Re: White Oppression at College: Business as Usual.
SgtMinor
> White Oppression at College: Business as Usual
> Report; Posted on: 2005-10-08 00:07:56 [ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]
>
> Higher 'education' infested with Political Correctness, and Whites pay the
> price
>
> by Mark Farrell
>
> Recently, Fox News - in a story entitled "A White Oppressor? Who Me?" -
> reported a rather disturbing trend that few people other than Whites have
> noticed: Anti-White discrimination has largely gone unchecked at our
> universities.
>
> Of course, many of us hear of the special "set asides"--that is, a certain
> number of openings made for minorities only, despite lack of
> qualifications. And there are the loans for minorities-only, as well as the
> special grants, etc. Likewise, many professors have reported that they were
> "persuaded," to say it nicely, by state university officials to pass
> minorities, lest the course be viewed as discriminatory and cause the
> university to lose tax money, which is funding the whole charade and mostly
> provided by Whites.
Absolute bullshit and no source to back this up.
>
> A few sociologists have even looked at society's ongoing madness with
> respect to anti-White discrimination. An excellent example of this would be
> Dr. Fredrick Lynch's book, "Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis
> of Affirmative Action." He cites many examples of how anti-White
> discrimination has affected Whites.
Famous guy, this "Dr. Lynch." Google search results:
"Results 1 - 1 of 1 for "Dr. Fredrick Lynch". (0.28 seconds)
Did you mean: "Dr. Frederick Lynch"
National Vanguard
An excellent example of this would be Dr. Fredrick Lynch's book,
"Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action. ...
www.nationalvanguard.org/index.php - 101k - Oct 8, 2005 - Cached -
Similar pages
Did you mean to search for: "Dr. Frederick Lynch"
----------
Do you guys just make this shit up???
<snip>
Way Back Jack
No, asshole, it was "made up" by the Supreme Court in Grutter vs.
Bollinger, June 2003.
Racial preferences for you who are unable to compete are still alive
and well.
SgtMinor
Yeah, way back, I'm an asshole because I point out it's another one of
these fabricated stories from national vanguard. As my Google search
results show, nobody's ever heard of "Dr. Fredrick Lynch."
It's no longer a question. I *know* you guys just make this shit up.
--
And you lie about everything else.
jaona...@nowhere.com
the title invisible victims then you may come back and apologize
SgtMinor
> are you as ugly as you are stupid? try amazon.com and search for books with
> the title invisible victims then you may come back and apologize
Actually, I'm neither. There is no such book written by "Dr. Fredrick
Lynch." Or should I doubt national vanguard's ability to spell? A
Google search returns only 1 hit and that is the lame story written by a
fascist rag.
COLRSJ
<Sa...@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote:
>jaona...@nowhere.com wrote:
>
>> are you as ugly as you are stupid? try amazon.com and search for books with
>> the title invisible victims then you may come back and apologize
>
>Actually, I'm neither. There is no such book written by "Dr. Fredrick
>Lynch." Or should I doubt national vanguard's ability to spell? A
>Google search returns only 1 hit and that is the lame story written by a
>fascist rag.
You are the stupidest person on line if you couldn't find this book.
You are either a retard or a liar.
>
>>
>>
>> On 8-Oct-2005, SgtMinor <Sa...@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, way back, I'm an asshole because I point out it's another one of
>>> these fabricated stories from national vanguard. As my Google search
>>> results show, nobody's ever heard of "Dr. Fredrick Lynch."
>>>
>>> It's no longer a question. I *know* you guys just make this shit up.
>>>
>>> --
>>> And you lie about everything else.
--
Check out the AFN FAQ website at...
http://niggermania.com/afnfaq/
Here's the TRUTH about black-on-White crime...
http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html
Niggers "were over 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2002".
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
Niggers are four times as likely as Whites to Kill their children...
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.txt
18.6% of nigger bucks go to jail, vs. 3.4% of White males
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm
Black bastards! 68.7% of niggers are born out of wedlock!
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf
62% of ALL nigglet births are paid for by the government.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm
56% of sow niggers have genital herpes!!! See page 21 of...
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf
Though only 12% of the population, more niggers are on
welfare than are Whites! See Figure B of...
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter10/chap10.htm
SgtMinor
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 12:31:02 -0400, SgtMinor
> <Sa...@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote:
>
>>jaona...@nowhere.com wrote:
>>
>>> are you as ugly as you are stupid? try amazon.com and search for books with
>>> the title invisible victims then you may come back and apologize
>>
>>Actually, I'm neither. There is no such book written by "Dr. Fredrick
>>Lynch." Or should I doubt national vanguard's ability to spell? A
>>Google search returns only 1 hit and that is the lame story written by a
>>fascist rag.
>
> You are the stupidest person on line if you couldn't find this book.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0275941027/qid=1128882331/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-7014290-9337465?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>
> You are either a retard or a liar.
Why all this name calling? It's especially sad when it comes from a
person who cannot read. I said that a Google search for "Dr. Fredrick
Lynch" shows one hit and it comes from the fascist little national
vanguard. Search amazon for "Dr. Fredrick Lynch" and you don't find the
book either.
Once again you demonstrate my point that you guys just make this stuff
up. How pathetic.
jaona...@nowhere.com
read what I wrote moron go to Amazon.com
never mind here etard
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/103-8043074-2477421
jaona...@nowhere.com
the simplest of searches
On 9-Oct-2005, SgtMinor <Sa...@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote:
SgtMinor
> read what I wrote moron go to Amazon.com
> never mind here etard
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/103-8043074-2477421
Wrong again. There is no book available at Amazon (or anywhere else,
for that matter) written by "Dr. Fredrick Lynch."
