Nice ad hominen, but you didn't really refute much of anything. Why should I get off this site because I have opposing view points? Isn't this the way people get educated is by discussing ideas? Such as I don't think racism is completely out of whack. Did you know that in 2013 despite being 13% of the population the black community committed 52% of the murders in America? There is also an abundance of studies that show the only increase of crime correlates to race, not poverty or education. I can cite sources if you'd like. But I imagine now you'll give me more ad hominen instead of refuting the central point?
You've, like, probably never heard of the term socioeconomics, right? Also _refugee_ regarding: Unfortunately there are a lot of people who disagree with you and I on this one.Such as I don't think racism is completely out of whack. Did you know that in 2013 despite being 13% of the population the black community committed 52% of the murders in America? There is also an abundance of studies that show the only increase of crime correlates to race, not poverty or education. I can cite sources if you'd like.
We cannot solve every problem, especially complex problems like racism or feminism, at once, in one fell stroke. It is necessary to take steps. Are you familiar with the idea that a marathon is completed in steps? That without every single step taken, a marathon is not complete?
I can't fix the world. Edit - but I'll read the thread, ButterflyEffect, thanks. I missed it. I've been away/busy/drunk/sober/dating/writing. Mostly it's for the best, but I don't think Hubski should be the casualty in the long run.
I have, and that's why I think there should be an open honest conversation about race and the potential differences via genetics/IQ. Black people on average have a lower IQ than whites, which isn't affected by education, and not taking that lightly as the whole matter of IQ is controversial in the first place. But there are a lot of interesting crime statistics that demostrate a strong possibility of black people being more violent as a whole than other races. The socioeconomic studies I've read show unemployment & poverty simply do not correlate to an increase in crime, but race does. http://m.imgur.com/MYeLVhv?r The problem is, trying to have an open and honest dialogue about these things makes white guilters and the black community cry racist, when it could be helpful to fixing the very issues that plague them. Such a broken households. Say more research is done and it turns out due to higher testosterone, lower IQ, or maybe a somewhat different pre frontal cortex is the cause of the apparent propensity of blacks for crime. We could help them have happier healthier lives. I know it's appalling to hear such things, but most species on earth have slight variations among themselves with lesser or greater capabilities per task, why is it so offensive that humans may not be any different? I'm not saying treat black people's a subclass of humans, but they could get better learning institutions suited to their capabilities to promote them having every bit of equal opportunity as everyone else does. There are a myriad of problems in the black community, some such as broken households, are self perpetuating but everyone is too fearful to address them. Edit since you asked for additional data but muted me? I guess here you go? This is the only one I have on hand on my phone; but here's the FBI crime stats for 2013. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43#disablemobile Here's the census of 2010 and 2014: http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00 Here is a well written albeit offensive blog discussing it in great detail. https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/06/04/blacks-are-less-violent-than-whites/
Do you have some links that aren't out-of-context Imgur graphs? The FBI stats are a good start, but stats rarely tell the whole story, and crime statistics in particular are often skewed by issues such as structural inequality. For instance, here's one recent (2009) study that concludes: Here's another study that posits that segregation, rather than race, is the main predictor of violent crime for neighborhoods, particularly for (non-affulent) blacks. And here is a study that concludes that interracial economic inequality "had a strong positive effect on the overall violent crime rate, and more specifically, on the Black-on-Black crime rate." And let's not even get into the issue of defining 'race'... EDIT: I was wrong about the Imgur link being unsourced. It actually does list its source, which is The Colour of Crime by Jared Taylor (not to be confused by the book of the same name by Katheryn Russell-Brown). I think it's worth noting that the publication that the Imgur graph is from (as well as its author) has received some pretty heavy criticism. Indeed, the publication's wikipedia page has a criticism section that is longer than the synopsis. Tim Wise has written a sourced and readable rebuttal to this publication, which is available here. In this Article, we sought to articulate and empirically explore how this dramatic pattern of inequality in one visible aspect of the urban experience is intricately interconnected with the ways in which the structure of U.S. society is broadly racialized. We contend that the privilege of low levels of violence in white communities versus the peril of oppressively high levels of violence in black (and to some degree other) neighborhoods is not a product of individual differences in tendencies toward violence. Rather, these inequalities are outgrowths of structural arrangements that favor whites and subordinate other racial groups, especially blacks.
