The left's rejection of science

[P@triot]

This thread has been epic...and it indisputably proves that the left denies science. Little mamooth is even denying that scientists are scientists! They deny that predictions are made, they deny that the predictions failed to come true (even though there were "no" predictions...wink, wink). They deny articles which quote those scientists. They deny that X and Y chromosomes dictate gender.

They deny everything about science.

 

[P@triot]

Just remember mamooth - this is what happens when you serve Satan. When a light is shined on the lies - you are forced to retreat and run back to the darkness.

 

[Correll]

If it's passed, challenged and ruled on by the SCOTUS? Is it constitutional then, "patriot"?

So if the Republicans pass a bill tomorrow stating that it is in the "General Welfare" of the United States to immediately execute all Democrats - and the Supreme Court upheld it - you would honestly consider that to be "constitutional"? You would support it? Don't be a coward SW.... Yes or No?

No moron.

The MTV spot was literally saying that black people can't be racist to white people.



Racism is entirely about morality. Your supposed social standing is literally irrelevant.

I don't get what your argument with me is. I agree that anybody can be racist. If people say otherwise then I don't agree with them. However, as I explained, there is a point to be made about the difference between black and white racism in America society that is a result of our history.

Do you support the 230 sat point bonus blacks get for being black in Ivy League College admissions.

I don't know much about it but on the surface it doesn't seem like something i'd support. i'm fine with scholarships for the black community and programs that help get minorities better education and into better schools. Diversity is important and education is the best way to help any group ascend out of poverty, but giving a SAT bump doesn't make sense to me. I haven't read much on the issue though.

If you support the idea that "diversity" is important, and that programs to help minorities bet better education an into better schools, then you support the 230 point bump.

Because that's how they get the bump.


YOu can't discriminate in favor of one group, without discriminating against others.

Can you remedy the effects of 300 years of discrimination by doing nothing?

And again, the lefty dismisses everything that has been done to date, and demands action as though it is 1699.

 

[Correll]

Can you remedy the effects of 300 years of discrimination by doing nothing?

Yep. Nothing remedies problems of the U.S. better than the government doing absolutely nothing. We they stay out of it - there is a fair and level playing field.

That is how you maintain the effects of the 300 year old penalty imposed on black America. That just guarantees they'll always start from a disadvantaged position.

That's a cool left-wing talking point. But it's simply not true.

So you believe, minus any and all government intervention, that a black kid in a poor family in a crime ridden inner city has exactly the same opportunity for success in life as does the white kid from the doctor/lawyer family living way across town.

Prove it.

And the lefty complete dismisses the interests or importance, even EXISTENCE of poor and/or working class whites.

 

[Correll]

If you support the idea that "diversity" is important, and that programs to help minorities bet better education an into better schools, then you support the 230 point bump.

Because that's how they get the bump.


YOu can't discriminate in favor of one group, without discriminating against others.

haha, nice try. I can support efforts to help minority groups and also disapprove of methods. For instance I support providing government assistance to our elderly, disabled, vets, and our poor, but I think there is tremendous waste in our welfare programs and a need for reform. Just because I support these efforts doesn't mean I support the current methods. So while I do support helping minority groups get better education, I can disagree with the method of simply bumping their SAT scores because they are a minority. I don't see the effectiveness in doing that, it actually seems counter productive IMO.

They don't simply bump the SAT scores.

They have "efforts to help minority students". They work to get a more "diverse student body". They "target" minorities. ect ect ect.

The EFFECT is a 230 point sat point bump, revealed though statistical analysis of Ivy League Admission records.

You CAN'T discriminate in favor of one group, without discriminating against another, in a system of limited resources.


THe difference between "racism" and anti-white racism in our society, is that one is illegal and taboo, and the other is National Policy and celebrated.

I also believe you are misusing the term racism in relation to this issue. Racism involves discrimination on the belief that one race is superior to another. This situation is providing opportunity to people based on race because of systemic and cultural disadvantages that their racial group is in. It is not imposing discrimination against whites based on the belief that blacks are superior

Slavery and past injustices are often mentioned in this debate.

