This **** needs to be tortured 24 hours a day for the rest of his life

[The Master]

Need i say more?

Do you want a rational answer to your post that picks you apart bit by bit?

[bebop396]

better alternative would'nt you say? Instead of showing your imaturity?

[Matt C]

How about this:  You find me some legitimate science that supports IQ being tied genetically to race, because so far, you're just blowing a lot of hot gas and not supporting any argument of your own, but trying (and failing, so far) to strike down mine.

And I don't want to see any bullshit about skull measurements, either.

LOL, when you are ready to refute all of the work of Rushton, Lynn et al, not to mention the recent work of Pinker and Harpending, then we will dance; speaking of Pinker, lets move on...

Lewontin's fallacy has nothing to do with associating IQ with genetics and race.   It's simply an argument that refutes being unable to classify different races by taxonomy.  To understate, it's quite a huge leap to go from that to an attempt to claim that there exists a genetic cause in differences between IQ and race.

No, moron, the point was that it is indeed possible to group humans into taxonomic groups according to race, that is all.

Nobody has said a gene sequence for intelligence has been found. My consistent line - as is the line of Pinker, Harpending, Risch et al - is that it's highly likely that said genes will be found within ten years; why do we think this?  Simply because all of the historical data along with the current psychometric data reveals differences in intelligence between the races, thus, we can conclude it will be only a matter of time before genetics provides the "third pillar" and provides the biological explanations to said differences.

Pinker, Risch et al are already postulating various reasons for intelligence differences between the races; ironically - and to lampoon your fucking ignorance even further - Pinker, Cochran et al have based their postulations on possible links between evolved intelligence [of certain races] and the affect disease may have within.

The paper was published in The Journal of Biosocial Science, published by Cambridge University Press in England.

Of course, we wont wait for you to a) find the post where I have said such genes have yet been found, b) concede this high level science meets your standards, or c) apologize after you graphically fail to fulfill points "a" and "b"

The second link, which you probably didn't even read completely before you posted it, speaks about human classification along biomedical lines; specifically, disease.  What, I ask, does that have to do with intelligence?  Nothing.

As I have just outlined - you silly twat - the point was to first state that human races do in fact exist; that in many fields of science academics do in fact group humans according to race; that these racial groups are not mere social constructs; that different races are susceptible to [for example] different diseases; that - and here is the unifying part that reveals you for the dumb fuck you are - science, as stated, is now exploring the impact of natural selection upon various diseases that may effect the evolved intelligence of certain racial groups i.e: intelligence differences at the racial level and what causes them.

Thirdly, I don't know anything about Risch

Finally, you have stated something that is correct; although you should have suffixed it with "because I'm a fucking moron".

but Dawkins has NEVER said anything to support the relationship between genetics, race, and IQ.  As a matter of fact, it many of his books, he goes out of his way to point out to his readers how we a species overplay differences between race, and how we'd be better off looking at things from a genetic point of view.  Here's a couple quotes, both from the Ancestor's tale:

"...and voice my strong support for Lewontin's statement that racial classification can be actively destructive of social and human relations - especially when people use racial classification as a way of treating people differently..."

"Whatever we may think as observers of superficial appearances, the human species today is, to a geneticist, especially uniform".

Are you dumb?  I simply said, Dawkins subscribes to Lewontin's fallacy, that it is indeed possible to arrange humans into races; that when viewing all the data (whether that data concerns susceptibility to disease, psychometric/intelligence testing, propensity to commit crime) one can clearly see differences between racial groups.

Dawkins - being the genteel gentleman that he is - still doesn't want to understand the human implications of kin selection and thus the implications for racial grouping; that humans naturally tend to discriminate in favor of relatives; that humans engage primarily in endogamy rather than exogamy; that a racial group is simply a partly inbred extended family - see what we've done there, idiot?

If, as Dawkins supposes, the human species is especially uniform based around mere superficial differences, then it would not be possible to [for example] take a blood sample from a subject (a subject that is unknown to the geneticist) and then ask said geneticist to identify the racial group to which the said subject self identifies?

Now, king of clowns, this is where you get body-slammed by your profound ignorance of Neil Risch and reveal your lack of authority to discuss the matter.

Let's Welcome in Neil Risch, a geneticist from Stanford University.  He led a group who concluded that racial groups can differ from one another genetically and that the differences can have medical importance.

Risch was driven to perform his work after reading an article in the New England Journal of Medicine asserting that race was biologically meaningless.

Risch carried out the EXACT test that I outlined above.

Neil Risch, widely regarded as one of the world's leading geneticists, has been a key figure in the still emotion-charged debate. Mr. Risch has argued that small genetic differences have evolved between races because of the geographic isolation of generations of sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasians, Asians, Pacific Islanders and Native Americans.

Mr. Risch has shown that researchers, by analyzing DNA, can correctly match an individual's self-described race in 99.9 per cent of cases. There was a greater chance, he said, that researchers would incorrectly guess an individual's self-described gender.

"There is great validity in racial/ethnic self-categorizations, both from research and public policy points of view," Mr. Risch, now director of the Center for Human Genetics at the University of California, concluded in a 2002 paper in Nature Genetics."

Risch's study was the largest study to find genetic differences between races, got that?  You fool.

Don't blame anyone other than yourself for being ignorant of the data in these fields and the sterling work of elite academics of the calibre of Pinker, Risch and Lynn.

Now, you scurrilous little shit, fuck off and re-read the links and ALL the data that has been published many times before.