And what's an "etard"?
WakeU...@adelphia.net
<Sa...@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote:
>Yeah, way back, I'm an asshole because I point out it's another one of
>these fabricated stories from national vanguard. As my Google search
>results show, nobody's ever heard of "Dr. Fredrick Lynch."
LOL That's right shmuck, because *you* couldn't find a citation in
Google (itself the focus of allegations that it "disapears" news that
makes the politically correct uneasy) it must not be true.
>It's no longer a question. I *know* you guys just make this shit up.
More like, "If there's ever been any doubt, it's now clear that
you're an asshole who cannot allow uncomfortable facts to disturb his
politically correct conditioning."
************************************************************************
Was this post informative? Consider printing it or emailing it to someone you know.
"A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation . . . betrays [one nation] into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter . . .
"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.
"Nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded."
-- President George Washington
Farewell Address
WakeU...@adelphia.net
wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 12:31:02 -0400, SgtMinor
><Sa...@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote:
>
>>jaona...@nowhere.com wrote:
>>
>>> are you as ugly as you are stupid? try amazon.com and search for books with
>>> the title invisible victims then you may come back and apologize
>>
>>Actually, I'm neither. There is no such book written by "Dr. Fredrick
>>Lynch." Or should I doubt national vanguard's ability to spell? A
>>Google search returns only 1 hit and that is the lame story written by a
>>fascist rag.
>
>You are the stupidest person on line if you couldn't find this book.
>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0275941027/qid=1128882331/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-7014290-9337465?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>
>You are either a retard or a liar.
Methinks he's both. :-)
Way Back Jack
<Sa...@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote:
>jaona...@nowhere.com wrote:
>
>> read what I wrote moron go to Amazon.com
>> never mind here etard
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/103-8043074-2477421
>
>Wrong again. There is no book available at Amazon (or anywhere else,
>for that matter) written by "Dr. Fredrick Lynch."
Well shucks, sonny, if ya really want something to read so badly:
Black/White Street Crime Ratios:
Murder/neg. msltr.: 5.39/1
Forcible Rape: 2.89/1
Robbery: 6.55/1
Aggravated assault: 2.88/1
Burglary: 2.45/1
The white crime data include Hispanic crime. If Hispanic crime were
removed from white data, the black/white ratio would be even more
extreme.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_00/00crime4.pdf
______
And for you to blame crime on socioeconomics, please note that the
poverty rate in a recent year does not correlate well with the crime
rates. The black/white poverty ratio (2001) was 2.3/1 (Hispanics not
included) based on the following poverty rates:
white: 9.9%
black: 22.7%
Hispanic: 21.7%
Secondly, while you may argue that a hungry group would naturally
commit more robberies, what's your excuse for rape, murder, assault?
("Dat whyte guy makes more money then me,so I think I'll rape my
neighbor.") Huh!!!??!
Thirdly, the muscular thugs who are committing this savagery look
anything but hungry.
Finally, in a recent study of NFL players, it was found that their
crime rates were only slightly less than those of their respective
demographic groups in the general population. ("Pros And Cons: The
Criminals Who Play In The NFL" by Jeff yaeger and Jeff Benedict,
Time-Life Books)
Even Je$$e Jack$on was left speechless.
It ain't fiscal bankruptcy, but moral bankruptcy, aided-and-abetted by
the guilty white liberal girly men who continue to make excuses and
keep them on a victim plantatation of self-pity, anger, and hatred.
_________
Out of wedlock births
For blacks for the year 2000 OOW was 68.5% per:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf
______________
HSV2 rates
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/16/1105
EXCERPT FROM ABSTRACT: Results From 1988 to 1994, the seroprevalence
of HSV-2 in persons 12 years of age or older in the United States was
21.9 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 20.2 to 23.6 percent),
corresponding to 45 million infected people in the
noninstitutionalized civilian population. The seroprevalence was
higher among women (25.6 percent) than men (17.8 percent) and higher
among blacks (45.9 percent) than whites (17.6 percent).
________
AIDS:
The CDC's latest estimates indicate blacks account for 47 percent of
HIV
cases; gay and bisexual men make up 45 percent of those living with
the
virus that causes AIDS, the health agency believes.
In 2003, the rates of AIDS cases were 58 per 100,000 in the black
population, 10 per 100,000 Hispanics, 6 per 100,000 whites, 8 per
100,000
American Indian/Alaska native population, and 4 per 100,000
Asian/Pacific
Islanders.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/conditions/06/13/hiv.cases.ap/index.html
WakeU...@adelphia.net
wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 12:31:02 -0400, SgtMinor
><Sa...@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote:
"There is no such book written by "Dr. Fredrick
Lynch."
To which COLRSJ <utahra...@yahoo.com> replied:
Thanks for providing an example of the real face of closed-minded.
truth-be-damned political correctness.
I'll wait while you remove the remaining egg from your face,
SgtMinor.
And *he* is the one who claims, "You guys make this stuff up"!LOL
WakeU...@adelphia.net
<Sa...@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote:
>As my Google search results show, nobody's ever heard of "Dr. Fredrick Lynch."
>>>>> It's no longer a question. I *know* you guys just make this shit up.
THIS after he was shown to be an incompetent putz who doesn't know
how to find a book at Amazon -- even AFTER being given the book's
title!
>>>>> And you lie about everything else.