As is the idea that blacks opinion on such issues should be given more weight because of their history.


The idea, though rarely coherently expressed, is that whites carry a Karmic Debt due to past injustices.

And that even if current whites, who were born long after the injustices, still owe this debt.


That is a form of saying that whites are morally inferior and thus racism.

Wow, you don't honestly believe that do you? Can you really say with a straight face that a poor white guy has a harder time finding work than a poor black guy? Even with all these advantages that you oppose

Here's the reason why the SAT bonus for blacks in Ivy League admissions is so often discussed, not because there is any reason to believe that the factors encouraging discrimination are STRONGER in Ivy League Admissions, but that it is very competitive and very well DOCUMENTED, as opposed to hiring.


If a poor white kid and a poor black kid both apply to the same Ivy League school, and have identical application packets and SAT scores, the poor white kid will have a MUCH HARDER time of getting admitted than the poor black kid.


And all the reasons for that discrimination are seen in employment, celebration of Diversity, targeting of minorities, fear of discrimination lawsuits if minorities are under represented regardless of reasons, ect.

That's not my belief, that is documented reality to the tune of 230 SAT points.

 

[Slade3200]

haha, nice try. I can support efforts to help minority groups and also disapprove of methods. For instance I support providing government assistance to our elderly, disabled, vets, and our poor, but I think there is tremendous waste in our welfare programs and a need for reform. Just because I support these efforts doesn't mean I support the current methods. So while I do support helping minority groups get better education, I can disagree with the method of simply bumping their SAT scores because they are a minority. I don't see the effectiveness in doing that, it actually seems counter productive IMO.

They don't simply bump the SAT scores.

They have "efforts to help minority students". They work to get a more "diverse student body". They "target" minorities. ect ect ect.

The EFFECT is a 230 point sat point bump, revealed though statistical analysis of Ivy League Admission records.

You CAN'T discriminate in favor of one group, without discriminating against another, in a system of limited resources.


THe difference between "racism" and anti-white racism in our society, is that one is illegal and taboo, and the other is National Policy and celebrated.

I also believe you are misusing the term racism in relation to this issue. Racism involves discrimination on the belief that one race is superior to another. This situation is providing opportunity to people based on race because of systemic and cultural disadvantages that their racial group is in. It is not imposing discrimination against whites based on the belief that blacks are superior

Slavery and past injustices are often mentioned in this debate.

As is the idea that blacks opinion on such issues should be given more weight because of their history.


The idea, though rarely coherently expressed, is that whites carry a Karmic Debt due to past injustices.

And that even if current whites, who were born long after the injustices, still owe this debt.


That is a form of saying that whites are morally inferior and thus racism.

Wow, you don't honestly believe that do you? Can you really say with a straight face that a poor white guy has a harder time finding work than a poor black guy? Even with all these advantages that you oppose

Here's the reason why the SAT bonus for blacks in Ivy League admissions is so often discussed, not because there is any reason to believe that the factors encouraging discrimination are STRONGER in Ivy League Admissions, but that it is very competitive and very well DOCUMENTED, as opposed to hiring.


If a poor white kid and a poor black kid both apply to the same Ivy League school, and have identical application packets and SAT scores, the poor white kid will have a MUCH HARDER time of getting admitted than the poor black kid.


And all the reasons for that discrimination are seen in employment, celebration of Diversity, targeting of minorities, fear of discrimination lawsuits if minorities are under represented regardless of reasons, ect.

That's not my belief, that is documented reality to the tune of 230 SAT points.

What's the percentage of white kids in college vs black kids? You didn't answer my question from before so I'll try again. Who has a better chance of getting a job? Poor white guy or poor black guy. Go by the stats

 

[NYcarbineer]

If it's passed, challenged and ruled on by the SCOTUS? Is it constitutional then, "patriot"?

So if the Republicans pass a bill tomorrow stating that it is in the "General Welfare" of the United States to immediately execute all Democrats - and the Supreme Court upheld it - you would honestly consider that to be "constitutional"? You would support it? Don't be a coward SW.... Yes or No?

I don't get what your argument with me is. I agree that anybody can be racist. If people say otherwise then I don't agree with them. However, as I explained, there is a point to be made about the difference between black and white racism in America society that is a result of our history.

Do you support the 230 sat point bonus blacks get for being black in Ivy League College admissions.

I don't know much about it but on the surface it doesn't seem like something i'd support. i'm fine with scholarships for the black community and programs that help get minorities better education and into better schools. Diversity is important and education is the best way to help any group ascend out of poverty, but giving a SAT bump doesn't make sense to me. I haven't read much on the issue though.

If you support the idea that "diversity" is important, and that programs to help minorities bet better education an into better schools, then you support the 230 point bump.

Because that's how they get the bump.


YOu can't discriminate in favor of one group, without discriminating against others.

Can you remedy the effects of 300 years of discrimination by doing nothing?

And again, the lefty dismisses everything that has been done to date, and demands action as though it is 1699.

You mean everything that conservatives have opposed every step of the way?

lolol

 

[mamooth]

Just remember mamooth

Holy shit! _Six_ weepy butthurt posts from you in a row. That's got to be some kind of record. I've had old faggot stalkers crying at me before, but none of them were as obsessed as you.

Notice nobody will pay attention to you any more? That's because arguing with you is like winning the Special Olympics. Even when you win, the fact that you participated means you're retarded. Talking to you is a retarded thing to do, so I'll stop now.

 

[Wyatt earp]

That part in red was in my origninal post, bitch.

Get over yourself. When you post meaningless crap, there's no point in addressing it. The only thing that mattered was that he was a biologist.

Which means you had to intentionally delete his credentials since it was missing from your response. Oops...

Golly, he's a highly credentialled biologist! He's still a biologist. Hence, he's still not a climate scientist.

According to your 'tard theory, a highly credentialled medical doctor is a climate scientist, a highly credentialled architect is a climate scientist, and a highly credentialled carpenter is a climate scientist.

Hence, your 'tard theory is amazingly stupid.

Yet worm scientist

√

Off on global warming , how does that happen you ignoramus

Funding?

Do you want me to post the link again..

I will

 

[Wyatt earp]

Just remember mamooth

Holy shit! _Six_ weepy butthurt posts from you in a row. That's got to be some kind of record. I've had old faggot stalkers crying at me before, but none of them were as obsessed as you.

Notice nobody will pay attention to you any more? That's because arguing with you is like winning the Special Olympics. Even when you win, the fact that you participated means you're retarded. Talking to you is a retarded thing to do, so I'll stop now.

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

 

[Wyatt earp]

Just remember mamooth

Holy shit! _Six_ weepy butthurt posts from you in a row. That's got to be some kind of record. I've had old faggot stalkers crying at me before, but none of them were as obsessed as you.

Notice nobody will pay attention to you any more? That's because arguing with you is like winning the Special Olympics. Even when you win, the fact that you participated means you're retarded. Talking to you is a retarded thing to do, so I'll stop now.

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

My favorite

 

[Correll]

They don't simply bump the SAT scores.

They have "efforts to help minority students". They work to get a more "diverse student body". They "target" minorities. ect ect ect.

The EFFECT is a 230 point sat point bump, revealed though statistical analysis of Ivy League Admission records.

You CAN'T discriminate in favor of one group, without discriminating against another, in a system of limited resources.


THe difference between "racism" and anti-white racism in our society, is that one is illegal and taboo, and the other is National Policy and celebrated.

I also believe you are misusing the term racism in relation to this issue. Racism involves discrimination on the belief that one race is superior to another. This situation is providing opportunity to people based on race because of systemic and cultural disadvantages that their racial group is in. It is not imposing discrimination against whites based on the belief that blacks are superior

Slavery and past injustices are often mentioned in this debate.

