TakeYouToTasker Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 (edited) This all started because you tied someone's lack of intelligence to her gay parents you nitwit! I made a joke, dingbat. I said so in this post. Further, natural intelligence is hereditary. It wouldn't be impacted by family structure. Edited October 21, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 To quote Ben Shapiro: "Facts don't care about your feelings" It is not bigoted to point out facts. They will always persist, despite whatever social agenda is being pushed. It is ignorant, counter productive, and harmful to pretend that all outcomes will be the same for all situation, and that there is no optimal situation. Correct, as well as a higher likelihood of economic mobility. This is either you projecting, or outright lying. I never made any such claim, nor do I believe this. As I've said many times, I strenuously believe in equality under the law, and don't believe that homosexuals should be prevented from adopting, just as I don't believe that single motherhood or divorce should be illegal. The difference is that I do acknowledge a strong statistical likelihood that the children of these non-nuclear families will be worse off. I support the right to enter in to them, absolutely. It's none of my business what is in someone else's heart, or what happens in their bedroom. Again, either projecting or lying here. I look at data, and acknowledge the fact that non-nuclear families produce worse outcomes on average. I make no claims at all about individuals of any group who may either exceed or fail to achieve the mean of their statistical group. Being from a non-nuclear family is not a guarantee of worse results, it simply makes worse results more likely. Tons, because you can't differentiate between statistics and bigotry. This all started because you tied someone's lack of intelligence to her gay parents you nitwit! Youz guys should start a different thread, because this discussion has little if anything to do with the election, and it's clogging up the thread. Thx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 To quote Ben Shapiro: "Facts don't care about your feelings" It is not bigoted to point out facts. They will always persist, despite whatever social agenda is being pushed. It is ignorant, counter productive, and harmful to pretend that all outcomes will be the same for all situation, and that there is no optimal situation. Correct, as well as a higher likelihood of economic mobility. This is either you projecting, or outright lying. I never made any such claim, nor do I believe this. As I've said many times, I strenuously believe in equality under the law, and don't believe that homosexuals should be prevented from adopting, just as I don't believe that single motherhood or divorce should be illegal. The difference is that I do acknowledge a strong statistical likelihood that the children of these non-nuclear families will be worse off. I support the right to enter in to them, absolutely. It's none of my business what is in someone else's heart, or what happens in their bedroom. Again, either projecting or lying here. I look at data, and acknowledge the fact that non-nuclear families produce worse outcomes on average. I make no claims at all about individuals of any group who may either exceed or fail to achieve the mean of their statistical group. Being from a non-nuclear family is not a guarantee of worse results, it simply makes worse results more likely. Tons, because you can't differentiate between statistics and bigotry. In Stats 201 you'll learn a lot more. Some of it will relate to the unintentionally inane arguments you've made above. I would agree that nothing you said was directly bigoted and I think any perceived bigotry was based on assumptions other people made. Your statistical mistakes originate in a few primary areas: 1. Pointing out that the outcomes of non-nuclear families are "worse" is all well and good, but also misses a main point.....THE main point really if you allow a teensy bit of humanity to creep in. To summarize it: Worse than what? You write your diatribes as if a child is born, lines up a string of potential families and then picks one. It renders your entire attempt to show off some sort of impractical math superiority moot. Hey newborn....better not pick those gay dudes as your parents because you know....bad outcomes. Better not pick that single mom. Why not point out that black kids are apt to be more economically disadvantaged than white middle class kids which leads to lesser outcomes, or white middle class kids would have been better off if Bill Gates was their dad? The whole thing is stupid and the funny part is that you're trying to sound smart....which leads to: 2. When you learn multiple regression you'll see that there are often multiple factors that lead to results, not just one. While your linear analysis has pointed to correctly to the math underneath, it is incomplete. There may indeed be other factors beneath the surface which also tie back to non-nuclear families. On the whole, they may have less resources, live in worse neighborhoods, encounter more bigotry, have less ability to spend time with their children, live in lesser schools districts. It might seem complicated but your prof will explain it. There is more to understand than simply drawing linear conclusions. Even with the most sophisticated math, not everything will always be explained. Over time I think we'll understand things more in a more complete way and hope that leads to better aggregate results. I feel that a lot of these differences based on race/orientation/other factor are more likely to dissipate over time than they are to widen. I am not sure that I feel that way wrt single parent households but whatever. I've been right and wrong before. Your stark "better outcomes" analysis is silly unless you plan to have every child born into the best family in history. A trillionaire Ward Cleaver for all. It's silly so you might want to stop talking down to people because that makes it even sillier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 Youz guys should start a different thread, because this discussion has little if anything to do with the election, and it's clogging up the thread. Thx. This thread is 284 pages long, and has meandered all over the map. This particular jaunt only occupied a single page, so I think you'll be able to live with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 Youz guys should start a different thread, because this discussion has little if anything to do with the election, and it's clogging up the thread. Thx. Thanks for your thoughtful gesture. We'll keep it going here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 Further, natural intelligence is hereditary. It wouldn't be impacted by family structure. Ben "kinda" agrees with you..................unless he has changed his mind......