I'm not the one who asked you for more data, nor do I have you muted...
This is actually an interesting point. Could you provide more sources? Just one remark to that graph you have linked above. I don't think that this is a good model for linear correlation. There seems to be an oscillatory dispersion in all of these, usually a good argument to try Generalized Additive Model under a nonlinear hypothesis. While I don't know or want to argue about the data and context, I do think that there might be some sloppy stats behind the model. Call it a hunch, I'm a maths/physics student and not a professional. Edit: I did not mute you. Report a bug if you can't respond to me.
The more important question: why do you think anyone would bother refuting you? You're barely literate. EDIT: Yes, I am insulting you so I can see you use "ad hominen" a few more times.
Lol oh my god, I drunkenly at 4am post a statement with mild grammar flaws and that's classes me as " barely literate ". You hang on to that whisper of an excuse to very pathetically validate why you won't respond. I know very well it's because like all Liberals, you can't actually rationalize or defend your crybaby ideas against legitimate facts & logic.
This is quite possibly the worst meme I've ever seen. Again, more childish avoidance of the topic at hand. Thanks for allowing me to add more Liberal defeat to my bedpost I guess. I expected more of a challenge from the looks of it here, but if my intoxicated ramblings are too heavy for you then wow, you'll have no chance sober. Lol. Bye crybaby. :) Here's a good deal you might enjoy when you're broke from socialism. http://www.jollypop.com/JollyPop-Pacifier-Value-Pack-0-3m-Pink-p/jpvp-7p.htm
Umm, I actually made a point regarding your argument and you didn't respond to it at all so I really just don't think you have a place telling people to stop avoiding discussing the topic at hand. The thing is your worldview depends on your ignoring many things about the world which is pretty ridiculous. People and organizations do a metric shitload of work to help women in third world countries and things are constantly improving. The fact that you've managed to convince yourself that more effort is put towards things like x-men posters as opposed to women in third world countries ( the greater evil as you put it) just tells most of the people here you aren't worth talking to. That's the thing about hubski, nobody feels the need to engage you. I know on sites like reddit and imgur people for some reason feel entitled to responses no matter how ill informed or disrespectful they manage to be but that's not how it works here. Over there when people don't respond they take it as some sign that they are just right and the person is conceding defeat when in reality maybe they just don't think you're worth the time. Here somebody might get irritated enough to respond, but most people will just shun you. childish avoidance of the topic at hand
Lol no you did not how delusional are you? This is the problem, all the shit you just talked about is hearsay, where is the actual proof that work is being done to liberate women in Third World countries? I sure as hell haven't seen any, you haven't provided any, you've just been busy trying to insult me. You had an opportunity to educate somebody willing to learn as a matter fact, and who very politely gave their viewpoint and posed the question with genuine intrigue so that they could expand their worldview. Yet instead of doing anything in regard to educate me or us exchange ideas, you state I'm barely literate and go to post nonsense and behave as a child would. Good job.
Yes I did, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You have been throwing around name calling from the start and that might work for you on Reddit but it won't here. People will pass judgment on you before they talk to you and they won't bother to Google " humanitarian groups woman's rights third world" for you because they just don't think you're worth it after you bitch about crybabies before even engaging anybody. Not to mention, the fact that you don't think Aid is being provided to the third world is embarrassing. If you were 13 I would be compassionate and attempt to help you but you are an adult so at this point you made a choice not to understand the world. I did not say you are barely literate but now that I'm realizing you didn't read my username I'm thinking maybe that's accurate. Which again goes perfectly with my assumption that you choose not to see the world around you. You made a choice to ignore the aid provided to third world countries just as you made a choice to ignore the username of the person you are talking to. The hardest person to analysis is ourselves even though that's ssometime the most worthwhile. It might be worthwhile for you to take a moment and analyse why you think you already know everything. Most people would think I wonder what's done for the third world and then Google that before deciding it was 0. Most people would check who they are speaking to before assuming. You however assume there is nothing to be learned which is precisely why people don't feel the effort of googling for you is worth it.
