Readers may be interested in this essay on New Deal Democrat’s tiny penis, and how that sad condition has driven his unstoppable obsession to simultaneously undermine and fantasize about black people.
Along with many African nations, South Africa has been experiencing a “brain drain” in the past 20 years. This is believed to be potentially damaging for the regional economy,[51] and is almost certainly detrimental for the wellbeing of regional poor majority desperately reliant on the health care infrastructure given the HIV/AIDS epidemic.[52] The skills drain in South Africa tends to demonstrate racial contours (naturally given the skills distribution legacy of South Africa) exacerbated by Black Economic Empowerment policies, and has thus resulted in large White South African communities abroad.[53] The problem is further highlighted by South Africa’s request in 2001 of Canada to stop recruiting its doctors and other highly skilled medical personnel.[54]
For the medical sector, the loss of returns from investment for all doctors emigrating is $1.41bn for South Africa. The benefit to destination countries is huge: $2.7bn for the United Kingdom only, without compensation.[55]
You tell me. I think the tourists attending the World Cup would have been safer if it had been held in Stockholm, Sweden.
I am not sure if there is an agreeable solution to South Africa’s problems. I do believe the end of apartheid has been a disappointment for those who expected better behavior from blacks, just as the civil rights legislation has been a similar disappointment in the United States.
No, you tell me - you’re the one who brought it up like it meant something.
Seriously, do you just isolate one phrase in a post and do a Google search? Because this has fuck-all relevance to…anything, really.
Hint: I was getting in a cheap shot in on your sock, not debating you, you tiresome cousin-fucking prosimian.
This is what I discuss in my opening comment. The civility, erudition, and literacy with which I and a few others here discuss facts about blacks seems to infuriate and even surprise those who expect a “racist” to be a semi literate swamp dweller living in the deep South, with a ruined car in the front yard, and an outhouse out back.
The arrogance and vulgarity with which scoundrels try to shout us down reveals the accuracy of our posts.
If the civil rights legislation and the end of apartheid demonstrated the innate equality of the races, that equality would be easy to document.
Under apartheid blacks in Africa migrated into South Africa for better economic opportunities. Now it seems that most South Africans want to leave.
All right, we’ve been through this same stupid argument of yours for several exchanges now, and now I’m going to settle it for you once and for all.
You said, “Many sources document a relationship between the racial composition of a country’s population and the murder rate:
List of lists of lists - Wikipedia…_homicide_rate”
Vinyl Turnip responded by asking, “Let’s check out the demographics for the worst of the worst, Honduras:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Ninety percent of the Honduran population is Mestizo and white[51] (a mixture of Amerindian and European ancestry). About 7% of the Honduran population are members of one of the seven recognized indigenous groups.
About 2% of Honduras’s population is black,[51] or Afro-Honduran, and mainly reside on the country’s Caribbean coast. (link)
(bolding mine.) Golly, how can that possibly be? Either those are the hardest-working black murderers in the entire world, or the European descendants of Honduras are being very naughty indeed, despite their superior genes.”
To this, you replied, “The 10,000 Year Explosion, which I reviewed here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=605733
presents a plausible argument that the longer a population has practiced agriculture and urban civilization the lower its crime rate is likely to be. That is why white European and Oriental countries nearly always have lower crime rates than third world countries. The only exceptions seem to be Russia and North Korea.
Race is not the only factor that influences a country’s crime rate. It seems to be the most important.”
To this, I noted that your reply was non-responsive: “Why don’t you actually answer VT’s question, you shitsack?”
In turn, you replied, “I did answer his arguments. My answer was over your head. Countries with large black and/or American Indian populations tend to have higher crime rates than countries where nearly everyone is white or Oriental because blacks and American Indians are closer in number of generations to a paleolithic way of life. A paleolithic way of life was much more violent than live under civilization.”
I countered your point by noting that, “if your hypothesis were true, one would expect to find a higher “murder rate” in those countries of Latin America with a higher proportion of Amerinidan or black ancestry vis-a-vis European. However, a cursory glance at your “source” reveals that Bolivia, whose population is approximately 55% Amerindian, and only 45% mestizo or white, has a homicide rate approximately one tenth that of Honduras.”
Your subsequent reply indicated that you had ignored my disproval of your hypothesis: “Mestizos are a hybrid race of whites and American Indians. Honduras gets its high murder rate from a number of factors including the American Indian ancestry of the mestizos.”