As is the idea that blacks opinion on such issues should be given more weight because of their history.


The idea, though rarely coherently expressed, is that whites carry a Karmic Debt due to past injustices.

And that even if current whites, who were born long after the injustices, still owe this debt.


That is a form of saying that whites are morally inferior and thus racism.

Wow, you don't honestly believe that do you? Can you really say with a straight face that a poor white guy has a harder time finding work than a poor black guy? Even with all these advantages that you oppose

Here's the reason why the SAT bonus for blacks in Ivy League admissions is so often discussed, not because there is any reason to believe that the factors encouraging discrimination are STRONGER in Ivy League Admissions, but that it is very competitive and very well DOCUMENTED, as opposed to hiring.


If a poor white kid and a poor black kid both apply to the same Ivy League school, and have identical application packets and SAT scores, the poor white kid will have a MUCH HARDER time of getting admitted than the poor black kid.


And all the reasons for that discrimination are seen in employment, celebration of Diversity, targeting of minorities, fear of discrimination lawsuits if minorities are under represented regardless of reasons, ect.

That's not my belief, that is documented reality to the tune of 230 SAT points.

What's the percentage of white kids in college vs black kids? You didn't answer my question from before so I'll try again. Who has a better chance of getting a job? Poor white guy or poor black guy. Go by the stats

Your question demonstrates my point.

I am against discrimination.

You want equality of outcome for groups, REGARDLESS OF THE QUALIFICATIONS AND WORK OF INDIVIDUALS.


That IS discrimination. You are judging people, not by their actions, or the content of their character, BUT BY THEIR SKIN COLOR.

 

[Correll]

If it's passed, challenged and ruled on by the SCOTUS? Is it constitutional then, "patriot"?

So if the Republicans pass a bill tomorrow stating that it is in the "General Welfare" of the United States to immediately execute all Democrats - and the Supreme Court upheld it - you would honestly consider that to be "constitutional"? You would support it? Don't be a coward SW.... Yes or No?

Do you support the 230 sat point bonus blacks get for being black in Ivy League College admissions.

I don't know much about it but on the surface it doesn't seem like something i'd support. i'm fine with scholarships for the black community and programs that help get minorities better education and into better schools. Diversity is important and education is the best way to help any group ascend out of poverty, but giving a SAT bump doesn't make sense to me. I haven't read much on the issue though.

If you support the idea that "diversity" is important, and that programs to help minorities bet better education an into better schools, then you support the 230 point bump.

Because that's how they get the bump.


YOu can't discriminate in favor of one group, without discriminating against others.

Can you remedy the effects of 300 years of discrimination by doing nothing?

And again, the lefty dismisses everything that has been done to date, and demands action as though it is 1699.

You mean everything that conservatives have opposed every step of the way?

lolol

Your confusion on history is noted.

Radical Republicans have been at the front of this battle for centuries, and still are.

 

[toobfreak]

I am against discrimination.

You want equality of outcome for groups, REGARDLESS OF THE QUALIFICATIONS AND WORK OF INDIVIDUALS.

That IS discrimination. You are judging people, not by their actions, or the content of their character, BUT BY THEIR SKIN COLOR.

Correll, Dude, you are hopelessly confused. Wanting everyone to get the same outcome regardless of qualification is being indiscriminate. So you are FOR discrimination.

The sorry truth often suppressed today is that discrimination is GOOD. When the tree lizard discriminates between food and a predator, he survives another day. Discrimination is good. When you discriminate between a green light and a red one and stop at the intersection rather than plow into traffic killing yourself, discrimination is good. When an IDF agent discriminates between a legitimate terror threat as a person of interest and stops him for questioning rather than search every man, woman and child as the TSA blindly does, they prove once again that discrimination is good. When you discriminate between a person fooling around and one choking on food to give them the Heimlich maneuver to dislodge the food saving his life, you've proven that discrimination is good. And when an HR agent discriminates between a qualified candidate able to do an important and sensitive job from a hoax with a fake resume, you have proven that discrimination is good.