[jonsande]

LOL, when you are ready to refute all of the work of Rushton, Lynn et al, not to mention the recent work of Pinker and Harpending, then we will dance; speaking of Pinker, lets move on...

I'm not refuting their work; I'm refuting your charge that you can genetically justify lower IQ in non-handicapped humans by race.  Those two aren't related.

No, moron, the point was that it is indeed possible to group humans into taxonomic groups according to race, that is all.

Agreed.  What does this have to do with the relationship between race, genes, and IQ?  You still haven't answered that question, 4 or 5 posts later. 

Nobody has said a gene sequence for intelligence has been found.

There we are!!! Now we're getting somewhere.  Then what are you arguing about, then?

My consistent line - as is the line of Pinker, Harpending, Risch et al - is that it's highly likely that said genes will be found within ten years;

Drop me a ring in ten years when this happens, and then you might have a real argument.

Pinker, Risch et al are already postulating various reasons for intelligence differences between the races; ironically - and to lampoon your fucking ignorance even further - Pinker, Cochran et al have based their postulations on possible links between evolved intelligence [of certain races] and the affect disease may have within.

The paper was published in The Journal of Biosocial Science, published by Cambridge University Press in England.

Care to explain these 'postulations'?  You've already demonstrated your tremendous ability to read for clarity and comprehension.  Coming from you, it wouldn't surprised me if you've completely fucked up the 'take home' points of the paper you mentioned.  How about you give me the specific journal issue and date so I can look it up, read it, and spell out for you what it's really saying.  Honestly, haven't you learned anything since your last post?  You just can't spit things out without seeing if they really fit in with your argument. 

Of course, we wont wait for you to a) find the post where I have said such genes have yet been found, b) concede this high level science meets your standards, or c) apologize after you graphically fail to fulfill points "a" and "b"

Why not?  I've already given you two quotes directly from the mouth of one of the authors you tried to 'rally behind your cause', and when you failed, discredited him.  How hard could it be for you to give me some real, verifiable quotes from any of the names you mention...you know, just to get me started, perhaps? 

As I have just outlined - you silly twat - the point was to first state that human races do in fact exist; that in many fields of science academics do in fact group humans according to race; that these racial groups are not mere social constructs; that different races are susceptible to [for example] different diseases;

Of course.  But who's arguing against this?  Not me.  Did you ever hear me say that there "aren't races", or that there isn't varying susceptibility to diseases?  Definitely not.  Jeez, first you pull percentages from nowhere, then you put words in my mouth I didn't even come close to saying.  Epic inability to debate.

and here is the unifying part that reveals you for the dumb fuck you are - science, as stated, is now exploring the impact of natural selection upon various diseases that may effect the evolved intelligence of certain racial groups i.e: intelligence differences at the racial level and what causes them.

That's great, but 'starting to explore' most definitely doesn't mean 'scientifically supported'.  Furthermore, I highly doubt the purpose of such study is to justify some claim that blacks (or any other race) have lower IQs because of their genes.  Let's stay on topic here.

Finally, you have stated something that is correct; although you should have suffixed it with "because I'm a fucking moron".

Am I touching a nerve, here? 

Are you dumb?  I simply said, Dawkins subscribes to Lewontin's fallacy, that it is indeed possible to arrange humans into races; that when viewing all the data (whether that data concerns susceptibility to disease, psychometric/intelligence testing, propensity to commit crime) one can clearly see differences between racial groups.

We've dealt with this already - of course we can arrange humans into races.  For susceptibility to disease, skin color, hair type, face structure; physiological characteristics.  But again, for the millionth time here - intelligence testing and especially propensity to commit crime don't fit into such an arrangement.  You can say with ease, 'there are a proportionally higher number of blacks in jail in America' and be unequivocally correct.  But that's obviously different, and wrong, from saying that it's genetics. 

And Dawkins doesn't 'subscribe' to Lewontin's fallacy.  Here's a quote from Lewontin, the source of his fallacy:

"Human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations.  Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtunally no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance".

And now Dawkins (Ancestor's tale, Rendezvous 26), concerning Lewontin's comment:

We can all happily agree that human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations...but that doesn't mean race is of 'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance'...the information content of a statement is measured as reduction in prior uncertainty...what if I tell you Suzy is Chinese, how much is your prior uncertainty reduced?  You're pretty certain that her hair is straight and black...

...and so on.  That's the point here.  You shouldn't interpret Lewontin's fallacy as support  for a genetic relationship between race and IQ.  To do so is to take an extraordinary lengthy jump of reasoning.  Period.

Dawkins - being the genteel gentleman that he is - still doesn't want to understand the human implications of kin selection and thus the implications for racial grouping; that humans naturally tend to discriminate in favor of relatives; that humans engage primarily in endogamy rather than exogamy; that a racial group is simply a partly inbred extended family - see what we've done there, idiot?

Oh brother, now Matt C knows more than the one of the foremost and respected evolutionary biologists of our time...I guess I am an idiot, then. 

If, as Dawkins supposes, the human species is especially uniform based around mere superficial differences, then it would not be possible to [for example] take a blood sample from a subject (a subject that is unknown to the geneticist) and then ask said geneticist to identify the racial group to which the said subject self identifies?

Who denies that?  You can bet your life Richard Dawkins doesn't.  Nor do I. And what does this have to do with IQ again?  You're hopeless. Really.  Dr. Chimps is right about you. 

Now, king of clowns, this is where you get body-slammed by your profound ignorance of Neil Risch and reveal your lack of authority to discuss the matter.

Let's Welcome in Neil Risch, a geneticist from Stanford University.  He led a group who concluded that racial groups can differ from one another genetically and that the differences can have medical importance.

Risch was driven to perform his work after reading an article in the New England Journal of Medicine asserting that race was biologically meaningless.

Risch carried out the EXACT test that I outlined above.

Neil Risch, widely regarded as one of the world's leading geneticists, has been a key figure in the still emotion-charged debate. Mr. Risch has argued that small genetic differences have evolved between races because of the geographic isolation of generations of sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasians, Asians, Pacific Islanders and Native Americans.

Mr. Risch has shown that researchers, by analyzing DNA, can correctly match an individual's self-described race in 99.9 per cent of cases. There was a greater chance, he said, that researchers would incorrectly guess an individual's self-described gender.

"There is great validity in racial/ethnic self-categorizations, both from research and public policy points of view," Mr. Risch, now director of the Center for Human Genetics at the University of California, concluded in a 2002 paper in Nature Genetics."

Risch's study was the largest study to find genetic differences between races, got that?  You fool.

*sigh* Again, no one is denying this.  How many times do I have to say it?  This says nothing about a genetic relationship between race and IQ.

Don't blame anyone other than yourself for being ignorant of the data in these fields and the sterling work of elite academics of the calibre of Pinker, Risch and Lynn.

No Matt, I don't blame you for your repeated failure to stay on topic.  I don't blame you for your inability reason.  I don't blame you for your misuse of the 'sterling work of elite academics' in favor of your unscientific and primitive implication.  I don't blame you for progressively getting whinier and illogical with each post you make in this topic.  I don't blame you for assuming to know the positions of authors, when in fact, you don't.  And when I show that you don't, I don't blame you for flip-flopping worse than the 2000 elections in a laughably pathetic attempt to discredit that author. 

Now, you scurrilous little shit, fuck off and re-read the links and ALL the data that has been published many times before.

Spoken like a true gentleman   I suggest you go back and re-read those published papers.  And some Dawkins; he'll do you nicely.

[Matt C]

Drop me a ring in ten years when this happens, and then you might have a real argument.

Do you also need me to drop you a ring whenever archaeologists dig up all transitional forms of various species before you will believe in evolution.

Science is a self-correcting paradigm which offers the best possible explanation given the totality of the currently available data.

Science says nothing of what truth is - science merely gives us the best possible guess as to what is going on.  Bet your life savings on the accuracy of science and you are making a pretty good bet.  That's not to say it can't be wrong though.

Dawkins' position is clear; that there are separate races but the differences are merely skin deep; no matter his denial to the contrary.

Dawkins gets caught up making the assumption that race, while it exists, is all about surface features:

"Inter-observer agreement suggests that racial classification is not totally uninformative, but what does it inform about?  About things like eye shape and hair curliness.  For some reason it seems to be the superficial, external, trivial characteristics that are correlated with race - perhaps especially facial characteristics."

....unfortunately, Dawkins doesn't offer any persuasive evidence for the cliché that race is just skin deep.

Dawkins also says:

"W.D. Hamilton is a good candidate for the title of most distinguished Darwinian since Darwin."

As stated earlier, Dawkins still doesn't "want to" understand the human implications of what Hamilton was driving at with his theory of kin selection: that humans naturally tend to discriminate in favor of relatives, and a racial group is simply a partly inbred extended family.

He - whether you like it or not - does subscribe to Lewontin's fallacy; he is simply to cowardly to concede that, preferring instead to hide behind his "skin deep" crap.  He - while pointing out differences - certainly hasn't presented any evidence to support his "it's merely skin deep" bullshit; quite frankly he wants to have his cake and eat it too.  Context is everything; while you may be a one dimensional dullard, don't assume there is any inconsistency with my referencing of Dawkins here.

Just because you lack the necessary intellect to challenge Dawkins - much less think for yourself - don't assume the same is true for others.

Your ignorance of the surrounding issues (including but not limited to: psychometric testing together with historical observation) allow us to fully understand why you cannot grasp what is being said here; why you have not even heard of the CHH paper.

You do realize that - as Pinker pointed out - a blue-ribbon panel appointed by the American Psychological Association defined the consensus view as embracing intelligence as a real and stable property; that IQ is a good measure of it; that it is a good predictor of success in life; and it is from 50 - 80% heritable.

^^^ re-read that if it went over your head the first time.

Now, here is the paper in question:

http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

Historical observation, psychometric evidence all leading to the construction of the Cochran-Hardy-Harpending Hypothesis.  As Cochran et al themselves say: "the hypothesis is consistent with the neo-Darwinian synthesis, the historical record, and the genetic and psychometric data"; it is, in short, a work that will be proven true at the biological level.

No one has yet presented an alternative to the Cochran-Hardy-Harpending theory that can match it for documentation, but go ahead, feel free to provide your alternative - oh hang on, you can't, you didn't even know about the CHH paper in the first place so it will be interesting to see how you use your Google-fu to work around that inconvenient little fact, oops.

Dimwit.

[LatsMcGee]

Do you think he was on creatine?

[SAMSON123]

What sort of sick fuck is this guy, I hope the prison population run a train on his ass.


NEW YORK - An ex-convict went on trial Thursday on charges of raping, torturing and burning a Columbia University graduate student in a 19-hour attack during which her eyelids were slit and she was forced to take so many painkillers that her liver failed.

Robert Williams, 31, sat with chained arms and legs, his head lowered, as the prosecutor delivered an opening statement that left several people in the courtroom weeping.

Williams turned the victim's small one-bedroom apartment into "his torture chamber" and violated the 23-year-old woman "in every way imaginable and in some ways unimaginable," Assistant District Attorney Ann Prunty told the jury.
Story continues below ↓advertisement

Prunty said Williams stopped the torture only after the victim — who at one point during the ordeal tried to kill herself — blacked out from hours of pain caused by knife wounds, boiling water, battering and sexual assaults.

"Then he could no longer feel power over another human being," Prunty said.

Life in prison if convicted
Williams is charged with kidnapping, arson, burglary and sexual assault. He faces life in prison if convicted.

The defendant's lawyer, Arnold Levine, tried but failed to have Williams declared mentally unfit for trial. Levine did not make an opening statement.

The victim, a Columbia University journalism graduate student, found Williams in her building's elevator in the Hamilton Heights neighborhood of Upper Manhattan when she came home around 9:30 p.m. on April 13, 2007, Prunty said. She said he followed her to her fifth-floor apartment and attacked her.

During the brutal ordeal, Prunty told jurors, Williams raped the victim, poured boiling water over her, hurled a pot of bleach in her face, ordered her to gouge out her own eyes with a pair of scissors, sealed her lips shut with glue and duct tape and slit her eyelids with a butcher's knife.

After one assault, he forced the woman to swallow a fistful of pills from her medicine cabinet and wash them down with four beers, Prunty said.

Doctors later said the woman's liver had failed, probably because of the medicine, and that a liver transplant might be necessary. Fortunately, the transplant was not needed, Prunty said.

The woman at one point tried to plunge a pair of scissors into her own neck in a bid to commit suicide.

After about 19 hours, Prunty said, Williams tied the naked, unconscious woman to a futon with computer cables and set it on fire. The woman awoke and smelled smoke, broke free and made her way to the hallway, where she was rescued.

Prunty said Williams' DNA was found on the victim and her clothing, and her DNA was found on his clothing. Security cameras captured him trying to withdraw money with the woman's ATM card, she said.

During the time she was conscious, Prunty said, the victim studied Williams closely. Prunty said every scar and feature she later described to police matched the appearance of the defendant.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24993223/

THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED... THIS IS NOT WHAT THE NEWS REPORTED WHEN THIS STORY FIRST BROKE...

This college slut wanted a night of S&M, RAPE and BRUTALITY and she found someone who was willing to provide her that pleasure. She paid the guy to do this to her and when she came down off of her night of extreme drug use she panicked at what she found out about herself: THAT SHE IS A SLUT...so to cover for herself she claimed RAPE. Now supposedly she was tied up and raped and all of these terrible things done to her, but she willingly let the guy into the building, there was no forced entry, she did not bare the marks of rape and this whole ordeal went on for  hours according to her. The guy even supposedly took her ATM card and went and withdrew money from her account...WHOA! That means there was a lengthy period of time that she could have screamed and alerted neighbors to what was happening to her, but alas NO SCREAMS, NO NEIGHBORS, NO COPS....Give me a FUCKING BREAK... SHE IS A SLUT...she hated finding out she is a SLUT and now this IDIOT who engaged her ass in this S&M, BRUTALITY session will now face JAIL TIME for her lies.

All of this reminds me of the Katalyn Farber bitch who claimed Kobe Bryant RAPED her...only to find out the slut had fucked two other men right before Kobe...now how NASTY is that? She didn't even take a shower after the three men fucked her, because the semen and pubic hairs of all three men were found around her vagina...Kobe's dumb ass better be lucky he didn't get AIDS or something. Her goal was to fuck Kobe, then claim RAPE and tehn get PAID through lawsuits and/or BLACKMAIL...

[Purple Aki]

quote author=SAMSON123 link=topic=218490.msg3048575#msg3048575 date=1213184080]
THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED... THIS IS NOT WHAT THE NEWS REPORTED WHEN THIS STORY FIRST BROKE...

This college slut wanted a night of S&M, RAPE and BRUTALITY and she found someone who was willing to provide her that pleasure. She paid the guy to do this to her and when she came down off of her night of extreme drug use she panicked at what she found out about herself: THAT SHE IS A SLUT...so to cover for herself she claimed RAPE. Now supposedly she was tied up and raped and all of these terrible things done to her, but she willingly let the guy into the building, there was no forced entry, she did not bare the marks of rape and this whole ordeal went on for  hours according to her. The guy even supposedly took her ATM card and went and withdrew money from her account...WHOA! That means there was a lengthy period of time that she could have screamed and alerted neighbors to what was happening to her, but alas NO SCREAMS, NO NEIGHBORS, NO COPS....Give me a FUCKING BREAK... SHE IS A SLUT...she hated finding out she is a SLUT and now this IDIOT who engaged her ass in this S&M, BRUTALITY session will now face JAIL TIME for her lies.

All of this reminds me of the Katalyn Farber bitch who claimed Kobe Bryant RAPED her...only to find out the slut had fucked two other men right before Kobe...now how NASTY is that? She didn't even take a shower after the three men fucked her, because the semen and pubic hairs of all three men were found around her vagina...Kobe's dumb ass better be lucky he didn't get AIDS or something. Her goal was to fuck Kobe, then claim RAPE and tehn get PAID through lawsuits and/or BLACKMAIL...
[/quote]

Earth to Samson...Earth to Samson...Come in Samson.

