit anything?

No, none of my men were hit, thank God.

JK

[Jessica Blue]

She shoulda had a handgun for protection, and then she might have killed all the gangsters before they even did anything, or maybe got some shots off after first-contact (but before she bit the big one).


And maybe if America didn't have so many guns floating aound the community....

And maybe if the predominant ideology of America didn't churn out so many disenfranchised *losers*...


America already has more guns in private ownership than just about anywhere else, yet has vastly more gun deaths...so as an argument for gun ownership, your logic is screwed.


Any one of yous could have taken a PATRIOT name too. You didn't. That says a lot about you.

Like what? I thought about calling myself Red White and Blue...but then I didn't want to look like a jingo-bugling mindless dork.

[American]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
And maybe if America didn't have so many guns floating aound the community....

And maybe if the predominant ideology of America didn't churn out so many disenfranchised *losers*...

Aw come on...

America already has more guns in private ownership than just about anywhere else, yet has vastly more gun deaths...so as an argument for gun ownership, your logic is screwed.

Most of them are asking for it. It's crime-on-crime, not crime-on-victim or victim-on-criminal, or would-be-victim on actual criminal, or would-be-actual criminal on potential-victim-on-gang-of-criminals like you see in the movies.


Like what? I thought about calling myself Red White and Blue...but then I didn't want to look like a jingo-bugling mindless dork.


"Red White and Blue" is an AWSOME name. I'm gonna remember it for when I get kicked off and then move or buy a new computer and sign up again.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by American
Most of them are asking for it. It's crime-on-crime, not crime-on-victim or victim-on-criminal, or would-be-victim on actual criminal, or would-be-actual criminal on potential-victim-on-gang-of-criminals like you see in the movies.
And exactly what crime was Price committing?

Originally posted by American
"Red White and Blue" is an AWSOME name. I'm gonna remember it for when I get kicked off and then move or buy a new computer and sign up again.
You do realize, of course, that those are the French colors too, as well as Cuba, Australia, England, Panama and The Russian Federation.

Let's see you posting your name under this flag.
http://www.cubantshirts.com/images/cuban_flag.gif

[Zep]

Jessica, be warned. This guy (American) just likes to push hot-buttons, but not really contribute.

[American]

Originally posted by Zep
Jessica, be warned. This guy (American) just likes to push hot-buttons, but not really contribute.


Don't listen to him, Jessica! Zep is the real phonie-balony.


Wow. This is like that episode in Land of the Giants where everyone got duplicated and you can't tell who's really who!


I'm telling you, I'M REAL. Zep is the evil fake among us.

[WildCat]

I don't know what this thread has to do w/ Moore.

According to the article, they became involved in some sort of altercation w/ the local gang-bangers, not the smartest thing to do. As someone who's worked in some of the most violent areas of Chicago for 20+ years, I've learned that sometimes it's wise to just hold your tongue and move on.

[peptoabysmal]

I donno, unless Michael Moore was pulling the trigger on the AK, this is kind of uninteresting.

[American]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I donno, unless Michael Moore was pulling the trigger on the AK, this is kind of uninteresting.

Are you really in mongolia? At least you're not in Compton.... Or IRAQ.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Tricky

You do realize, of course, that those are the French colors too, as well as Cuba, Australia, England, Panama and The Russian Federation.



Erm, the English flag does not have any blue in, the Union flag however does. (ie the flag of The united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or 'Britain' to you ex-conlonials)

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by American


Are you really in mongolia? At least you're not in Compton.... Or IRAQ.

Worse than that, I'm in California!

[Jessica Blue]

Red White and Blue" is an AWSOME name.

Hey American....here's a little present just for you, heheh. This should get your patriotic juices flowing:

http://www.idleworm.com/mov/strpt.shtml

Edited to add: this link takes you to an animated cartoon that is, well, somewhat tasteless. Not for children, not workplace-friendly

[hal bidlack]

This thread (the link above) has been reported, and so I have read it.

The link does not violate the rules of the forum, as you are allowed to link as you please, as long as the name of the link itself is not a problem. It is appropriate, however, for a warning to appear, and so I have edited the post to include such a warning.

hal bidlack
administrator

[Zep]

...actually, the link is not really fit for human consumption, but hey...

[American]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue


Hey American....here's a little present just for you, heheh. This should get your patriotic juices flowing:

http://www.idleworm.com/mov/strpt.shtml

Edited to add: this link takes you to an animated cartoon that is, well, somewhat tasteless. Not for children, not workplace-friendly


That was OK the first time, but when it asked me to "PLAY AGAIN?"... I clicked "No".