Discrimination is the ability to tell left from right, up from down, friend from foe, good from bad. It is the essential tool of survival. Only modern liberal society could find it something bad to be stamp out. That is the root cause of most of our problems! The liberal sees the world through the lens of ideals rather than how it really is. It is a loss of common sense starting with the inability to think and reason for oneself.

 

[mamooth]

1. Harvard biologist George Wald

So, you couldn't show a single climate scientist making a bad prediction either.

Given that you can't ever show it, why does everyone in your cult lie and pretend they can? Everyone knows you're lying, so it's not like you're fooling anyone.

You deniers have been predicting "ice age tomorrow!" for 40 years running now. You're still predicting it. The ice age never gets here, and it keeps warming strongly instead. No matter. The faith that you cultists hold in your ice age religion is pure, and you still BELIEVE that your HolyIceAge will get here any day now.

In contrast, the real scientists have been predicting warming all that time. You predicted ice ages, we predicted warming, we were right. The climate scientists have gotten everything right for the past 40 years. That's why they have credibility, because they've earned it through success.

If your cult wants the same credibility, you have to stop doing faceplants into cow patties, and start making successful predictions instead of failing at every prediction. Going on message boards to whine about how meeeeeeeaaaaaaaaan the smart people are for laughing at you won't earn you credibility, so you snowflakes should abandon that tactic.

 

[Slade3200]

I also believe you are misusing the term racism in relation to this issue. Racism involves discrimination on the belief that one race is superior to another. This situation is providing opportunity to people based on race because of systemic and cultural disadvantages that their racial group is in. It is not imposing discrimination against whites based on the belief that blacks are superior

Slavery and past injustices are often mentioned in this debate.

As is the idea that blacks opinion on such issues should be given more weight because of their history.


The idea, though rarely coherently expressed, is that whites carry a Karmic Debt due to past injustices.

And that even if current whites, who were born long after the injustices, still owe this debt.


That is a form of saying that whites are morally inferior and thus racism.

Wow, you don't honestly believe that do you? Can you really say with a straight face that a poor white guy has a harder time finding work than a poor black guy? Even with all these advantages that you oppose

Here's the reason why the SAT bonus for blacks in Ivy League admissions is so often discussed, not because there is any reason to believe that the factors encouraging discrimination are STRONGER in Ivy League Admissions, but that it is very competitive and very well DOCUMENTED, as opposed to hiring.


If a poor white kid and a poor black kid both apply to the same Ivy League school, and have identical application packets and SAT scores, the poor white kid will have a MUCH HARDER time of getting admitted than the poor black kid.


And all the reasons for that discrimination are seen in employment, celebration of Diversity, targeting of minorities, fear of discrimination lawsuits if minorities are under represented regardless of reasons, ect.

That's not my belief, that is documented reality to the tune of 230 SAT points.

What's the percentage of white kids in college vs black kids? You didn't answer my question from before so I'll try again. Who has a better chance of getting a job? Poor white guy or poor black guy. Go by the stats

Your question demonstrates my point.

I am against discrimination.

You want equality of outcome for groups, REGARDLESS OF THE QUALIFICATIONS AND WORK OF INDIVIDUALS.


That IS discrimination. You are judging people, not by their actions, or the content of their character, BUT BY THEIR SKIN COLOR.

Well given the fact that there are still people alive today that had to use different bathrooms, sit in the back of the bus, were not allowed to attend universities and received little to no opportunity to conduct business and gain wealth in this country, I believe some efforts to balance the scales makes sense. You don't just pass a laws and erase the effects of generations of oppression. Do you really not understand that?

 

[Wyatt earp]

1. Harvard biologist George Wald

So, you couldn't show a single climate scientist making a bad prediction either.

Given that you can't ever show it, why does everyone in your cult lie and pretend they can? Everyone knows you're lying, so it's not like you're fooling anyone.

You deniers have been predicting "ice age tomorrow!" for 40 years running now. You're still predicting it. The ice age never gets here, and it keeps warming strongly instead. No matter. The faith that you cultists hold in your ice age religion is pure, and you still BELIEVE that your HolyIceAge will get here any day now.

In contrast, the real scientists have been predicting warming all that time. You predicted ice ages, we predicted warming, we were right. The climate scientists have gotten everything right for the past 40 years. That's why they have credibility, because they've earned it through success.

If your cult wants the same credibility, you have to stop doing faceplants into cow patties, and start making successful predictions instead of failing at every prediction. Going on message boards to whine about how meeeeeeeaaaaaaaaan the smart people are for laughing at you won't earn you credibility, so you snowflakes should abandon that tactic.

So now in your world the media today gets its information from scientist...



But yet the same media 40 years ago got it's information from clowns?

Wtf...



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Slavery and past injustices are often mentioned in this debate.

As is the idea that blacks opinion on such issues should be given more weight because of their history.


The idea, though rarely coherently expressed, is that whites carry a Karmic Debt due to past injustices.

And that even if current whites, who were born long after the injustices, still owe this debt.


That is a form of saying that whites are morally inferior and thus racism.

Wow, you don't honestly believe that do you? Can you really say with a straight face that a poor white guy has a harder time finding work than a poor black guy? Even with all these advantages that you oppose

Here's the reason why the SAT bonus for blacks in Ivy League admissions is so often discussed, not because there is any reason to believe that the factors encouraging discrimination are STRONGER in Ivy League Admissions, but that it is very competitive and very well DOCUMENTED, as opposed to hiring.


If a poor white kid and a poor black kid both apply to the same Ivy League school, and have identical application packets and SAT scores, the poor white kid will have a MUCH HARDER time of getting admitted than the poor black kid.


And all the reasons for that discrimination are seen in employment, celebration of Diversity, targeting of minorities, fear of discrimination lawsuits if minorities are under represented regardless of reasons, ect.

That's not my belief, that is documented reality to the tune of 230 SAT points.

What's the percentage of white kids in college vs black kids? You didn't answer my question from before so I'll try again. Who has a better chance of getting a job? Poor white guy or poor black guy. Go by the stats

Your question demonstrates my point.

I am against discrimination.

You want equality of outcome for groups, REGARDLESS OF THE QUALIFICATIONS AND WORK OF INDIVIDUALS.


That IS discrimination. You are judging people, not by their actions, or the content of their character, BUT BY THEIR SKIN COLOR.

Well given the fact that there are still people alive today that had to use different bathrooms, sit in the back of the bus, were not allowed to attend universities and received little to no opportunity to conduct business and gain wealth in this country, I believe some efforts to balance the scales makes sense. You don't just pass a laws and erase the effects of generations of oppression. Do you really not understand that?

They are all retired now.
.

 

[Doc1]

The Left does what it always does, it manipulates. It manipulates data to make it say whatever they need it to say. It manipulates the Law to use it to their advantage.

 

[radical right]

The sorry truth often suppressed today is that discrimination is GOOD. When the tree lizard discriminates between food and a predator, he survives another day. Discrimination is good. When you discriminate between a green light and a red one and stop at the intersection rather than plow into traffic killing yourself, discrimination is good. When an IDF agent discriminates between a legitimate terror threat as a person of interest and stops him for questioning rather than search every man, woman and child as the TSA blindly does, they prove once again that discrimination is good. When you discriminate between a person fooling around and one choking on food to give them the Heimlich maneuver to dislodge the food saving his life, you've proven that discrimination is good. And when an HR agent discriminates between a qualified candidate able to do an important and sensitive job from a hoax with a fake resume, you have proven that discrimination is good.

So filling a top government position, do you chose:
A) A person with 30+ years of government experience, knows how congress works from the inside, has a masters and a legal background. or

B) A businessman with no government experience, a bachelors education, six bankrupties failed businesses, settled discrimination and fraud lawsuits to the tune of $26+ million.