Your word is about as valueless as used toilet paper. Hopefully
someone who's at least COMEPETENT and able to prevent himself/herself
from making an ass of themselves will come to your rescue here.LOL
jaona...@nowhere.com
associate professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, where he
teaches ...
muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_
health_politics_policy_and_law/v027/27.2lynch.html - Similar pages
</search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-30,GGLG:en&q=related:muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_health_politics_policy_and_law/v027/27.2lynch.html>
you are an etard changing the link will not alter the fact
Perfesser White
jaona...@nowhere.com wrote:
Perhaps he/she/it's hung up on the "Dr." part. The book just has
Frederick Lynch, not Dr. Frederick Lynch, on the cover.
Perfesser White
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
SgtMinor
Thanks to everyone for their posts. It has been most enlightening. I
hope you're not going to feel too stupid after I explain to you what's
been going on here.
Some 10 to 15 years ago some guy named *Frederick* Lynch wrote an
article called Invisible Victims in which he whined about how tough we
white guys have it. So when, in the original post, I read a reference
to a book written by a "Dr. Fredrick Lynch" (note the difference in
spelling) I knew immediately that something was wrong. First of all, I
never knew Lynch had a doctorate (and since I hear about that for the
first time from the vanguard I'm not convinced that he has one now), and
second, the first name was spelled wrong.
Note that in all my posts I referred to "Dr. Fredrick Lynch," always
within quotes, just like it was spelled in the article. And that guy
"Fredrick," if he exists at all, never wrote a book about the suffering
of the white man.
So here I am, making a truthful post, and I'm being called all sorts of
names by all sorts of posters (almost all of them nasty and one guy even
called me an etard!), and receive not one valid rejoinder whatsoever,
from people who, it turns out, cannot read.
Who's the etard now?
If you're planning to wake up during 2005, now would be a good time.
Way Back Jack
A whigger squirm.
jaona...@nowhere.com
On 9-Oct-2005, Perfesser White <perfess...@whiteuniversity.org> wrote:
> Perhaps he/she/it's hung up on the "Dr." part. The book just has
> Frederick Lynch, not Dr. Frederick Lynch, on the cover.
>
> Perfesser White
Generally PhD's that are NOT medical doctors do not use the Dr. in their
names , Lynch is an associate professor at? (I posted it but can not
remember) SGTretard got caught lying and now he is squirming and back
peddling to cover his obvious learning disability
cya
jaona...@nowhere.com
On 9-Oct-2005, SgtMinor <Sa...@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote:
> Who's the etard now?
YOU ARE dummy we posted links you ignored them we posted credentials you
whined if you can not take the truth STOP CROSS POSTING
fucking etard
COLRSJ
<Sa...@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote:
>COLRSJ wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 12:31:02 -0400, SgtMinor
>> <Sa...@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>jaona...@nowhere.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> are you as ugly as you are stupid? try amazon.com and search for books with
>>>> the title invisible victims then you may come back and apologize
>>>
>>>Actually, I'm neither. There is no such book written by "Dr. Fredrick
>>>Lynch." Or should I doubt national vanguard's ability to spell? A
>>>Google search returns only 1 hit and that is the lame story written by a
>>>fascist rag.
>>
>> You are the stupidest person on line if you couldn't find this book.
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0275941027/qid=1128882331/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-7014290-9337465?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>>
>> You are either a retard or a liar.
>
>Why all this name calling? It's especially sad when it comes from a
>person who cannot read. I said that a Google search for "Dr. Fredrick
>Lynch" shows one hit and it comes from the fascist little national
>vanguard. Search amazon for "Dr. Fredrick Lynch" and you don't find the
>book either.
>
>Once again you demonstrate my point that you guys just make this stuff
>up. How pathetic.
The link is for AMAZON.com, or can't you read? Gee I made it up,
guess that means I own Amazon, best run to the bank tomorrow to get my
millions under control.
U = Moronos Maximus
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8-Oct-2005, SgtMinor <Sa...@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, way back, I'm an asshole because I point out it's another one of
>>>>> these fabricated stories from national vanguard. As my Google search
>>>>> results show, nobody's ever heard of "Dr. Fredrick Lynch."
>>>>>
>>>>> It's no longer a question. I *know* you guys just make this shit up.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> And you lie about everything else.
--
COLRSJ
Another nigger apologist has gone down in flames. Three cheers for
the AFN anti-aircraft gun team.
COLRSJ
<Sa...@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote:
>jaona...@nowhere.com wrote:
>
>> read what I wrote moron go to Amazon.com
>> never mind here etard
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/103-8043074-2477421
>
>Wrong again. There is no book available at Amazon (or anywhere else,
>for that matter) written by "Dr. Fredrick Lynch."
So, you are just a troll wanting to argue adnaseum.
TNB, nothing to see here.
>
>And what's an "etard"?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9-Oct-2005, SgtMinor <Sa...@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I'm neither. There is no such book written by "Dr. Fredrick
>>> Lynch." Or should I doubt national vanguard's ability to spell? A
>>> Google search returns only 1 hit and that is the lame story written by a
>>> fascist rag.
--
Lethalfind
I'm a single Mother, I just returned to school to get my nursing degree.
I went by financial aid to ask about other scholarships I could apply
for. I was rather surprised to see how many of them were marked for
hispanic only or black only. How would they react if we had one or two
in there for whites only. Oh my God the furry.
I don't think of myself as a racist but maybe this post means I am.
--
Lethalfind
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lethalfind's Profile: http://bbs.whatpissesyouoff.com/member.php?userid=883
View this thread: http://bbs.whatpissesyouoff.com/showthread.php?t=64158
Posted via Forum to Usenet Gateway at http://bbs.whatpissesyouoff.com
No Name
news:43499a62...@news.newshosting.com...
SgtMinor made a simple typo, searching for "Dr. Fredrick Lynch" instead of
"Dr. Frederick Lynch".
2) What is the point of the constant posting of these co-called racial crime
stats? They don't prove a thing. First of all, the *GENETIC* concept of
equating race to skin colour is generally considered to be unscientific.