Red White and Blue. I like that.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue


Hey American....here's a little present just for you, heheh. This should get your patriotic juices flowing:

http://www.idleworm.com/mov/strpt.shtml

Edited to add: this link takes you to an animated cartoon that is, well, somewhat tasteless. Not for children, not workplace-friendly

idleworm should have it's own forum. I'm going to email Dermot right now... No I'm not, have to go (stupid job).

[JAR]

I wish the article had said what the race of the shooter was.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I realise I'm probably wasting my time, but can you clarify something, American? What's Michael Moore got to do with this?
I see you don't know much about Compton. It's a city that has a population that is mainly non-white and it is notorious for it's crime problem. Compton has a huge problem with gang violence.

Michael Moore promoted the myth that whites are more violent than blacks and that it was entirely unjustified for whites to move away from blacks. He did this in "Bowling for Columbine." Compton shows that Michael Moore is full of $h!t.

What Michael Moore did in that movie was a slap in the face for me because I went to a middle school in a non-white neighborhood where if you were white, you were treated very poorly.

I even had a Jewish friend who had white supremacists values after being at the school for 2 years. The black and Mexican kids in that neighborhood just didn't get the idea that it was entirely not in their interests to drive white people against them.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by JAR

I see you don't know much about Compton. It's a city that has a population that is mainly non-white and it is notorious for it's crime problem. Compton has a huge problem with gang violence.

Michael Moore promoted the myth that whites are more violent than blacks and that it was entirely unjustified for whites to move away from blacks. He did this in "Bowling for Columbine." Compton shows that Michael Moore is full of $h!t.
I don't believe that violence is a race issue. Violence is, in my opinion, the result of economic and social factors.

What Michael Moore did in that movie was a slap in the face for me because I went to a middle school in a non-white neighborhood where if you were white, you were treated very poorly.
Well, I don't know what you went through, so I can't comment on that. I can only speculate that maybe you were the scapegoat for other people's frustrations. But I emphasise that this is purely speculation. It's not like other races aren't capable of racism, too. It doesn't make your racism right.


I even had a Jewish friend who had white supremacists values after being at the school for 2 years. The black and Mexican kids in that neighborhood just didn't get the idea that it was entirely not in their interests to drive white people against them.
Reminds me of Suddenly's haiku:

He pokes hole in boat
Water rushes in quickly
Then blame the water?

One wouldn't change a word of that, except perhaps to put an 's' on the end of 'blame'.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

I don't believe that violence is a race issue. Violence is, in my opinion, the result of economic and social factors.
It seems to me that you think being poor gives one an excuse to harm other human beings. If that's the case, I strongly disagree with you.

Well, I don't know what you went through, so I can't comment on that. I can only speculate that maybe you were the scapegoat for other people's frustrations. But I emphasise that this is purely speculation. It's not like other races aren't capable of racism, too. It doesn't make your racism right.
Of course I'm a racist. Those who aren't racists are the people who buy into the blank slate concept. I don't buy into it, so I'm a racist.

The question is, am I harming other people simply because they belong to a certain race? I'm not doing that.

Abraham Lincoln said about slavery, "You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own." (see page 41 of "The Portable Abraham Lincoln" edited by Andrew Delbanco)

Here Lincoln recognizes that humans don't have the same mental capacities and argues that it still isn't morally right for one person to enslave another. I agree with him.

I don't think that the absence of equal genetically inherited mental faculties among humans justifies harming or enslaving people on a basis of their race.

[Jessica Blue]

Here Lincoln recognizes that humans don't have the same mental capacities and argues that it still isn't morally right for one person to enslave another.

I think he was making an ironic statement on the stupidity of basing white superiority upon such things.


I don't think that the absence of equal genetically inherited mental faculties among humans justifies harming or enslaving people on a basis of their race.


How could it, when inherent mental capacity is not a result of race? When you use "race" and " genetically unequal mental capacities" in the same sentence like that you seem to be implying that there is a connection between the two. Are you...?

[American]

Originally posted by JAR

It seems to me that you think being poor gives one an excuse to harm other human beings. If that's the case, I strongly disagree with you.


Of course I'm a racist. Those who aren't racists are the people who buy into the blank slate concept. I don't buy into it, so I'm a racist.

The question is, am I harming other people simply because they belong to a certain race? I'm not doing that.

Abraham Lincoln said about slavery, "You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own." (see page 41 of "The Portable Abraham Lincoln" edited by Andrew Delbanco)

Here Lincoln recognizes that humans don't have the same mental capacities and argues that it still isn't morally right for one person to enslave another. I agree with him.