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 I made a joke, dingbat. I said so in this post. Further, natural intelligence is hereditary. It wouldn't be impacted by family structure. Because black people are imprisoned at higher rates, sometimes when I see a black person walking down the street, I call him a criminal. Just as a joke, ya know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 Further, natural intelligence is hereditary. It wouldn't be impacted by family structure. Only in East German scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 (edited) Because black people are imprisoned at higher rates, sometimes when I see a black person walking down the street, I call him a criminal. Just as a joke, ya know. If it was a joke, that's fine. Your argument is the reason comedians won't come to college campuses any more. Edited October 21, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 If it was a joke, that's fine. Your argument is the reason comedians won't come to college campuses any more. Dude you can pay a few extra bucks and go into town to watch comedians if you'd like. Just make sure all your work is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 Because black people are imprisoned at higher rates, sometimes when I see a black person walking down the street, I call him a criminal. Just as a joke, ya know. Hey, give credit where credit is due. I'm the one that pointed out that Donna Brazile had two fathers. It was done in response to another poster making remarks regarding her intelligence. It was done in a tongue-in-cheek manner. Then again "Jean" may just be the name of a French guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 (edited) Video: And now, a word from Hillary Clinton on the importance of government cybersecurity This is Clintonism in 20 seconds. It’s not just that she doesn’t follow the rules that apply to everyone else, it’s the arrogance in flouting the double standard. She was willing to lecture State Department employees here on good cyber practices when her own recklessness in handing sensitive material ranged from merely disgraceful to outright felonious. It’s like the Clinton Foundation declaring a few months back, under intense scrutiny of its pay-to-play schemes, that it would no longer accept donations from foreign governments — starting after the election, so cut those checks while you can, Saudi Arabia. As a matter of basic ethics, there was no reason to delay cutting off foreign money a moment longer. As a matter of the Clintons’ right to do as they like, though? What other reason do you need? Here’s what arrogance after a disastrous cybersecurity failure looks like. Hillary Clinton’s campaign struggled to get the candidate to apologize for using a private email server as secretary of state, recently hacked emails reveal… “I know this email thing isn’t on the level,” Tanden wrote to Podesta on August 22. “I’m fully aware of that. But her inability to just do a national interview and communicate genuine feelings of remorse and regret is now, I fear, becoming a character problem (more so than honesty).” “People hate her arrogant, like her down,” Tanden said. “It’s a sexist context, but I think it’s the truth. I see no downside in her actually just saying, look, I’m sorry. I think it will take so much air out of this.”… “She always sees herself bending to ‘their’ will when she hands over information, etc.,” she said. “But the way she has to bend here is in the remorse. Not the ‘if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn’t do it.’ A real feeling of – this decision I made created a mess and I’m sorry I did that.” Why should she apologize for years’ worth of recklessness in mishandling classified information? She knew she’d never be charged for it. That’s what’s important. It’s telling that the ongoing Wikileaks document dump on Clinton wasn’t a product of her server being hacked but rather a case of her own inner circle following cybersecurity practices so piss poor that the average midwestern grandma is savvy enough by now to avoid them when using the Internet. {snip} Jim Geraghty notes that the traditional defense of the Clinton charities accepting gigantic foreign donations is that they’re gifts, not payment for any services rendered. Now here’s Hillary seemingly negotiating a de facto $12 million fee for an appearance in Morocco. (Bill and Chelsea ended up going instead.) What other quid pro quos were arranged in her post-State, pre-presidency career? Look out for the next video coming in 2017, in which President Clinton sternly urges all executive branch employees to avoid taking bribes. Edited October 22, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 (edited) If it was a joke, that's fine. Your argument is the reason comedians won't come to college campuses any more. First you defended it on merit and now it's a joke. Which is it flip flopper? To remind you of your hilarious line: "The non-nuclear family [here: gay parents] is one of the worst possible starting places for children," I get it now. You're Chris Rock. Edited October 22, 2016 by Benjamin Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maury Ballstein Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 (edited) First you defended it on merit and now it's a joke. Which is it flip flopper? To remind you of your hilarious line: "The non-nuclear family [here: gay parents] is one of the worst possible starting places for children," I get it now. You're Chris Rock. Another outraged vegan homo ? How many Streisand albums do you own ? Just add "I'm with her" to your signature already. Edited October 22, 2016 by Ryan L Billz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickleyjones Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 Another outraged vegan homo ? How many Streisand albums do you own ? Just add "I'm with her" to your signature already. the joke itself is fine, who cares. tytt's "facts" are the actual joke in this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 Clinton Campaign: Let´s Not Overdo the Tributes to "The Four Guys" Killed in Benghazi by Cortney O´Brien Original Article............."four guys"... Huma on Hillary’s $12M Morocco fiasco: ‘She created this mess and she knows it’. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 the joke itself is fine, who cares. tytt's "facts" are the actual joke in this discussion. If you want to dispute them, bring evidence. The fact is that the non-nuclear family is the single greatest predictor of inter-generational poverty. Multiple studies conducted by both left and right leaning organizations have borne this out. Your feeling to the contrary don't count as evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 Washington’s New Lock-Step March of Folly As polls show Hillary Clinton closing in on victory, Official Washington’s neoconservative (and liberal-hawk) foreign policy establishment is rubbing its hands in anticipation of more war and more strife, including a U.S. military escalation in Syria, a take-down of Iran, and a showdown with nuclear-armed Russia. What is perhaps most alarming about this new “group think” is that there doesn’t appear to be any significant resistance to the expectation that President Hillary Clinton will unleash these neocon/liberal-hawk forces of intervention that President Barack Obama has somewhat restrained. Assuming Donald Trump’s defeat – increasingly seen as a foregone conclusion – the Republican leadership would mostly be in sync with Clinton if she adopts a hawkish foreign policy similar to what was pursued by President George W. Bush. Meanwhile, most Democrats would be hesitant to challenge their party’s new president. https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/22/washingtons-new-lock-step-march-of-folly/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts