On Mar 14, 11:23Â pm, Billy
getthe.net> wrote:> In article
>
d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> Â Yer Pal Al gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Mar 12, 1:10Â pm, Billy
getthe.net> wrote:>>> In article
>>>
n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Â Yer Pal Al gmail.com> wrote:>
>>>> On Mar 11, 2:50 pm, Billy
getthe.net> wrote:>>>>> In article
>>>>>
e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> Â Yer Pal Al gmail.com> wrote:>
>>>>>>> Not a very imaginative invective, even for an anacephalic.
>>>>>>> There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics -
>>>>>>> attributed to Benjamin Disraeli.
>
>>>>>>> As a set of crime statistics, which were attributed, it shows
>>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>>> that whites (a stupid classification) commit nearly as twice as
>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>> forcible rapes as blacks (another stupid classification). Are you
>>>>>>> arguing otherwise?
>
>>>>>> In the context if the United States there are 6.33 times as many
>>>>>> whites as blacks which indicates that a black is over 3 times more
>>>>>> likely to commit a forcible rape than a white. This is why so many of
>>>>>> them, as a percentage of their population, are in prison.
>
>>>>> So it is your contention then that melanin causes criminal behavior?
>
>>>> The presence of high quantities of melanin stimulates feelings of
>>>> superiority among liberals. When they see someone with this condition
>>>> they see someone who cannot take care of themselves in the freest
>>>> nation on earth. They assert their superiority by offering melanin
>>>> based economic incentives. This cheats them of the sense of
>>>> accomplishment the rest of the country enjoys and motivates into
>>>> productivity. This contributes to black poverty and crime.
>
>>>> Liberals advocate multiculturalism. When in 1994 Al Gore said:
>
>>>> Â Â Â "We can build a collective civic space large enough for
>>>> Â Â Â all our separate identities, that we can be E Pluribus
>>>> Â Â Â Unum--out of one, many."
>
>>>> He exposed liberal intentions and his poor Latin. To that end, a
>>>> separate black culture continues to emerge; one that sings of killing
>>>> police, promotes gangsterism and its own language. This contributes to
>>>> black poverty and crime.
>
>>>> Liberals are also trying to destroy religious institutions. Most
>>>> notably is traditional marriage. This has hit the black community very
>>>> hard with now most of their children being born out of wedlock. This
>>>> contributes to black poverty and crime.
>
>>>>> Why would that be. I offered my reasoning, please do the same, so we
>>>>> can
>>>>> get right down to the mindless bigotry that undoubtedly supports your
>>>>> thinking or, spin my wheels, give me a different reason.
>
>>>>>> If you think whites are the problem it's because you are bad at math.
>
>>>>> In any event it isn't math. It's arithmetic (10/5 = 2). Math is like y
>>>>> =
>>>>> mx + b, ya know?
>
>>>> Arithmatic is a subset of math.
>
>>>> "Bad" doesn't mean inaccurate, it can mean ignorant. If 2nd grade,
>>>> "(10/5 = 2)" is all you can do, you are bad at math - unless of course
>>>> you are in 2nd grade or 8th grade if you are measured by a public
>>>> school standard.
>
>>>> My math in this matter is:
>
>>>> (Rb / Pb) / (Rw / Pw) = BWr
>
>>>> Where:
>
>>>> Rb = Rapes committed by blacks
>>>> Pb = Percentage of the population being black
>>>> Rw = Rapes committed by whites
>>>> Pw = Percentage of the population being white
>
>>> Amusing attempt. My example is for a line, your's is rubbish.
>
>> Yours doesn't reflect the reality that a disproportionate number of
>> blacks are in prison. What you are saying is there aren't enough white
>> people in prison and I'm saying there are two many blacks.
>
> Two blacks sounds about right. I guess I would have to chalk it up to
> Jim Crow and poverty.
As long as you don't blame it on their own personal decisions. "Post-
Traumatic Slave Syndrome" is also a good one.
> The black community does has problems, even Bill
> Cosby spoke out on that.
> But the problem isn't genetic, it's social. How
> would you feel, if you were always trying to figure out, if you had just
> screwed up or if it was just racism? You the problem man, get the hell
> out of the way.
I shouldn't help black kids with their reading on Tuesday nights? I
shouldn't give them food on Fridays to take home for the weekend? I
don't think black men are going to fill void because they are nowhere
to be found.
>>>> The result being that a black is 3.18 times more likely to commit a
>>>> forceable rape than a white.
>
>>>>> I just pointed out that black skinned have very little power in this
>>>>> country and the high profile ones, always work for da man.
>
>>>> Word. Most of us that have to work, work for someone else and all of
>>>> us are legally required to pay our taxes to King Bush and boy does
>>>> life suck. I have to take the wife to Italy and France for two weeks
>>>> in April and then I have to take the family to DC for a week in May.
>
>>>> Too bad I don't have the privilege to collect a welfare check, score
>>>> some crack, create a couple bastard kids and blame my problems on "da
>>>> man." Now that's the life.
>
>>>>> You think
>>>>> melanin endowed people run this country? Maybe Jews? How about Masons?
>>>>> Satan worshipers (this is quite popular now)? Men from outer space?
>
>>>> Hard working people run this country.