[Laura Lee]

THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED... THIS IS NOT WHAT THE NEWS REPORTED WHEN THIS STORY FIRST BROKE...

This college slut wanted a night of S&M, RAPE and BRUTALITY and she found someone who was willing to provide her that pleasure. She paid the guy to do this to her and when she came down off of her night of extreme drug use she panicked at what she found out about herself: THAT SHE IS A SLUT...so to cover for herself she claimed RAPE. Now supposedly she was tied up and raped and all of these terrible things done to her, but she willingly let the guy into the building, there was no forced entry, she did not bare the marks of rape and this whole ordeal went on for  hours according to her. The guy even supposedly took her ATM card and went and withdrew money from her account...WHOA! That means there was a lengthy period of time that she could have screamed and alerted neighbors to what was happening to her, but alas NO SCREAMS, NO NEIGHBORS, NO COPS....Give me a FUCKING BREAK... SHE IS A SLUT...she hated finding out she is a SLUT and now this IDIOT who engaged her ass in this S&M, BRUTALITY session will now face JAIL TIME for her lies.

All of this reminds me of the Katalyn Farber bitch who claimed Kobe Bryant RAPED her...only to find out the slut had fucked two other men right before Kobe...now how NASTY is that? She didn't even take a shower after the three men fucked her, because the semen and pubic hairs of all three men were found around her vagina...Kobe's dumb ass better be lucky he didn't get AIDS or something. Her goal was to fuck Kobe, then claim RAPE and tehn get PAID through lawsuits and/or BLACKMAIL...


Earth to Samson...Earth to Samson...Come in Samson.

No, the earth doesn't need Samson.  Leave him out there with this Robert Williams dirtbag. 

[SAMSON123]

No, the earth doesn't need Samson.  Leave him out there with this Robert Williams dirtbag. 

WHY ARE YOU HATING ON ME LAURA?

I have not spoken any untruths....The story printed above is NOT what was originally said of this case. This story is like a COLORIZED black and white movie....FAKE.

Columbia students like New York University students have been involved and caught up in all manner of DEVIANT BEHAVIOR in the past and as soon as there are REPERCUSSION to their behavior, suddenly the student(s) are portrayed as INNOCENT and their behavior or activity is roundly dismissed. Just like the recent case of the college students in California who were selling DRUGS and were busted by the police. Suddenly all of the students were being described a GOOD, HARD WORKING, STUDIOUS, FROM GOOD FAMILIES etc etc...YEAH RIGHT...they are ALL STILL DRUG DEALERS AND USERS...LOWLIFES!!!

[Laura Lee]

WHY ARE YOU HATING ON ME LAURA?

I have not spoken any untruths....The story printed above is NOT what was originally said of this case. This story is like a COLORIZED black and white movie....FAKE.

Columbia students like New York University students have been involved and caught up in all manner of DEVIANT BEHAVIOR in the past and as soon as there are REPERCUSSION to their behavior, suddenly the student(s) are portrayed as INNOCENT and their behavior or activity is roundly dismissed. Just like the recent case of the college students in California who were selling DRUGS and were busted by the police. Suddenly all of the students were being described a GOOD, HARD WORKING, STUDIOUS, FROM GOOD FAMILIES etc etc...YEAH RIGHT...they are ALL STILL DRUG DEALERS AND USERS...LOWLIFES!!!

Where is your version in print?

[20inch calves]

quote author=SAMSON123 link=topic=218490.msg3048575#msg3048575 date=1213184080]
THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED... THIS IS NOT WHAT THE NEWS REPORTED WHEN THIS STORY FIRST BROKE...

This college slut wanted a night of S&M, RAPE and BRUTALITY and she found someone who was willing to provide her that pleasure. She paid the guy to do this to her and when she came down off of her night of extreme drug use she panicked at what she found out about herself: THAT SHE IS A SLUT...so to cover for herself she claimed RAPE. Now supposedly she was tied up and raped and all of these terrible things done to her, but she willingly let the guy into the building, there was no forced entry, she did not bare the marks of rape and this whole ordeal went on for  hours according to her. The guy even supposedly took her ATM card and went and withdrew money from her account...WHOA! That means there was a lengthy period of time that she could have screamed and alerted neighbors to what was happening to her, but alas NO SCREAMS, NO NEIGHBORS, NO COPS....Give me a FUCKING BREAK... SHE IS A SLUT...she hated finding out she is a SLUT and now this IDIOT who engaged her ass in this S&M, BRUTALITY session will now face JAIL TIME for her lies.



just for the sake of arguing lets say everything you wrote is true. do you believe that since she is into s&m ect and she invited him to her apartment that she deserved what happened to her. come on you aren't that stupid.








All of this reminds me of the Katalyn Farber bitch who claimed Kobe Bryant RAPED her...only to find out the slut had fucked two other men right before Kobe...now how NASTY is that? She didn't even take a shower after the three men fucked her, because the semen and pubic hairs of all three men were found around her vagina...Kobe's dumb ass better be lucky he didn't get AIDS or something. Her goal was to fuck Kobe, then claim RAPE and tehn get PAID through lawsuits and/or BLACKMAIL...


Earth to Samson...Earth to Samson...Come in Samson.