I don't think that the absence of equal genetically inherited mental faculties among humans justifies harming or enslaving people on a basis of their race.


I agree with this man, and I'm not even joking this time, however hard it is for you to tell.

[American]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue

How could it, when inherent mental capacity is not a result of race? When you use "race" and " genetically unequal mental capacities" in the same sentence like that you seem to be implying that there is a connection between the two. Are you...?


You got to get your number of posts up if you want to have any credibility around here, like I got a thousand something.

(A little tip: try not to offend nobody with sexist remarks. They're a little sensitive, some of them...)

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I have to meet an American worth knowing.

Either way, AK-47 type weapons are the type of thing Moore wants banned.

They are: both the real thing (which always was) and the semi auto version which those with opinions more than knowledge call ak47's.

It is banned, bad guys used one.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by American



You got to get your number of posts up if you want to have any credibility around here, like I got a thousand something.

(A little tip: try not to offend nobody with sexist remarks. They're a little sensitive, some of them...)

Jessica Blue, meet American... and yes, he really does equate quality with quantity. Suffice to say, he does not speak for anyone on this forum bar -on the odd occasion- himself.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
I think he was making an ironic statement on the stupidity of basing white superiority upon such things.
Typical leftist thinking. Leftist, like people from the Klu Klux Klan think that the enslavement of negroids was okay as long as negroids are actually dumber than white people.

How could it, when inherent mental capacity is not a result of race? When you use "race" and " genetically unequal mental capacities" in the same sentence like that you seem to be implying that there is a connection between the two. Are you...? [/B]
Before you say that race and genetics aren't related again, let's take a look at one of the definitions of the word race according to the American Heritage College: "1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics."

As you might have noticed, the definition had the word "genetically" in it. And the definition also had the word physical, which means "bodily."

According to your logic Jessica Blue, a guy who says blacks are dumber than whites is not a racial supremacist as long as he thinks it's due to genetic reasons and not racial reasons.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
[i]

How could it, when inherent mental capacity is not a result of race?

Evidence?

Im not saying I think intelligence is a result of race, but considering that race effects skin color, eye color/shape, muscle mass, bone structure, hair color/type, and susceptibility to certain diseases, its logical to assume that race also effects intelligence.

[American]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Jessica Blue, meet American... and yes, he really does equate quality with quantity. Suffice to say, he does not speak for anyone on this forum bar -on the odd occasion- himself.


And don't let the mug fool ya. I hate liberals!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by American
You got to get your number of posts up if you want to have any credibility around here, like I got a thousand something.

American giving tips on how to become credible?
:id:

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Here Lincoln recognizes that humans don't have the same mental capacities and argues that it still isn't morally right for one person to enslave another.

I think he was making an ironic statement on the stupidity of basing white superiority upon such things.
He wasn't being ironic. He was dead serious. The full quote is as follows:

If A can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B—why may not B snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?

You say A is white, and B is black. It is color, then;—the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly?—You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.

Again, he's not being ironic. He's being a lawyer here, taking a hypothesis (that it's okay to enslave someone based on his skin color) and working it through to its (il)logical conclusion: it's okay for anyone to enslave anyone.

[c0rbin]

That humans from all continents have the same capacity for what JAR or Tony might consider intelligence is obvious.

That these humans are all given the opportunity to make use of this capacity is another matter.

JAR might be content to think that "negroids" as he puts it, are genetically less intelligent than he. The second he meets an individual smarter than himself who is by coincidence a "negroid", I hope he will come to his senses.

[JAR]

Originally posted by c0rbin
That humans from all continents have the same capacity for what JAR or Tony might consider intelligence is obvious.

That these humans are all given the opportunity to make use of this capacity is another matter.

JAR might be content to think that "negroids" as he puts it, are genetically less intelligent than he.
I never said that negroids are genetically less intelligent than me, although the ones where I live tend to act like they are.

I don't know whether negroids are genetically dumber than white people. But I don't buy into the idea that all humans have minds that are naturally exact replicas of each other and that all differences among the minds of humans are due to differences in environment. Rousseau argued even further that all humans have to learn to be good or evil. I don't buy into that.

So I think it is possible that one human can be dumber than another human due to genetic reasons and I don't think that whites and blacks are born with the same minds.

The second he meets an individual smarter than himself who is by coincidence a "negroid", I hope he will come to his senses.
That's already happened to me. By the way, would that individual you're talking about be smarter than me due to environmental reasons or genetic ones?

[c0rbin]

By the way, would that individual you're talking about be smarter than me due to environmental reasons or genetic ones?