Simply put, person A may be more genetically similar to person B that person
C even though person A's skin colour is more similar to person C than person
B. The conclusion, that some of the racial crime stat posters have, that
"TNB it's all in the genes" seems to be scientific nonsense. Secondly, the
stats are primarily current U.S. stats and trying to make sweeping "racial"
anthropological behavioural generalizations based on a very narrow sample is
clearly unscientific. Furthermore, the definition of what is considered a
crime inarguably is relativistic.
To give a very specific example of why the whole racial crime stats (i.e.
"blacks" more innately criminal than "whites" or "Asians") argument is
fallacious let's look at murder. Making a sweeping generalization that
"blacks" are genetically more predisposed to murder than "whites" or
"Asians" based on U.S. racial crime statistics ignores the bigger historical
*FACT* that the death toll, for large-scale historical episodes of humans
killing other humans, typically involved "whites" or "Asians" as the
perpretrators and not blacks.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_toll#Deaths_caused_by_humans for an
example). The point being that if you are going to attribute the disposition
to killing humans to a genetic determinant then it's unscientific to look at
a few thousand black American gang banger murderers while ignoring the
millions killed by "whites" or "Asians" throughout history.
3) What is the point for the constant posting of the racial HSV2 affliction
rates? What is your hypothesis? What is your conclusion?
There is an increasing scientific knowledge regarding disease affliction and
racial/cultural groups. It is not unheard of for a culture or "race" at one
point in time to be more predisposed to the ravages of a disease than
another culture or "race" for various reasons. So what?
Way Back Jack
That is what we call a typical example of whigger excusemaking. The
subject is crime in the US, not the number of people killed in wars.
If blacks had the intelligence to develop weapons of mass destruction
and other wartime weaponry and were in the position to use same, do
you think that their killings would be less than those of Asians or
white?
>3) What is the point for the constant posting of the racial HSV2 affliction
>rates? What is your hypothesis? What is your conclusion?
>There is an increasing scientific knowledge regarding disease affliction and
>racial/cultural groups. It is not unheard of for a culture or "race" at one
>point in time to be more predisposed to the ravages of a disease than
>another culture or "race" for various reasons. So what?
HSV2 is transmitted overwhelmingly by sexual behavior. Two "clean"
partners who are not promiscuous have a next-to-nothing chance of
contracting the disease. HSV-2 rates reflect on the morality of Homo
Negronus Americanus.
No Name
"Way Back Jack" <mo...@home.net> wrote in message
news:1128957621.047b7c72a049bf289b95d7283814a32c@bubbanews...
Well actually the subject is whatever the poster wants the subject to be.
However, clearly, the subject of crime in the U.S. is a too narrow focus to
use as the basis for substantive claims for a genetic predisposition to
certain behaviours. Unless of course the person making that claim is
simplistic and narrow-minded.
>
> If blacks had the intelligence to develop weapons of mass destruction
> and other wartime weaponry and were in the position to use same, do
> you think that their killings would be less than those of Asians or
> white?
Hmmm interesting question?
One Potential Answer ***Wearing the hat of the typical race crime stats
poster***:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duh, just look at the facts and stop trying to make excuses for the
well-documented Asian and white genetic predisposition (TWB and TAB) towards
killing people. 30M-60M Asians-caused killings in the 13th century in one
case; 33-36M in the 8th century by Asians in another case; 45-68M
white-caused killings in the 20th century in a third. The examples go on and
on of whites and Asians acting out their true nature and killing other
humans. The genetically-behaviourally induced atrocities in the 8th and 13th
centuries hardly involved sophisticated "weapons of mass destruction or
other wartime weaponry". The worst case with blacks is 3.8M in the 20th
century. Sad as was for blacks to stoop to the inherent animalistic
behaviour of Asians and whites, this case does however demonstrate that
blacks have the means to kill in large numbers. So to answer your question
more succintly: YES!!
>
>>3) What is the point for the constant posting of the racial HSV2
>>affliction
>>rates? What is your hypothesis? What is your conclusion?
>>There is an increasing scientific knowledge regarding disease affliction
>>and
>>racial/cultural groups. It is not unheard of for a culture or "race" at
>>one
>>point in time to be more predisposed to the ravages of a disease than
>>another culture or "race" for various reasons. So what?
>
> HSV2 is transmitted overwhelmingly by sexual behavior. Two "clean"
> partners who are not promiscuous have a next-to-nothing chance of
> contracting the disease. HSV-2 rates reflect on the morality of Homo
> Negronus Americanus.
Sorry but "it does not (necessarily) follow":
- It's scientifically may very well be that Homo Negronus Americanus may be
more biologically susceptible to HSV2 transmission than Homo Whitus
Americanus, Homo Asianus Americanus, and Homo Hispanicus Americanus.
- Homo Negronus Americanus may be less likely for economic, cultural, and
other reasons to practise safe sex than other groups.
- Even if it turns out that Homo Negronus Americanus is more "promiscuous"
than other Americans so what? Homo Negronus Americanus is a culture not a
race. Even if one were to (unscientifically) generalise from Negronus
Americanus to blacks as a whole, from a morality perspective the murderous
predisposition of whites and Asians (see above) is clearly more immoral than
the promiscuity of blacks!!!
SgtMinor
> "Way Back Jack" <hum...@home.net> wrote in message
> news:43499a62...@news.newshosting.com...
>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 17:40:29 -0400, SgtMinor
>> <Sa...@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>jaona...@nowhere.com wrote:
<snip>
> 1) Hard to believe that nobody could point out in a civilized manner that
> SgtMinor made a simple typo, searching for "Dr. Fredrick Lynch" instead of
> "Dr. Frederick Lynch".