If I am mixing you up with someone else, I apologize, it is less assuming and more a little difficult as a new user to follow all of the threads on this website. Dude, obviously there's help going to Third World countries, my point is not that there is zero help going out there, that's you assuming things out of things I haven't said, but the way you speak makes it sound like there is a overwhelming abundance of people helping to save women for being burned alive for refusing a proposal of marriage. I've googled this stuff before, and there just doesn't seem to be much help available to these women. My point is why is everyone discussing a poster, when there should be equal if not more discussion about a woman being burned alive for refusing marriage? As other users said, marathons or not one by the mile but by the as other users of said, marathons are not one by the mile but by the step, this may be true, but its fucked up of people running the race to eradicate offensive posters but nobody's running the race to eradicate women being burned alive. To me it comes across as appealing to people's laziness, it's easy to complain online about a poster, it's very hard to go fly to a country away from friends and family to save the life of women you've never met from their truly barbaric culture.
It's not hard to not mix up, you made a choice not to simply look at the username above the first word of my text. I was a new user very recently, and that's a lame excuse. It really is your point though that nobody is helping because you literally said a few lines down that nobody is helping. Nobody=zero There is no point in getting pissed off or angry about this issue because it's a massive issue that will take decades to fix. You think women gained the rights we have overnight in first world countries ? No, that took a very very long time and wasn't one straight line moving forward. So what does spending your entire life outraged accomplish for these women ? Nothing. Flying to countries to save these people is the dumbest thing to do. I have a friend who studied International Development and spent some time in Ghana. She was telling me about how on one trip there was a group of high school students building a school who spent most of the time taking selfies. You know what happened at night ? The locals came to work/fix everything the kids fucked up. You aren't some hero and the likelihood of you saving anybody is slim. It's not just about saving these women from their husbands. It's about opening schools that they can safely go to. It's about providing contraception so women don't end up being held back at way to young of an age. It's about how the people experiencing the turmoil need to be pissed off enough to begin revolutions in the communities because we aren't some saviors. The people of those countries need to demand more or they will just get the same crap from somebody else even if we "save" them. It's about a lot more as well and it will happen but it won't happen in any of our lives and that's what we need to accept. my point is not that there is zero help going out there
but nobody's running the race to eradicate women being burned alive.
Absolutely, but since when does the universe operate in equals and balance? It is literally impossible for everything to be successfully equal. Hollywood's business model does not predicate for every male action movie, we must release a female action movie, for every white lead role there must be a black lead role, so on & so forth. It doesn't work that way, and frankly in a world that claims it wants equal treatment for all, everyone sure pays a lot of attention to putting people in catagories. The typical hypocritical thinking of Liberals, have our cake and eat it too. Again, avoiding any actually ideological discourse, but childishly posting nonsense. So much for the community on this site being about civility & comprehension. All I've seen so far are people throwing temper tantrums.
Since always. All known processes try to achieve stable state of minimal energy by either competition (in biology and economics in specific) or by adjusting the rate of change in the system to fade with time (thermodynamics, chemistry) by means of equal distribution. It can oscillate around equilibrium, but as long as it does that it tries to achieve the state of diminishing change via dissipation (losing energy externally) and/or negligible local<->global direction of change (dynamical system at stable minimal energy). You can read more about types of equilibria or read-up on Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics. They will be invaluable to pursue the amazing world of statistical mechanics that opens the door to both quantum many-body physics and cosmology and almost every subdivision of physics in-between. I do recommend Road to Reality by Roger Penrose to get a general gist of all that and more. am_Unition - would you mind doing a bit of a fact-check for me here? Sorry for bothering you, yet again.since when does the universe operate in equals and balance?
Great. I hope that encourages to leave, because that's exactly the point I want to make. I'll edit to add that computers are unnatural/anti-"universal order" as fuck but I still see you're using one. And for someone concerned with people who label other people you throw around the term liberal - with a capital L! - a shit ton of a lot.
Yes, the typical Liberal move, someone challenged you so you scream until they leave so you can avoid using logic and realizing 95% of what you believe is baseless and unfounded. This will not encourage me to leave, it will encourage me to continue upsetting your naive little minds with powerful arguements. No they aren't, they very much function via the chaos of the universe. As an electronics engineer I can tell you that we have no idea how or why computers work for the most part. Liberals aren't hard to spot, there is no shame in labeling ideals, especially fairytale nonsense ones. I was hoping to come here to learn oppossing points to ky own, and see the strong side of liberal argument for once, but now I see the issue is that there simply is no such thing as a strong arguement for Liberalism.