What difference would it make?

That a person of different gentic origins was smarter than you demonstrates that capacity for intelligence exists.

Unless of course you are claiming that "negroids" are genetically smarter than "blancoids"?

[JAR]

Originally posted by c0rbin
What difference would it make?
The difference is rather obvious. In one case, the black person is smarter than me due to genetic reasons and in the other he or she is smarter than me due to environmental reasons. The difference is rather obvious.

And don't forget. DNA is perfectly capable of mutating. So just because one black person is genetically smarter than me doesn't mean that all are.

That a person of different gentic origins was smarter than you demonstrates that capacity for intelligence exists.
I'm already aware that the capacity for intelligence exists.

Unless of course you are claiming that "negroids" are genetically smarter than "blancoids"?
It depends on what negroid and white person you're talking about.

[Jessica Blue]

Jar,

Typical leftist thinking. Leftist, like people from the Klu Klux Klan think that the enslavement of negroids was okay as long as negroids are actually dumber than white people.

Huh..? I think you've added 2 and 2 and come up with 5.

Before you say that race and genetics aren't related again, let's take a look at one of the definitions of the word race according to the American Heritage College: "1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics."

Yes...superficial physical characteristics such as height/hair/eye/skin colour and predisposition to certain diseases. Of course race and genetics are related...I never said there weren't. But there are as many variables in intelligence between individuals of the same race than there are between races.

As you might have noticed, the definition had the word "genetically" in it. And the definition also had the word physical, which means "bodily."

So...? As far as the brain goes I think you'll find differences between races are negligable.

According to your logic Jessica Blue, a guy who says blacks are dumber than whites is not a racial supremacist as long as he thinks it's due to genetic reasons and not racial reasons.

I'm confused...I really am. I just don't know how you could come up with this crazy assumption based on what I said. What I clearly stated was that genetic differences in intelligence between humans are not race related, while you seemed to be saying otherwise. As far as I know there is no credible evidence anywhere that one race is more or less intelligent than another. There are significant genetic differences in intelligence between people, but not races. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

In truth, I'm still not at all clear what you're trying to say. Are you saying that "blacks are dumber than whites?" and if so are you saying "it's a genetic thing, or not?" Can you give a straight answer to these questions?

[Jessica Blue]

American,

You got to get your number of posts up if you want to have any credibility around here, like I got a thousand something.

Thanks for the tip...I'd better get busy posting then.

(A little tip: try not to offend nobody with sexist remarks. They're a little sensitive, some of them...)

I'm trying to recall any sexist remarks I may have made, unless you mean that link I gave you. I wouldn't have put it in if I thought anyone would be seriously offended. It was just meant as a joke on jingoism.



Tony

Evidence?

Im not saying I think intelligence is a result of race, but considering that race effects skin color, eye color/shape, muscle mass, bone structure, hair color/type, and susceptibility to certain diseases, its logical to assume that race also effects intelligence.

There's a big jump there.

Edited to add:

According to the American Anthropological Association, "differentiating species into biologically defined "races" has proven meaningless and unscientific as a way of explaining variation (whether in intelligence or other traits)."

Here's their statement:

In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes.This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.


BPSCG

Again, he's not being ironic. He's being a lawyer here, taking a hypothesis (that it's okay to enslave someone based on his skin color) and working it through to its (il)logical conclusion: it's okay for anyone to enslave anyone.

I know...he is a lawyer making an argument. But the irony lies in his turning the logic of his adversaries against itself in order to prove his point.

[American]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Thanks for the tip...I'd better get busy posting then.


If you like, I'd be happy to sponsor you. If anyone asks what you're doing here, just say you know me. We don't have any hazing rituals (not officially anyway.. there's stuff I can't really talk about).

If people give you a hard time, don't let um bother you. They're just joshing and testing you out to see if you're cool or not. If they tease you a lot, that only means that they like you.

What kind of music do you like?

[Tricky]

American said:
(A little tip: try not to offend nobody with sexist remarks. They're a little sensitive, some of them...)
Originally posted by Jessica Blue

I'm trying to recall any sexist remarks I may have made, unless you mean that link I gave you. I wouldn't have put it in if I thought anyone would be seriously offended. It was just meant as a joke on jingoism.

American is not intimating that you have made sexist remarks. He is referring to the times he made offhand sexist remarks and got taken to the woodshed for them. He seems to think, in his naivety, that everyone does this at first until they learn better.

And now he's trying to flirt with you. Well, you must forgive him. He is very young, and totally controlled by his hormones.