Actually, the error was made not be me but by the author and/or national
vanguard. And although I made that very clear, by always stating the
name in quotation marks, it seems some posters had problems with reading.
For the life of me I can't understand racism. I myself had nothing
whatsoever to do with the fact that I was born a white male. And I
don't think that those born black and/or to people living in abject
poverty had much choice about the matter either.
My life has not been all that easy, but I know that it would have been a
lot more difficult if I had been born black or female, or to ignorant
parents who were mired in a hopeless situation, parents who felt
oppressed, whether that oppression were real or imagined. I have
witnessed black people I know being harassed by the authorities or even
store employees, and I'm sure there were all sorts of more subtle
discriminations they had to endure. These treatments must certainly
have had impacts on their perceptions.
Anyone who can honestly say that he or she thinks there is no
institutional racism in America, and that pre-fetuses can select their
sex, race, IQ, and the womb in which they will be nurtured, can go ahead
and be a racist.
I also find it difficult to understand why almost every response to my
posts included epithets. I guess that racist views are incompatible
with acting in a civilized manner.
All this hatred is just pitiful. What unhappy lives these people must live.
<snip>
Way Back Jack
The only institutional racism in America is directed toward whites in
the form of government-sponsored affirmative action and other racial
preference programs for "protected" minority groups. The most amazing
consequence is the fact that despite 40 years of preferential
treatment, black criminality, immorality, and animalistic behavior are
worse today than during the days of Jim Crow.
The early civil rights leaders lied to us.
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:47:29 -0400, SgtMinor
Way Back Jack
<NoE...@IfYouPlease.org> wrote:
I will let the geneticists argue the etiology of black anti-social
behavior. As a non-expert, I believe that a large part of it derives
from black culture aided-and-abetted by the white liberal mindset that
refuses to let them leave the victim plantation and which has
ingrained in them the angry "You owes us mindset."
>>
>> If blacks had the intelligence to develop weapons of mass destruction
>> and other wartime weaponry and were in the position to use same, do
>> you think that their killings would be less than those of Asians or
>> white?
>Hmmm interesting question?
>One Potential Answer ***Wearing the hat of the typical race crime stats
>poster***:
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Duh, just look at the facts and stop trying to make excuses for the
>well-documented Asian and white genetic predisposition (TWB and TAB) towards
>killing people. 30M-60M Asians-caused killings in the 13th century in one
>case; 33-36M in the 8th century by Asians in another case; 45-68M
>white-caused killings in the 20th century in a third. The examples go on and
>on of whites and Asians acting out their true nature and killing other
>humans. The genetically-behaviourally induced atrocities in the 8th and 13th
>centuries hardly involved sophisticated "weapons of mass destruction or
>other wartime weaponry". The worst case with blacks is 3.8M in the 20th
>century. Sad as was for blacks to stoop to the inherent animalistic
>behaviour of Asians and whites, this case does however demonstrate that
>blacks have the means to kill in large numbers. So to answer your question
>more succintly: YES!!
If you want to live in the past, allow me to point out that the
weaponry produced at the time was relatively advanced.
Now let us return to present-day Western civilization
>>
>>>3) What is the point for the constant posting of the racial HSV2
>>>affliction
>>>rates? What is your hypothesis? What is your conclusion?
>>>There is an increasing scientific knowledge regarding disease affliction
>>>and
>>>racial/cultural groups. It is not unheard of for a culture or "race" at
>>>one
>>>point in time to be more predisposed to the ravages of a disease than
>>>another culture or "race" for various reasons. So what?
>>
>> HSV2 is transmitted overwhelmingly by sexual behavior. Two "clean"
>> partners who are not promiscuous have a next-to-nothing chance of
>> contracting the disease. HSV-2 rates reflect on the morality of Homo
>> Negronus Americanus.
>Sorry but "it does not (necessarily) follow":
>- It's scientifically may very well be that Homo Negronus Americanus may be
>more biologically susceptible to HSV2 transmission than Homo Whitus
>Americanus, Homo Asianus Americanus, and Homo Hispanicus Americanus.
Cites, please. In my rather extensive medical library, I read that
HSV-2 is cause "primarily," or "overwhelmingly" by sexual behavior.
>- Homo Negronus Americanus may be less likely for economic, cultural, and
>other reasons to practise safe sex than other groups.
Ah yes, Bill Gates is far wealthier than me so I am FAR more likely
than he is to contract VD. Huh?? I see that the Euro-twit excuses
mirror those of of the white American liberal of the 1960s. But as
for the "cultural," cop out, I tend to agree partly. But of course
this also embraces the lack of moral responsibility of that "culture."
>- Even if it turns out that Homo Negronus Americanus is more "promiscuous"
>than other Americans so what?
So what? I'll tell you so what. When pappy is out spreading his seed
all over town, making babies I have to support, and contributing to
their 70% out of wedlock rate, instead of staying home with his
babies, instilling in them the absolute necessity of study, education,
and training, don't come whining to me for more money to dump into the
educational system to close the black-white achievement gap.
That's so what.
And to you think that pappy's behavior shows a good example for little
DeShawn and Eboneesha?
>Homo Negronus Americanus is a culture not a
>race. Even if one were to (unscientifically) generalise from Negronus
>Americanus to blacks as a whole, from a morality perspective the murderous
>predisposition of whites and Asians (see above) is clearly more immoral than
>the promiscuity of blacks!!!
Culture, schmulture .... race, schmace, whatever the etiology, black
anti-social behavior is worse now despite two generations of
preferential treatment than it was during Jim Crow.
You liberal whiggers need to go back to the drawing board for a new
approach
No Name
"Way Back Jack" <yom...@home.com> wrote in message
news:434ab575...@news.prodigy.net...
But that is exactly my point. Many race crime posters are attempting to link
U.S. black crime rates to a genetic predisposition. My overall argument is
that a) skin colour/race/genetic predisposition is scientific nonsense; and
b) even if it was scientific, to make generalizations of genetic
predisposition one cannot look at such a narrow sample (current U.S. issues)
of the genetic population. If you want to call this living in the past, then
you obviously have failed to grasp the gist of my argument - or can we
consider that on this point your are no longer challenging my argument.
>>>
>>>>3) What is the point for the constant posting of the racial HSV2
>>>>affliction
>>>>rates? What is your hypothesis? What is your conclusion?
>>>>There is an increasing scientific knowledge regarding disease affliction
>>>>and
>>>>racial/cultural groups. It is not unheard of for a culture or "race" at
>>>>one
>>>>point in time to be more predisposed to the ravages of a disease than
>>>>another culture or "race" for various reasons. So what?
>>>
>>> HSV2 is transmitted overwhelmingly by sexual behavior. Two "clean"
>>> partners who are not promiscuous have a next-to-nothing chance of
>>> contracting the disease. HSV-2 rates reflect on the morality of Homo
>>> Negronus Americanus.
>>Sorry but "it does not (necessarily) follow":
>>- It's scientifically may very well be that Homo Negronus Americanus may
>>be
>>more biologically susceptible to HSV2 transmission than Homo Whitus
>>Americanus, Homo Asianus Americanus, and Homo Hispanicus Americanus.
>
> Cites, please. In my rather extensive medical library, I read that
I guess I should have proof-read what I wrote and made it clearer. I should
have written that "scientifically, it is ****possible***** that Homo
Negronus may be more biologically susceptible ..."
I have no cites for this statement because I simply gave you another
****possible**** explanation that I made up of the top of my head. The point
is that your conclusion that blacks are more immoral than whites or Asians
because of a higher HSV-2 rate is a non sequitir. There are many other
****possible**** explanations. It is not up to me to prove that any of these
possible explanations are in fact correct. Since you are the one making the
hypothesis it is really up to you to disprove all other reasonable possible
explanations. Please note that there are many medical examples of human
sub-populations being more susceptible to certain diseases and infections
than other human sub-populations.
> HSV-2 is cause "primarily," or "overwhelmingly" by sexual behavior.
>
>>- Homo Negronus Americanus may be less likely for economic, cultural, and
>>other reasons to practise safe sex than other groups.
>
> Ah yes, Bill Gates is far wealthier than me so I am FAR more likely
> than he is to contract VD. Huh??
Again, I never wrote or implied that. I simply pointed out other factors
other than promiscuity that would affect HSV-2 infection rates. Do you not
agree that if culture A does not practise safe sex as consistently as
culture B then all other factors being the same, then it would not be
surprising to for culture A to have an increased HSV-2 infection rate.
> I see that the Euro-twit excuses
> mirror those of of the white American liberal of the 1960s. But as
> for the "cultural," cop out, I tend to agree partly. But of course
> this also embraces the lack of moral responsibility of that "culture."
>
It's not a cop out, simply another possible explanation. However, I
definitely agree with your point. If "U.S. sub-culture A" practices safe
sex less often than other "U.S. sub-culture B" then in this ***one regard***
U.S. sub-culture A is being less morally responsible.
>>- Even if it turns out that Homo Negronus Americanus is more "promiscuous"
>>than other Americans so what?
>
> So what? I'll tell you so what. When pappy is out spreading his seed
> all over town, making babies I have to support, and contributing to
> their 70% out of wedlock rate, instead of staying home with his
> babies, instilling in them the absolute necessity of study, education,
> and training, don't come whining to me for more money to dump into the
> educational system to close the black-white achievement gap.
>
> That's so what.
... and what exactly does this have to do with your hypothesis??
>
> And to you think that pappy's behavior shows a good example for little
> DeShawn and Eboneesha?
>
>>Homo Negronus Americanus is a culture not a
>>race. Even if one were to (unscientifically) generalise from Negronus
>>Americanus to blacks as a whole, from a morality perspective the murderous
>>predisposition of whites and Asians (see above) is clearly more immoral
>>than
>>the promiscuity of blacks!!!
>
> Culture, schmulture .... race, schmace, whatever the etiology, black
> anti-social behavior is worse now despite two generations of
> preferential treatment than it was during Jim Crow.
>
> You liberal whiggers need to go back to the drawing board for a new
> approach
1) Again what exactly does preferential treatment have to do with your
hypothesis. You seem to have forgotten your hypothesis, so I'll re-summarize
my understanding of it for you. "Blacks have a higher HSV-2 infection rate .
This is reflective of their [lower] morality [than non-blacks]. In response
I gave you other possible explanations for a higher HSV-2 infection rate.
Since you are the (relative) expert in this topic, if I am to believe your
hypothesis, you should cite some source that "scientifically" discounts
these other possible explanations. I also argued that if you are going to
make judgements on racial "morality" arguments then you should not narrowly
confine it to promiscuity (which I assumed was what you meant by moral) but
you should look at more important moral behaviours (or states) (such as
genocide). Your response is intellectually very disappointing.
2) re: "You liberal whiggers need to go back to the drawing board for a new
approach [re: preferential treatment]". If you in anyway associate me with
somehow being responsible for the U.S. practise of preferential treatment
then you have clearly lost your grip on reality!!!
Way Back Jack
<NoE...@IfYouPlease.org> wrote:
And they *may* be correct.