[jonsande]

Do you also need me to drop you a ring whenever archaeologists dig up all transitional forms of various species before you will believe in evolution.

When did I say that I didn't believe in evolution?  This is the third instance of you pulling left-field assumptions.  And for the record, you don't 'believe' in something scientific.  There are either facts to support its actuality, or there isn't.  Evolution is real because evidence for it is overwhelmingly clear.  Therefore you're technically right; I don't 'believe' in it but acknowledge it for the truth that it is.

Science is a self-correcting paradigm which offers the best possible explanation given the totality of the currently available data.

Science says nothing of what truth is - science merely gives us the best possible guess as to what is going on.  Bet your life savings on the accuracy of science and you are making a pretty good bet.  That's not to say it can't be wrong though.

Another left-field comment.  This doesn't relate to our discussion.  You almost certainly don't even understand what you just wrote.

Do you also need me to drop you a ring whenever archaeologists dig up all transitional forms of various species before you will believe in evolution.

When did I say that I didn't believe in evolution?  This is the third instance of you pulling left-field assumptions.  And for the record, you don't 'believe' in something scientific.  There are either facts to support its actuality, or there isn't.  Evolution is real because evidence for it is overwhelmingly clear.  Therefore you're technically right; I don't 'believe' in it but acknowledge it for the truth that it is.

Dawkins' position is clear.

Dawkins gets caught up making the assumption that race, while it exists, is all about surface features:

"Inter-observer agreement suggests that racial classification is not totally uninformative, but what does it inform about?  About things like eye shape and hair curliness.  For some reason it seems to be the superficial, external, trivial characteristics that are correlated with race - perhaps especially facial characteristics."

....unfortunately, Dawkins doesn't offer any persuasive evidence for the cliché that race is just skin deep.

He offers evidence for it in the form of multiple books. And to repeat; it's laughable that you presume to know more than he does about anything, let alone biology.  When your argument depends on assaulting the position of a scientist who has revolutionized the fields of zoology and evolutionary biology, you can't make it more clear that you're scrambling to get out of the quicksand.  Stick to the gym, champ.

Dawkins also says:

"W.D. Hamilton is a good candidate for the title of most distinguished Darwinian since Darwin."

And?

As stated earlier, Dawkins still doesn't "want to" understand the human implications of what Hamilton was driving at with his theory of kin selection: that humans naturally tend to discriminate in favor of relatives, and a racial group is simply a partly inbred extended family.

He - whether you like it or not - does subscribe to Lewontin's fallacy; he is simply to cowardly to concede that.  He - while pointing out differences - certainly hasn't presented any evidence to support his "it's merely skin deep" bullshit; quite frankly he wants to have his cake and eat it too.  Context is everything; while you may be a one dimensional dullard, don't assume there is any inconsistency with my referencing of Dawkins here.

You don't know what he 'wants'.  You can't accuse him of being a 'coward'.  When you said earlier that he subscribes to Lewontin's fallacy, I have you a direct quote straight from him that proves that he doesn't, and all you can manage to belch out is that he's a coward because he actually does subscribe to it.  What sense does that make?  Where's your proof that he's "simply too cowardly to concede that"?  You're really hopeless.  I've lost all confidence in your ability to reason. 

Just because you lack the necessary intellect to challenge Dawkins - much less think for yourself - don't assume the same is true for others.

I don't assume the same is true for others.  Just you.  You're in no position to challenge him.  With your spurious sense of logic, weak ability to process even the most simplest of statements, and repeated left-field statements, you can't even challenge me, let alone someone as respected as Dawkins.  You're simply delusional.

Your ignorance of the surrounding issues (including but not limited to: psychometric testing together with historical observation) allow us to fully understand why you cannot grasp what is being said here; why you have not even heard of the CHH paper.

Epic red herring.  You're just blowing more hot gas.

You do realize that - as Pinker pointed out - a blue-ribbon panel appointed by the American Psychological Association defined the consensus view as embracing intelligence as a real and stable property; that IQ is a good measure of it; that it is a good predictor of success in life; and it is from 50 - 80% heritable.

Of course intelligence is a real and stable property.  But where are the genetic ties with it to race?  Oh, that's right, you already admitted in your post before last that there aren't currently any.

^^^ re-read that if it went over your head the first time.

Not necessary.

Now, here is the paper in question:

http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

I'll read this when I'm home from work later tonight. 

Historical observation, psychometric evidence all leading to the construction of the Cochran-Hardy-Harpending Hypothesis.  As Cochran et al themselves say: "the hypothesis is consistent with the neo-Darwinian synthesis, the historical record, and the genetic and psychometric data"; it is, in short, a work that will be proven true at the biological level.

"Will be proven true" doesn't mean "is true".  And for that matter, how do you know if it's going to be proven true or not?  You don't.  When you say "will be proven true", you actually mean (assuming that this 'CHH hypothesis' even relates to this discussion, which for now I'll bet that it doesn't) "I hope it will turn out to be true".

No one has yet presented an alternative to the Cochran-Hardy-Harpending theory that can match it for documentation, but go ahead, feel free to provide your alternative - oh hang on, you can't, you didn't even know about the CHH paper in the first place so it will be interesting to see how you use your Google-fu to work around that inconvenient little fact, oops.

Dimwit.

Google-fu?  I haven't given you a single electronic link in any of my posts.  I have, however, referenced direct quotes from books.  Since you've given me three electronic links, including one just beforeyou accuse me of "Google-fu", it seems as though you're the one guilty of this; not me.