[American]

Originally posted by Tricky

And now he's trying to flirt with you. Well, you must forgive him. He is very young, and totally controlled by his hormones.


I seen her first.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by American

I seen her first.
Don't worry. I'm happily married.

Good luck. (You'll need it.)

[Jessica Blue]

If you like, I'd be happy to sponsor you. If anyone asks what you're doing here, just say you know me...

LOL! Are you sure that'll hold me in good stead? Suddenly I feel like I've just been approached by the big, scary bald guy in the prison yard.

But hey, thankyou American, that's very civil of you. Maybe we can get together sometime for a cyber-coffee and discuss our musical tastes. By the way, do you like broccoli...?



American is not intimating that you have made sexist remarks. He is referring to the times he made offhand sexist remarks and got taken to the woodshed for them. He seems to think, in his naivety, that everyone does this at first until they learn better.

I get it now...I did think that was rather strange.

And now he's trying to flirt with you. Well, you must forgive him. He is very young, and totally controlled by his hormones.

[laughter]...I'm sure I can keep him at bay, thanks for the warning. Anyway our politics will come between us!

[Some Friggin Guy]

Just a quick note:

If I recall my high-school anthropology correctly, the term "negroid" is correct, anthropologically.

The term for white people would be "caucasoid."

[JAR]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Huh..? I think you've added 2 and 2 and come up with 5.
I still haven't seen any evidence that you think it is wrong for person to enslave a person who is genetically dumber than him or her.

So...? As far as the brain goes I think you'll find differences between races are negligable.
Wrong. If you've heard of genetically inherited mental illnesses and the fact that mental retardation occurs more often in inbred populations, than you know that genes due influence the formation of the human mind.



I'm confused...I really am. I just don't know how you could come up with this crazy assumption based on what I said. What I clearly stated was that genetic differences in intelligence between humans are not race related, while you seemed to be saying otherwise. As far as I know there is no credible evidence anywhere that one race is more or less intelligent than another. There are significant genetic differences in intelligence between people, but not races. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
There was a study done with identical twins who were separated at birth to see whether there were any personality similarities. The study found good evidence that a portion of the personality traits found among humans are genetically inherited. One of the twins was so blown away by the similarities between him and his brother that he said, "From where I'm standing, everything is genetic." Of course, he was greatly exaggerating. He was forgetting that things like culture, language, and technology have been found to spread from one group of people to another and currently are spreading from one group of people to another.

In truth, I'm still not at all clear what you're trying to say. Are you saying that "blacks are dumber than whites?"
I already did give a straight answer. I said it depends on what black person or white person you're talking about. I don't think every black guy is going to be smarter than every white guy and I don't think that every white guy is going to be smarter than every black guy.

Blacks aren't the same genetically, so it would not be true that all blacks are dumber than whites.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
According to the American Anthropological Association, "differentiating species into biologically defined "races" has proven meaningless and unscientific as a way of explaining variation (whether in intelligence or other traits)."

Here's their statement:

In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups.
According to the definition I quoted above from the American Heritage College Dictionary, a race doesn't need to be a clearly demarcated biologically distinct group to be a race. If you'll read the definition of race I gave again, you will notice that it says "more or less distinct."

Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes.This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.

This guy is giving the typical argument for not classifying races: "Races can't be classified because of mixed races."

I don't buy into that argument. Under that argument, languages can't be classified because languages, like races, are mixtures between one language and another. English borrowed a lot of words from French after the Norman Conquest. Does that mean that English can't be classified as a Germanic language?

No.

[American]

Originally posted by JAR

According to the definition I quoted above from the American Heritage College Dictionary, a race doesn't need to be a clearly demarcated biologically distinct group to be a race. If you'll read the definition of race I gave again, you will notice that it says "more or less distinct."


This guy is giving the typical argument for not classifying races: "Races can't be classified because of mixed races."

I don't buy into that argument. Under that argument, languages can't be classified because languages, like races, are mixtures between one language and another. English borrowed a lot of words from French after the Norman Conquest. Does that mean that English can't be classified as a Germanic language?

No.


She's pretty. Stop arguing with her.

[Jessica Blue]

I still haven't seen any evidence that you think it is wrong for person to enslave a person who is genetically dumber than him or her.

Well gee...shall I write it in blood? I THINK IT'S WRONG TO ENSLAVE PEOPLE, WHETHER THEY'RE DUMBER, SMARTER, SHORTER, TALLER OR ANY OTHER "ER": FULLSTOP.

Wrong. If you've heard of genetically inherited mental illnesses and the fact that mental retardation occurs more often in inbred populations, than you know that genes due influence the formation of the human mind.

Yes...I do know that. I already said there are there are significant genetic differences in intelligence between people, but as was pointed out in the AAA quote: there are more differences within races than between them so it's not very meaningful to try and draw any conclusions about intelligence from superficial classifications like race.

There was a study done with identical twins who were separated at birth to see whether there were any personality similarities. The study found good evidence that a portion of the personality traits found among humans are genetically inherited. One of the twins was so blown away by the similarities between him and his brother that he said, "From where I'm standing, everything is genetic." Of course, he was greatly exaggerating. He was forgetting that things like culture, language, and technology have been found to spread from one group of people to another and currently are spreading from one group of people to another.

What we are seems to be a combination of genes and environment...so it's not surprising twins share similar personality traits, even when seperated at birth. I've never argued that genes aren't significant... what I AM saying is that it is our genes[along with environment], not our race, which determines intelligence.

I already did give a straight answer. I said it depends on what black person or white person you're talking about. I don't think every black guy is going to be smarter than every white guy and I don't think that every white guy is going to be smarter than every black guy.

I agree. Is there a "but" to that...? If you're not claiming one race is genetically superior in intelligence to another then I have no argument to make. But if, on the other hand you are saying race does determine intelligence...which is the impression I am getting, then I would dispute it.

According to the definition I quoted above from the American Heritage College Dictionary, a race doesn't need to be a clearly demarcated biologically distinct group to be a race. If you'll read the definition of race I gave again, you will notice that it says "more or less distinct."

Well I think the Anthropological society has probably gone into this in more depth than the "Heritage dictionary". No-one is saying there is no such thing as "race" as a term to describe populations...just that it has little value as a yardstick for biological demarcation within the human species.

I don't buy into that argument. Under that argument, languages can't be classified because languages, like races, are mixtures between one language and another. English borrowed a lot of words from French after the Norman Conquest. Does that mean that English can't be classified as a Germanic language?

But what significance is this? Like languages, races may be classified, Caucasian, Asian etc. but what AAA is saying is that races are NOT biologically distinct groups. Our human differences run the gamut of all races. It's possible there is as much biological difference between you and George Bush as their is between you and Kim Jong-il.

The majority of genetic variation is within, not between, "races." And of the small amount of total human variation, fully 85 percent exists within any local population, be they Russians, Inuit, Kenyans, Thais, or Canadians. About 94 percent can be found within any continent. That means two random Japanese may be as genetically different as a Japanese and a Brazilian.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

But Jar, pushing all previous arguments aside....there are many more commonalities between humans than differences. I don't see much to be gained by focusing on the differences and using them as a wedge to divide us further. Whether the intention is to do this or not...that is the effect.

For the sake of argument, suppose someone did come up with definitive evidence that race determined intelligence...what would that mean? What, if anything would we do about it?

[JAR]

Jessica Blue, in case you don't know this, there is more to race than white people, black people, etc.

A race is a human population with more or less distinct genetically transmitted physical characteristics. So one could even speak of there being an American race.

Due to a thing called mutation of DNA, there are going to be genetically transmitted physical characteristics found among Americans that aren't among non-Americans. So Americans are a human population with more or less distinct genetically transmitted physical characteristics, and thus are a race.

As I said in another thread, there is a gene called the Nogo gene and it is required that a person have two of them in order to be able to get schizophrenia during his or her lifetime. One could speak of there being a "people with a Nogo gene" race. That would fit the description of a human population with more or less distinct genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

Now, you might ask me whether I think the frequency of genetically very intelligent people will differ from race to race. My answer to that would be "yes."

I think the frequency of genetically very intelligent people will not be the same among African-Americans as it is among European-Americans. Whether it is African-Americans who tend to be genetically intelligent more often or European-Americans is something I don't know.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by JAR
Jessica Blue, in case you don't know this, there is more to race than white people, black people, etc.

There is indeed. Race is a very general grouping of people by sets of characteristics which tend to occur together. However, not all members of a group with closely similar genetic backgrounds will exhibit all of the characteristics in the set, and some will exhibit them to greater or lesser extents. Not all negros have curly hair, for example, though it is extremely common.

Originally posted by JAR
A race is a human population with more or less distinct genetically transmitted physical characteristics. So one could even speak of there being an American race.
Not very likely that there will be an American race because there will be no set of physical characteristics to define them. (Unless you are talking about Native Americans.) The reason that these characteristics are found grouped is because populations exist in genetic isolation from other populations, either geographically or culturally. That still happens in some places in the world, but certainly not very much in America. Admittedly, a lot of cultural isolation occurs, but the opportunity for cross-cultural breeding happens so often that the distinct physical traits of our ethnic groups are growing less distinct.