>My overall argument is
>that a) skin colour/race/genetic predisposition is scientific nonsense; and
>b) even if it was scientific, to make generalizations of genetic
>predisposition one cannot look at such a narrow sample (current U.S. issues)
>of the genetic population. If you want to call this living in the past, then
>you obviously have failed to grasp the gist of my argument - or can we
>consider that on this point your are no longer challenging my argument.
Experts disagree and for that reason, I have no opinion on the
genetics vs. environment issue. You should follow my lead and
likewise refrain from having an opinion. Furthermore, it's not just
"US issues" but the behavior of blacks in general. You know of course
that blacks in sub-Saharan Africa still enslave people. You know that
blacks all over the planet score lowest in standardized testing.
See, your problem is that you probably live in a country that is 2%
black, and have derived your knowledge of blacks from the Cosby show.
>>>>
>>>>>3) What is the point for the constant posting of the racial HSV2
>>>>>affliction
>>>>>rates? What is your hypothesis? What is your conclusion?
>>>>>There is an increasing scientific knowledge regarding disease affliction
>>>>>and
>>>>>racial/cultural groups. It is not unheard of for a culture or "race" at
>>>>>one
>>>>>point in time to be more predisposed to the ravages of a disease than
>>>>>another culture or "race" for various reasons. So what?
>>>>
>>>> HSV2 is transmitted overwhelmingly by sexual behavior. Two "clean"
>>>> partners who are not promiscuous have a next-to-nothing chance of
>>>> contracting the disease. HSV-2 rates reflect on the morality of Homo
>>>> Negronus Americanus.
>>>Sorry but "it does not (necessarily) follow":
>>>- It's scientifically may very well be that Homo Negronus Americanus may
>>>be
>>>more biologically susceptible to HSV2 transmission than Homo Whitus
>>>Americanus, Homo Asianus Americanus, and Homo Hispanicus Americanus.
>>
>> Cites, please. In my rather extensive medical library, I read that
>I guess I should have proof-read what I wrote and made it clearer. I should
>have written that "scientifically, it is ****possible***** that Homo
>Negronus may be more biologically susceptible ..."
You have to transcend "possible" when making excuses, especially in
the face of what is currently known about the transmission of HSV-2.
Now if you want to argue that blacks have higher rates of asthma or
lower rates of melanoma, those are different stories. Those are
backed by facts.
>I have no cites for this statement because I simply gave you another
>****possible**** explanation that I made up of the top of my head. The point
>is that your conclusion that blacks are more immoral than whites or Asians
>because of a higher HSV-2 rate is a non sequitir. There are many other
>****possible**** explanations. It is not up to me to prove that any of these
>possible explanations are in fact correct. Since you are the one making the
>hypothesis it is really up to you to disprove all other reasonable possible
>explanations. Please note that there are many medical examples of human
>sub-populations being more susceptible to certain diseases and infections
>than other human sub-populations.
The proof is in the pudding; blacks contract ALL STDs (not just HSV-2)
at higher rates than other groups.
>> HSV-2 is cause "primarily," or "overwhelmingly" by sexual behavior.
>>
>>>- Homo Negronus Americanus may be less likely for economic, cultural, and
>>>other reasons to practise safe sex than other groups.
>>
>> Ah yes, Bill Gates is far wealthier than me so I am FAR more likely
>> than he is to contract VD. Huh??
>Again, I never wrote or implied that. I simply pointed out other factors
>other than promiscuity that would affect HSV-2 infection rates. Do you not
>agree that if culture A does not practise safe sex as consistently as
>culture B then all other factors being the same, then it would not be
>surprising to for culture A to have an increased HSV-2 infection rate.
I would agree that Culture A is too stupid or too morally bankrupt to
realize the consequences of their behavior.
>> I see that the Euro-twit excuses
>> mirror those of of the white American liberal of the 1960s. But as
>> for the "cultural," cop out, I tend to agree partly. But of course
>> this also embraces the lack of moral responsibility of that "culture."
>>
>It's not a cop out, simply another possible explanation. However, I
>definitely agree with your point. If "U.S. sub-culture A" practices safe
>sex less often than other "U.S. sub-culture B" then in this ***one regard***
>U.S. sub-culture A is being less morally responsible.
That's what I said above.
>>>- Even if it turns out that Homo Negronus Americanus is more "promiscuous"
>>>than other Americans so what?
>>
>> So what? I'll tell you so what. When pappy is out spreading his seed
>> all over town, making babies I have to support, and contributing to
>> their 70% out of wedlock rate, instead of staying home with his
>> babies, instilling in them the absolute necessity of study, education,
>> and training, don't come whining to me for more money to dump into the
>> educational system to close the black-white achievement gap.
>>
>> That's so what.
>
>... and what exactly does this have to do with your hypothesis??
It reflects moral bankruptcy.
>>
>> And to you think that pappy's behavior shows a good example for little
>> DeShawn and Eboneesha?
>>
>>>Homo Negronus Americanus is a culture not a
>>>race. Even if one were to (unscientifically) generalise from Negronus
>>>Americanus to blacks as a whole, from a morality perspective the murderous
>>>predisposition of whites and Asians (see above) is clearly more immoral
>>>than
>>>the promiscuity of blacks!!!
>>
>> Culture, schmulture .... race, schmace, whatever the etiology, black
>> anti-social behavior is worse now despite two generations of
>> preferential treatment than it was during Jim Crow.
>>
>> You liberal whiggers need to go back to the drawing board for a new
>> approach
>1) Again what exactly does preferential treatment have to do with your
>hypothesis. You seem to have forgotten your hypothesis, so I'll re-summarize
>my understanding of it for you. "Blacks have a higher HSV-2 infection rate .
>This is reflective of their [lower] morality [than non-blacks].