I then reminded you of my counter-example, to which you again indicated an ignorance of my disproval in your reply, as indicated above.
Since words obviously aren’t a strong suit of yours, perhaps numbers might make your intellectual bankruptcy a bit more obvious to you.
Your assertion, “Countries with large black and/or American Indian populations tend to have higher crime rates than countries where nearly everyone is white or Oriental” constitutes a hypothesis of a direct relationship between black/Amerindian people and crime.
In essence, you are asserting y = a + kx, where y stands for crime, a stands for that amount of crime that is common to all populations, regardless of racial composition, k is a positive constant, and x stands for black/Amerindian population.
For the purposes of this argument, I will stipulate that homicide rate (as listed in the Wiki link you use over and over again) will serve as a proxy for crime, even though I have previously noted its highly questionable status as a research variable. You have already given tacit assent to this formulation by doing the same in your own arguments.
Let us proceed.
We have two data sets:
Honduras homicide rate (2010 - per year per 100,000 inhabitants) = 78
Honduras - % of population of unmixed Amerindian ancestry = 7
Bolivia homicide rate (2010 - per year per 100,000 inhabitants) = 8.9
Bolivia - % of population of unmixed Amerindian ancestry = 55
Now let us solve for k:
78 = a + k(7)
8.9 = a + k(55)
a = 78 - 7k
a = 8.9 - 55k
78 - 7k = 8.9 - 55k
48k = -69.1
k = -69.1/48 = -1.44
As noted above, in order for a direct relationship to exist between x and y, k must be a positive constant. However, it has been demonstrated in your formulation that k is actually a negative constant (which, in fact, actually implies an inverse relationship between black/Amerindian population and crime). Ergo, your assertion is wrong.
QED
Oh, you’re just a concerned citizen against sexual violence. Well, then you’ll find plenty of like-minded individuals here. I think most… hell, lets not be conservative; all of us here hate rape. We all also think very little of rapists. You’ve single-handedly won us over to that camp. Good job idiot.
See, there you go again using the word ‘fact’ with a completely fried definitiator. Poor thing.
You would not be using emotionally charged words against me if you were able to refute my arguments. In a debate over a serious and controversial topic the first person who gets angry loses.
Everyone reading our exchange will notice that I do not insult you.
What the fuck does that mean? The End of Apartheid has been a disappointment only for brain dead racists. For every other freedom loving person in the world the death of Apartheid has been a fucking blast.
South Africans can dictate their own future, speak their mind, elect representatives, and finally take their rightful place in the modern world economy. Since 1994 they have been a shining light for democracy and free speech in Africa.
How about a link or two to examples.
What refutation? You simply don’t understand both (1)what your point is, and (2)what my point is.
That is what makes you stupid; stupid.
Not to mention the words ‘civility’, ‘erudition’, and ‘literacy’.
I have demonstrated in my posts that there is a strong correlation between the racial composition of a country and the murder rate. I have also pointed out that the correlation is not one to one.
Graham’s essays are all worth reading. Not sure he’d want his work used in defense of NDD’s repeatedly debunked pseudo-science.
NDD’s position used to be the one held by “all decent people”. The only dissenters were free thinkers and radicals of various persuasions. Has it gone full-circle? Are the real free thinkers the ones who endorse old school white supremacy and pseudo-science based on fudged and misinterpreted data?
Once again, I’ll point out that you somehow consider vulgarity a worse sin than advocacy of eugenics and forced labor. Your priorities are duly noted.
I also note you conveniently forget to mention that your arguments were thoroughly dissected and demonstrated to be without substance or empirical support, and that once you proved immune to rational discourse open mockery proved to be more fruitful, insofar as you at least acknowledge that you actually read it.
I do love how you continue to restuff this particular strawman. The failure of your arguments has nothing to do with “civil rights legislation and the end of apartheid demonstrating the innate equality of the races”. It has everything to do with the fact that your cites do not support your argument, despite your repeated claims of relevance.
And we’re not claiming that your arguments fail because you’re a racist (the aforementioned ad hominem). We’re claiming that you’re a racist because of your arguments.
People aren’t calling you a racist as a way of refuting your arguments. They are calling you a racist because you are a racist. You start with an assumption that blacks are inferior, and then cherry pick the data to fit that assumption.