Originally posted by JAR
Due to a thing called mutation of DNA, there are going to be genetically transmitted physical characteristics found among Americans that aren't among non-Americans. So Americans are a human population with more or less distinct genetically transmitted physical characteristics, and thus are a race.
I don't think you have a very extensive grasp of genetics. Favorable mutations are incredibly rare. Most of the characteristics of a human group are due to many millenia of natural selection. What is interesting (and scary to some alarmists) is that natural selection is being overriden by "deliberate selection". People can and do choose not to have children with specific birth defects, even if recessive. Such a thing was impossible less than 100 years ago. It is hard to tell what the long-term effect on humanity will be.

Much more easy to detect is the effect that deliberate selection has had on other species. Plant hybrids are the dominant crops these days. Livestock are bred for resistance to disease and many other factors. Their ability to survive on their own is no longer a factor. Now, with genetic engineering, it is likely that natural selection will become even less of a factor in the future genetic makeup of the species on Earth.

Originally posted by JAR
As I said in another thread, there is a gene called the Nogo gene and it is required that a person have two of them in order to be able to get schizophrenia during his or her lifetime. One could speak of there being a "people with a Nogo gene" race. That would fit the description of a human population with more or less distinct genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
I do not believe that schizoprenia has been tied to a specific genetic marker. Can you provide a reference? Besides, schizophrenia is not a "physical" characteristic.

Originally posted by JAR
Now, you might ask me whether I think the frequency of genetically very intelligent people will differ from race to race. My answer to that would be "yes."
Oddly, I'm going to agree with you here, sort of. In view of how many things we are discovering to have a genetic component, I think it is wrong to throw it out as relating to certain mental traits. However, there is not general agreement as to what constitutes "intelligence". In our cultural chauvinism, we tend to define it as the ability to perform well on language and mathmatics tests. I believe there is much more to it than that. Most are familiar with the term "educated fool" for someone who can do great on tests, but cannot function well in everyday life. Are those people intelligent? Depends on how you define it.

If you say that the ability to perform well on certain types of tests has a genetic component, then I think you may have a case, but it is certainly not a well-defined component. Culture seems to have more influence.

Originally posted by JAR
I think the frequency of genetically very intelligent people will not be the same among African-Americans as it is among European-Americans. Whether it is African-Americans who tend to be genetically intelligent more often or European-Americans is something I don't know.
Again, you are going to need to come up with a standard definition of "intelligent" before you can begin to assess such things. If you are living in Africa, then the ability to track game may be more "intelligent" than the ability to work sums.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Tricky
schizophrenia is not a "physical" characteristic.

"Physical" means "of or pertaining to the body."

Schizophrenia falls under that category.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Tricky
I do not believe that schizoprenia has been tied to a specific genetic marker. Can you provide a reference?
Okay, you got me. I checked a site on it and it said that the gene wasn't required for one to get schizophrenia. That's what happens with bad memory. Sorry.

Edited to add: Here's an article on the Nogo gene: http://www.mental-health-today.com/sphra/gene.htm

[Tricky]

Originally posted by JAR

"Physical" means "of or pertaining to the body."

Schizophrenia falls under that category.
Normally, "physical" ailments do not pertain to mental illness. I don't ever recall schizophrenia being called a physical ailment.

As I said, we are finding out that more and more illnesses, like alcoholism, have a genetic component. But when it comes to mental illness, that component generally increases the risk, but is not the only factor.

Thank you for correcting that and thanks for the link.

[Jessica Blue]

What is interesting (and scary to some alarmists) is that natural selection is being overriden by "deliberate selection". People can and do choose not to have children with specific birth defects, even if recessive. Such a thing was impossible less than 100 years ago. It is hard to tell what the long-term effect on humanity will be.

Tricky,

I think this is interesting too...and a bit scary, especially if those selections expand into very specific gene selection and possibly are market driven[I'm an alarmist]. Not just because it may reduce important diversity, but because of the possibility it may ultimately lead to a subspecies. Imagine a whole group of people who aren't in a position to opt for the best genes and are left to the vagaries of the genetic dice game, while a race of genetically modified physical and intellectual superiors emerges.[closes her copy of Brave New Word]

This may not happen of course...we may all get to benefit in some way or we may not go so far down that road that this would be an issue. Or we may just design ourselves out of existence...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
I think this is interesting too...and a bit scary, especially if those selections expand into very specific gene selection and possibly are market driven[I'm an alarmist].
I think I chose poorly in using the word "alarmist". I agree that this is a serious issue that should be investigated thoroughly. I am somewhat of an optimist, so I don't see gloom and doom in everything we do, but I do see danger. I can see a whole bunch of "what ifs" in our meddling with natural selection, some which are indeed scary. I have some faith in our ability to adapt, but I believe we are making changes that will radically alter the nature of the world. Maybe for better, maybe for worse.

