How many threads is it going to take before you get it through your head that you’ve failed to make your point?
You’ve* failed* because you’ve misquoted authorities, selected bits and pieces to twist into fitting your agenda, and ignored those who have pointed out your errors.
Making the same discredited points over and over, even to the point of creating new threads to do so, does nothing to advance your argument. It underscores your failure.
You’ve beaten this dead horse into fertilizer, and in the process, you’ve made your user name a catch-phrase for * one who embraces ignorance*.
Not exactly. As children grow older, their genes play a greater role in determining their IQ.
This fact is counter-intuitive, but – as far as I know – pretty well established.
I’m not sure what your point is here, but yes, if crime were to drop in a large black population down to the levels of neighboring whites I would see it as evidence against my position.
According to this graph, that doesn’t seem to be happening.
And of course I would look at the entire circumstances. If some new technology comes out which causes crime rates to drop to zero, then an equalization of crime rates would not be evidence against my position.
First, please represent to me that you are seriously skeptical of the claim that black = greater incidence of crime. If you do so, then I will try to back up my claim.
It discredits itself, you unfathomably dense asslicker, as been pointed out to you, time and time again:
The reliability of underlying national murder rate data may vary.[1] The legal definition of “intentional homicide” differs among countries. Intentional homicide may or may not include infanticide, assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Intentional homicide demographics are affected by changes in trauma care, leading to changed lethality of violent assaults, so the intentional homicide rate may not necessarily indicate the overall level of societal violence.[2] They may also be underreported for political reasons.[3][4]
Another problem for the comparability of the following figures is that some data may include attempts.
Yeah, I’m not sure how many times that makes it, though. Something like the 20th or 30th time in this thread alone his own citations destroy his arguments. At some point, you accept it as par for the course.
You’d think at some point he’d actually read the entire article, rather than getting one sentence out of context and ignoring the rest. Then again, that’s been exactly his ‘debate’ style in these threads, so it’s not surprising.
A refreshing change would be if he actually, even once, did anything but ignore or gloss over any of the myriad counterarguments that completely destroys the pseudo-scientific facade he’s created.
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves yadda yadda.
I do not propose using Graham’s essay to defend anyone’s position. Rather, I would use it to promote reasoned, civilized discourse of controversial ideas instead of those ideas being shouted down with namecalling and such.
If someone asserted that the sun went around the earth, or that the earth was flat, you would just point out all the evidence to the contrary. At worst, you might do it in an annoyed manner, but I doub’t you’d just call the heliocentrist a pigfucker.
If the heliocentrist interminably advanced the same disproven arguments while claiming moral superiority and imputing that his critics actually agree with him and refuse to admit it, then yes - yes, I would.
But, as has been repeatedly mentioned to (and pretty much ignored by) NDD, this is the Pit, and such behavior is at least tolerated here.
If NDD was actually interested in an earnest exchange of views or even just a soapbox to spout his views, he would keep his porcophilic ramblings to GD, where he started his original thread. Instead, he chose to hijack his own Pitting and turn it into a months-long debate.
There’s no moral high ground there. Keep it in your own damned Great Debates thread if you don’t like ad hominems instead of hijacking somebody else’s Pit thread on why they don’t like you.
One of the interesting things about this board compared to others is its tolerance of genuinely heinous points of view. Hatred can’t be combated by ignoring it. I have hoped since I was a wee lad that eventually people would come to understand that we all have so much in common that our differences should be embraced and cherished.
“Infinite diversity in infinite combinations” – Jean Lisette Aroeste.
I suppose it depends on whether he were able to engage in reasonable discussion about the actual evidence for heliocentrism (by the way, isn’t heliocentrism the opposite of the position he would be advancing?), or whether he was motivated by the fact that he had a tiny penis and all the women in his life had to imagine having sex with a big black stud as a result of his tiny penis.
Sure, but how many threads on this racist topic are presently active on the SDMB? Seems like a lot here in the Pit and in GD. I’m with George Bush on this one: “There ought to be limits to freedom.”
In the Pit, one might very well call a heliocentrist a pigfucker. The discourse in other venues was civil, for the most part, until NDD and the others began citing sources which directly contradicted their thesis. Do that in any kind of academic environment, and people ask you to stand down or get out. You can’t keep bringing up the same false claims over and over again.