Concluding thoughts - You couldn't even respond to the outstanding majority of my last post, where I owned you completely and thoroughly.  You make spurious claims, then I refute them, then you switch focus to something else out of left field.  You continually lose focus to my argument so many times that I'm left only to believe that you have to be doing it deliberately in an attempt to piss me off (which you're still unable to do).  You specialize in the logical fallacy of the red-herring:  introducing irrelevant topics in a feeble attempt to argue. 

You introduce scientists and their 'hypotheses' with (Google) links, but don't even make an attempt to explain how they relate to the argument at hand - GENETIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RACE AND IQ - NOT EVOLUTION, NOT DISEASE, NOT PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS, NOT TAXONOMY OR CLASSIFICATION - and still have the audacity to accuse me of "Google-fu".

Your continual insults to me - calling me 'idiot', 'dimwit', 'moron', and etc demonstrates to me that you're very insecure about your intelligence, and on a subconcious level realizing that you've been destroyed here which is making you angrier and angrier with each word you type. 

You've done nothing to support the contention that you can genetically justify a lower IQ in certain races.  Rather, You've made several posts of weak, unrelated arguments, provided fuzzy and fallacious logic, and hurled childish, pathetically insecure personal attacks. 

I'm a busy man, and thus have no more time to waste on you or this thread.  You really are completely and utterly incapable of off-the-cuff thinking as Dr. Chimps so accurately stated, as well as extremly stubborn because you haven't yet admitted, nor will you admit, that you can't prove that there's a genetic relationship between race and IQ. 

I leave your owning to be viewed for all posterity.  Embrace it and learn from the experience, my son.

Our paths will no doubt cross many times to come on this board.  I don't now, nor will I, hold anything against you, personally.  Enjoy your day, and best regards.

[youandme]

WHY ARE YOU HATING ON ME LAURA?

I have not spoken any untruths....The story printed above is NOT what was originally said of this case. This story is like a COLORIZED black and white movie....FAKE.

Columbia students like New York University students have been involved and caught up in all manner of DEVIANT BEHAVIOR in the past and as soon as there are REPERCUSSION to their behavior, suddenly the student(s) are portrayed as INNOCENT and their behavior or activity is roundly dismissed. Just like the recent case of the college students in California who were selling DRUGS and were busted by the police. Suddenly all of the students were being described a GOOD, HARD WORKING, STUDIOUS, FROM GOOD FAMILIES etc etc...YEAH RIGHT...they are ALL STILL DRUG DEALERS AND USERS...LOWLIFES!!!

[youandme]

Where is your version in print?

They don't have printers in the hood, it's street talk, he must have got the smoke signals and the flying pigeons mixed up

[20inch calves]

THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED... THIS IS NOT WHAT THE NEWS REPORTED WHEN THIS STORY FIRST BROKE...

This college slut wanted a night of S&M, RAPE and BRUTALITY and she found someone who was willing to provide her that pleasure. She paid the guy to do this to her and when she came down off of her night of extreme drug use she panicked at what she found out about herself: THAT SHE IS A SLUT...so to cover for herself she claimed RAPE. Now supposedly she was tied up and raped and all of these terrible things done to her, but she willingly let the guy into the building, there was no forced entry, she did not bare the marks of rape and this whole ordeal went on for  hours according to her. The guy even supposedly took her ATM card and went and withdrew money from her account...WHOA! That means there was a lengthy period of time that she could have screamed and alerted neighbors to what was happening to her, but alas NO SCREAMS, NO NEIGHBORS, NO COPS....Give me a FUCKING BREAK... SHE IS A SLUT...she hated finding out she is a SLUT and now this IDIOT who engaged her ass in this S&M, BRUTALITY session will now face JAIL TIME for her lies.

All of this reminds me of the Katalyn Farber bitch who claimed Kobe Bryant RAPED her...only to find out the slut had fucked two other men right before Kobe...now how NASTY is that? She didn't even take a shower after the three men fucked her, because the semen and pubic hairs of all three men were found around her vagina...Kobe's dumb ass better be lucky he didn't get AIDS or something. Her goal was to fuck Kobe, then claim RAPE and tehn get PAID through lawsuits and/or BLACKMAIL...

everyone that plays the race card always brings up kobe. if a women is a slut i guess she deserves to raped then..come on even you aren't that stupid. forget the kobe incident you honestly believe this woman wanted her eyelids cut and bleach thrown on her.

as far as the your atm theory goes he probably had her tied and gagged thats why she couldn;t yell for help

[20inch calves]

THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED... THIS IS NOT WHAT THE NEWS REPORTED WHEN THIS STORY FIRST BROKE...

This college slut wanted a night of S&M, RAPE and BRUTALITY and she found someone who was willing to provide her that pleasure. She paid the guy to do this to her and when she came down off of her night of extreme drug use she panicked at what she found out about herself: THAT SHE IS A SLUT...so to cover for herself she claimed RAPE. Now supposedly she was tied up and raped and all of these terrible things done to her, but she willingly let the guy into the building, there was no forced entry, she did not bare the marks of rape and this whole ordeal went on for  hours according to her. The guy even supposedly took her ATM card and went and withdrew money from her account...WHOA! That means there was a lengthy period of time that she could have screamed and alerted neighbors to what was happening to her, but alas NO SCREAMS, NO NEIGHBORS, NO COPS....Give me a FUCKING BREAK... SHE IS A SLUT...she hated finding out she is a SLUT and now this IDIOT who engaged her ass in this S&M, BRUTALITY session will now face JAIL TIME for her lies.

