How come there isnt a; "Watson did not back up this assertion with scientific evidence, so no reasonable conclusion can be made due to the lack of empirical , peer reveiwed proof." He's a scientist after all, who gives a shit what the great unwashed think. Oh wait, this is a hapaboy thread...................... He would represent the great unwashed, except he's not so great feel free to use that line guys, best i got today
What would the equivalent to abuse of a loved one or a disabled person be in this context? On an anonymous forum like this we're all just virtual entities - what repercussions have we to fear from our decision to participate or not participate? Besides, ignorant morons are people too.. and they're part of the mix.
i know what kind you are. why don't you just open up a little and tell what you think about blacks and jews and arians? you and yours alike have learned to walk the thin line that makes your point shine through without risking a real debate on your real thinkings. do i do you wrong? i doubt it. but if so, just tell me what you think on races. in your words, not quoting someone. just yourself. are your superior to other races? shall a black man be allowed to marry a white, blond girl? and no, english is not my first language. i guess i am still more literate than most of your mental colleagues.
one of the main flaws people make in statistics is mixing up cause and effect. if you compare white and black population with the same income you will not find significant differences in violence. so when you state that black people are more violent you are somehow right, yet very misleading, since it is their social status that causes the violence and not their race. now that is quite an important distortion, intended or not, since we are talking about prejudice against a whole race. and sorry, from a certain level of intelligence people are responsible for keeping up such distortion in public. and i dare say that happens not due to chance but is result of a whole mind set.
hm. point taken. i admit that the thread is going in a certain direction, yet has not landed in deep brown zone as of now. i smell the guys when they creep up. it is a certain use of language. carefully chosen words they use, since they got caught so often when they really said what they thought. and they learned how to stay in the shadow, playing guerilla tactics, using the free speech claim and some other rethoric tricks that makes the innocent reader not see what these people are actual heading for ...
and, in addition, be careful with those who claim free speech for ideas that are against free speech. all the revisonists love free speech and will get rid of it as soon as they can afford to do so. have no illiusions about that. and do not let free speech get jeopardised by people who abuse it in order to destroy it. in a weird way free speech has to protect herself against too free speech. and be sure, these guys have a lot of fun with people that defend their abuse of a good idea ... compare it do democracy. certain parties do not qualify for democracy, namely those, that want to abolish this very system itself.
i think in recent years people with a more open mindset have realised that the values of present society must bedefended at times. against people with very different mindsets.
nevertheless, Stealth Trader does seem to be a guy who knows how to trade and i did not find a racist record. so maybe i am doing him wrong. could be. Stealth, we can leave it like that. i guess we both sense that the other one is not backing down. let us not waste each other's time. good trading.
True, but it seems we're always on a slippery slope; if we manage to scramble back up the one we're on we start sliding down the other side. We're doomed to forever claw our way around on the icy roof of fate. Alas.
If by parties you mean political parties I have to agree with you. Those who declare themselves enemies of democracy should not be allowed to compete for power; their organization into official parties should be forbidden by law.