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Not just because it may reduce important diversity, but because of the possibility it may ultimately lead to a subspecies. Imagine a whole group of people who aren't in a position to opt for the best genes and are left to the vagaries of the genetic dice game, while a race of genetically modified physical and intellectual superiors emerges.[closes her copy of Brave New Word]
Yeah, well in Brave New World, they were at least wise enough to leave a "natural breeding" segment of the population out there to maintain a hedge against unforseen circumstances. (It's one of my favorite books.) But I cannot see speciation happening, at least in any near-future scenario, unless we somehow restrict the "modified" people to only breeding with their kind. Otherwise, it seems they would pass their "superior" genes to the whole gene pool.

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
This may not happen of course...we may all get to benefit in some way or we may not go so far down that road that this would be an issue. Or we may just design ourselves out of existence...
I strongly believe that something we do will either "design ourselves out of existence", or pollute ourselves out of existence or nuke ourselves out of existence or overpopulate ourselves out of existence. Hopefully, it will not be "out of existence", but only greatly reduced in numbers, enough such that we cannot influence the way nature works so strongly as we do now. I hope we will do this gradually. I fear it will be cataclysmic.

[Jessica Blue]

But I cannot see speciation happening, at least in any near-future scenario, unless we somehow restrict the "modified" people to only breeding with their kind. Otherwise, it seems they would pass their "superior" genes to the whole gene pool.

I hadn't considered that. Assuming of course that these potentially god-like creatures would want to copulate with the lower end of the gene pool. Like does tend to breed with like. The *natural breeders* might come to be regarded in a similar way to how we regard the chimpanzee...only a 2% difference, yet what a divide. Would you take a chimpanzee home from a nightclub...? LOL


I am somewhat of an optimist, so I don't see gloom and doom in everything we do, but I do see danger.

I'm the same. I do think there's great potential for humanity in gene research, therapeutic cloning etc., so long as we tread carefully and keep an eye out for cynical exploiters.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

Normally, "physical" ailments do not pertain to mental illness. I don't ever recall schizophrenia being called a physical ailment.

As I said, we are finding out that more and more illnesses, like alcoholism, have a genetic component. But when it comes to mental illness, that component generally increases the risk, but is not the only factor.

Thank you for correcting that and thanks for the link.

Isn’t a schizophrenic brain different, physically, than a normal one?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
Isn’t a schizophrenic brain different, physically, than a normal one?
I put it to you. If you had the brains of two dead people, one of which had been schizophrenic, do you think a doctor could tell which is which?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

I put it to you. If you had the brains of two dead people, one of which had been schizophrenic, do you think a doctor could tell which is which?

I dunno, I was asking you the question. I seem to have heard that somewhere but wasnt sure.

If you dont know the answer just say so, dont retort with another question.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
I hadn't considered that. Assuming of course that these potentially god-like creatures would want to copulate with the lower end of the gene pool. Like does tend to breed with like. The *natural breeders* might come to be regarded in a similar way to how we regard the chimpanzee...only a 2% difference, yet what a divide. Would you take a chimpanzee home from a nightclub...? LOL
Well, as I say, genetic isolation can be cultural. Considering what I have seem some people come home with when they have been drinking, I could not rule out chimpanzees. Not me, of course. I met my wife at a nightclub. ;)

But you are right that there might be a tendency for "implants" (as David Brin called them in the excellent book The Postman, not to be confused with the horrible movie), to concentrate their genes by selectively choosing other implants to breed with. Still, some of the genes are bound to get loose in the general public and establish their selective advantages there too.
Originally posted by Jessica Blue

I'm the same. I do think there's great potential for humanity in gene research, therapeutic cloning etc., so long as we tread carefully and keep an eye out for cynical exploiters.
Brave New World was a very important cautionary tale, but in the end, it too was optimistic. I agree that skeptical optimism is the way to go.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
I dunno, I was asking you the question. I seem to have heard that somewhere but wasnt sure.

If you dont know the answer just say so, dont retort with another question.
I was hoping to prod you to answer the question for yourself. But okay then, no. There is no discernable difference in a schizophrenic brain versus a "normal" brain. If there was, then we would be able to diagnose schzophrenics without talking to them.