All of this reminds me of the Katalyn Farber bitch who claimed Kobe Bryant RAPED her...only to find out the slut had fucked two other men right before Kobe...now how NASTY is that? She didn't even take a shower after the three men fucked her, because the semen and pubic hairs of all three men were found around her vagina...Kobe's dumb ass better be lucky he didn't get AIDS or something. Her goal was to fuck Kobe, then claim RAPE and tehn get PAID through lawsuits and/or BLACKMAIL...

everyone that plays the race card always brings up kobe. if a women is a slut i guess she deserves to raped then..come on even you aren't that stupid. forget the kobe incident you honestly believe this woman wanted her eyelids cut and bleach thrown on her.

as far as the your atm theory goes he probably had her tied and gagged thats why she couldn;t yell for help

[FullROM]

everyone that plays the race card always brings up kobe. if a women is a slut i guess she deserves to raped then..come on even you aren't that stupid. forget the kobe incident you honestly believe this woman wanted her eyelids cut and bleach thrown on her.

as far as the your atm theory goes he probably had her tied and gagged thats why she couldn;t yell for help

Yeh tied up in public without any strangers helping

[Tapeworm]

THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED... THIS IS NOT WHAT THE NEWS REPORTED WHEN THIS STORY FIRST BROKE...

This college slut wanted a night of S&M, RAPE and BRUTALITY and she found someone who was willing to provide her that pleasure. She paid the guy to do this to her and when she came down off of her night of extreme drug use she panicked at what she found out about herself: THAT SHE IS A SLUT...so to cover for herself she claimed RAPE. Now supposedly she was tied up and raped and all of these terrible things done to her, but she willingly let the guy into the building, there was no forced entry, she did not bare the marks of rape and this whole ordeal went on for  hours according to her. The guy even supposedly took her ATM card and went and withdrew money from her account...WHOA! That means there was a lengthy period of time that she could have screamed and alerted neighbors to what was happening to her, but alas NO SCREAMS, NO NEIGHBORS, NO COPS....Give me a FUCKING BREAK... SHE IS A SLUT...she hated finding out she is a SLUT and now this IDIOT who engaged her ass in this S&M, BRUTALITY session will now face JAIL TIME for her lies.

All of this reminds me of the Katalyn Farber bitch who claimed Kobe Bryant RAPED her...only to find out the slut had fucked two other men right before Kobe...now how NASTY is that? She didn't even take a shower after the three men fucked her, because the semen and pubic hairs of all three men were found around her vagina...Kobe's dumb ass better be lucky he didn't get AIDS or something. Her goal was to fuck Kobe, then claim RAPE and tehn get PAID through lawsuits and/or BLACKMAIL...

Your claim that she "discovered" that she enjoyed rape and panicked makes no sense since you're also claiming that she engineered the whole thing, meaning she knew very well what she enjoyed beforehand.

There's a world of difference between indulging darker sexual desires like a rape fantasy and being the victim of violent crime and disfigurement.  The problem is that the perp is an idiot who can't tell the difference.  Just like you.

Always respect the safeword kids.

[Faust]

Do you think he was on creatine?

Thats like a legal steroid right?

everyone that plays the race card always brings up kobe. if a women is a slut i guess she deserves to raped then..come on even you aren't that stupid. forget the kobe incident you honestly believe this woman wanted her eyelids cut and bleach thrown on her.

as far as the your atm theory goes he probably had her tied and gagged thats why she couldn;t yell for help

Exactly. The Kobe case was a joke. So was the supposed Duke rape (where a black stripper accused white students of rape). In soccer there have been similar "Kobe cases" against Cristiano Ronaldo and Robin van Persie. The pattern here is clearly that a poor, lowlife woman wants to make a buck out of a rich guy. Here we have a rich woman and a bum with a criminal record.

Anyway, anybody with half a brain cell can see here that she was abused and raped by some lowlife thug.

[Matt C]

Oh dear, from you we are gifted so many paragraphs, yet so little substance; I thought the final SEVEN, YES SEVEN from your last post were pure gold; we have found your raw nerve LOL, Google boy.

Evolution Racial difference in intelligence is real because evidence for it is overwhelmingly clear.

So the evidence for evolution is clear to you?

The reason I highlighted your post and changed it to the from "evolution" to the subject of race based intelligence, was that you don't realize - due to being ignorant of the psychometric and historical evidence - that you are hanging himself by your own petard; that all the available evidence - as with evolution - for racial difference in intelligence and the genetic explanation for it - is clear.

You made a statement that applies equally to race based intelligence as much as it does to evolution.

You really didn't grasp my analogy with evolution and how it relates to the work of Cochran et al and the CHH paper, did you?  You truly are out of your depth here.

But it's nice to see you in agreement with me.

Thanks for playing, now fuck off, read up on Cochran, Harpending, Risch et al, then come back and pretend you knew something about them all along.

You ignorant fool.

[gordiano]

Did this guy kill a man who was oiled up and wearing a thong? Otherwise there's no reason for this to be here.

MODS! 

[OTHstrong]

You boys are taking this thread way off topic here. This is a worthless man that has brought unimaginable torment into this world, who cares if he is is from Hong Kong or the north pole, he is a sick man without a soul. Having a small IQ is the least of his worries.

[_bruce_]

Certain death shall cross his path.