>
>>> Hard working people create the economy, it is the golf on wednesdays
>>> types that run it.
>
>> What are these people's names?
>
> Rockerfeller sounds right, Mellon, DuPont, Guggenheim, Schwab, Mrs.
> Russell Sage, Cyrus H. McCormick, Joseph Widener, Arthur Curtis, James
> and Nicholas F. Brady, Jacob H. Schiff, James B. Duke, George Eastman, Â
> Lewis F. Swift, Julius Rosenwald, Mrs. Lawrence Lewis and Henry Phipps.
Rich Democrats, Republican philanthropists and dead guys?
What about Oprah? I think she has more influence than all of them
combined.
>>>>>>> In previous posts, I have started an argument that most crime (not
>>>>>>> white
>>>>>>> collar) is based in poverty (Nurture vs Nature). That is still my
>>>>>>> contention.
>
>>>>>> What are you going to do about the Democrats that keep blacks in
>>>>>> poverty?
>
>>>>> Hopefully, education will be sufficient to dissuade Democrats,
>>>>> Republicans, third party affiliates, religious groups, service groups,
>>>>> sports leagues, and gangs that to pre-judge someone based on a
>>>>> physical,
>>>>> religious, or culinary trait, is to look stupid.
>
>>>> Liberals have taken over the education system and it keeps getting
>>>> worse for blacks. Republicans want to give inner city kids who attend
>>>> the worst of the worst public schools the opportunity to go to a
>>>> private school but that is always defeated by Democrats.
>
>>>> I know most of them are kool-aid drinkers that think more money will
>>>> turn the public education system around even though most of the world
>>>> performs better with less. I have to wonder if there aren't some who
>>>> want to keep certain people (their children are in private schools, of
>>>> course) chained to poverty and liberal indoctrination.
>
>>>>>>> If you can respond like an adult, we can continue this
>>>>>>> conversation.
>>>>>>> Otherwise, I'll just make you use the dictionary again or ignore
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> baseless ad hominens conjectures.
>
>>>>>> "ad hominems?"
>
>>>>>> Why don't you ask your mama for a dictionary, learn to spell and stop
>>>>>> betraying yourself as a superfluous grammarian-poseur?
>
>>>>> A better, but still inaccurate repost, would have been a "supercilious"
>>>>> Â
>>>>> grammarian.
>
>>>> You first need some bonafides to be arrogant and supercilious.
>
>>> You would seem to give the lie to that statement.
>
>>>>> I just loved, "Eats, Shoots, and Leaves", didn't you?
>
>>>> I read history exclusively.
>
>>>>> Even with typos, the average person would have understood what I typed.
>
>>>> That's not the point. Telling someone to use a dictionary then
>>>> misspelling a word is ironic.
>
>>>>> The use of the English language hardly presupposes that the writer is a
>>>>> grammarian, poser or not. To accuse someone of using English in this
>>>>> country, would be to expose oneself as being ludicrous.
>
>>>> I showed you to be
>
>>> superfluous = unnecessary, esp. through being more than enough
>
>>> Thanks, that sounds like a compliment. More than sufficient.
>
>> It is a compliment. You should tell everyone you know that you're
>> "superfluous."
>
> I let my reputation speak for me as yours does for you.
>
>>>> when you wrote "baseless ad hominens
>>>> [sic] conjectures" which is redundant.
>
>>> No it isn't.
>>> baseless = without foundation in fact
>>> ad hominem = an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the
>>>    emotions and not reason or logic, attacking an opponent¹s motives
>>> Â Â or character rather than the policy or position they maintain
>
>> You accuse me of an ad hominem, but it's not baseless?
>
> Don't know what your taking but it is baseless. Make your point.
I said you are superfluous. You said that's an ad hominem. If it's
true then it isn't baseless. If it's false it's baseless and your
statement is redundant.
>>> conjecture = an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete
>>> Â Â information
>
>> Conjecture can be without information and baseless.
>
> Then it is worth what it is based on. Nothing.
>
>>> redundant = no longer needed or useful
>
>> You pulled that out of your ass, buttocks and rear end.
>
> Look in a dictionary Einstein. Do you mind being compared to a Jew?
re�dun�dant �� (r-dndnt)
ADJECTIVE:
1. Exceeding what is necessary or natural; superfluous.
2. Needlessly wordy or repetitive in expression: a student paper
filled with redundant phrases.
3. Of or relating to linguistic redundancy.
4. Chiefly British Dismissed or laid off from work, as for being no
longer needed.
5. Electronics Of or involving redundancy in electronic equipment.
6. Of or involving redundancy in the transmission of messages.
#2 and #3 apply to you. "No longer needed" isn't there.
>>However, I
>> acknowledge your self-awareness.
>
>>>> I accuse you of being a
>>>> grammarian-poseur as being the reason for being superfluous.
>
>>>>> So, how about an adult conversation? What do you say? Up to it?
>
>>>> Do you want to watch? I'll find an adult...
>
>>> Yes, yes, how very "ad hominen" of you.
>
>> I congratulate you on your consistent spelling and intractable misuse
>> of words.
>
> Example please.
'Yes, yes, how very "ad hominen" of you.'
Arguments are "ad hominem", not people.