Yep.
> In response
>I gave you other possible explanations for a higher HSV-2 infection rate.
>Since you are the (relative) expert in this topic, if I am to believe your
>hypothesis, you should cite some source that "scientifically" discounts
>these other possible explanations.
You could draw any "possible explanation" out of the air. We draw our
conclusions based on known facts. In this case, the known fact is
that promiscuity leads to the higher likelihood of HSV-2 and other
STDs. This is relevant because of its impact on the lack of a black
family unit (70% out of wedlock; 60+% single authority figure) which
in turn affects crime rates and the educational gap.
And the cycle continues; and the beat goes on.
> I also argued that if you are going to
>make judgements on racial "morality" arguments then you should not narrowly
>confine it to promiscuity
I don't; I'm more concerned with their tendency toward violent crime
> (which I assumed was what you meant by moral) but
>you should look at more important moral behaviours (or states) (such as
>genocide).
Yes, the self-genocide, not only here, but also in mother Africa.
> Your response is intellectually very disappointing.
>2) re: "You liberal whiggers need to go back to the drawing board for a new
>approach [re: preferential treatment]". If you in anyway associate me with
>somehow being responsible for the U.S. practise of preferential treatment
>then you have clearly lost your grip on reality!!!
You make the same tired 1960ish excuses as our whiggers and probably
favor the preferential treatment approach.
No Name
HSV-2 infection rate topic!
> You should follow my lead and
> likewise refrain from having an opinion. Furthermore, it's not just
> "US issues" but the behavior of blacks in general. You know of course
> that blacks in sub-Saharan Africa still enslave people.
Another topic. I prefer to disect one topic at a time!
> You know that
> blacks all over the planet score lowest in standardized testing.
Another topic. I prefer to disect one topic at a time!
>
> See, your problem is that you probably live in a country that is 2%
> black, and have derived your knowledge of blacks from the Cosby show.
Utter nonsense!!
Can you cite one scientific study that compellingly indicates that U.S.
blacks are more "promiscuous" than U.S. whites? Yes, obviously increased
promiscuity leads to a higher likelihood of HSV-2, but since you are
well-read in this area can you cite any scientific study that indicates
promiscuity is the only factor involved in HSV-2 infection? Can you cite any
scientific study that demonstrates that there there are no racial or other
sub-populative differences in susceptibility towards HSV-2 transmission?
If you can not do any of the above then it would appear that you have picked
the explanation (for the differences in U.S. black/white/Asian HSV-2
infection rates) that best suits your offensive, racist agenda!!
>
> And the cycle continues; and the beat goes on.
>
>> I also argued that if you are going to
>>make judgements on racial "morality" arguments then you should not
>>narrowly
>>confine it to promiscuity
>
> I don't; I'm more concerned with their tendency toward violent crime
>
>> (which I assumed was what you meant by moral) but
>>you should look at more important moral behaviours (or states) (such as
>>genocide).
>
> Yes, the self-genocide, not only here, but also in mother Africa.
>
>> Your response is intellectually very disappointing.
>>2) re: "You liberal whiggers need to go back to the drawing board for a
>>new
>>approach [re: preferential treatment]". If you in anyway associate me with
>>somehow being responsible for the U.S. practise of preferential treatment
>>then you have clearly lost your grip on reality!!!
>
> You make the same tired 1960ish excuses as our whiggers and probably
> favor the preferential treatment approach.
and what excuses have I made? I have simply given you other plausible
explanations for the differences in U.S. black/white/Asian HSV-2 infection
rates. You on the other hand have failed to given one good reason to support
your original hypothesis?
Way Back Jack
<NoE...@IfYouPlease.org> wrote:
Just one?
Sure, their out of wedlock rate is 70% compared to the white rate of
25%:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf
Furthermore, the rates of their other STDs, e.g., HIV/AIDS. This rate
is also higher in homosexual males.
Are you suggesting that homo males have some sort of medical
predisposition to contracting HIV virus? Eh?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/conditions/06/13/hiv.cases.ap/index.html
The CDC's latest estimates indicate blacks account for 47 percent of
HIV cases; gay and bisexual men make up 45 percent of those living
with the virus that causes AIDS, the health agency believes.
In 2003, the rates of AIDS cases were 58 per 100,000 in the black
population, 10 per 100,000 Hispanics, 6 per 100,000 whites, 8 per
100,000 American Indian/Alaska native population, and 4 per 100,000
Asian/Pacific Islanders.
> Yes, obviously increased
>promiscuity leads to a higher likelihood of HSV-2, but since you are
>well-read in this area can you cite any scientific study that indicates
>promiscuity is the only factor involved in HSV-2 infection? Can you cite any
>scientific study that demonstrates that there there are no racial or other
>sub-populative differences in susceptibility towards HSV-2 transmission?
Can you cite anything at all to prove your assertion?
Medical texts say that HSV-2 is contracted sexually; they don't say
anything about increased biomedical susceptibility among recognized
groups.
Now, do you have anything to add to AMA's knowledge?
>If you can not do any of the above then it would appear that you have picked
>the explanation (for the differences in U.S. black/white/Asian HSV-2
>infection rates) that best suits your offensive, racist agenda!!
"The modern definition of a racist: someone who is winning an
argument with
a liberal."
--- Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (1996)
Furthermore, it seems to me that if blacks do have a medical
predisposition, you admit that there are races other than the human
race. If that's the case, might race also be the reason for their
anti-social behavior and lower IQs? Eh?
>> And the cycle continues; and the beat goes on.
>>
>>> I also argued that if you are going to
>>>make judgements on racial "morality" arguments then you should not
>>>narrowly
>>>confine it to promiscuity
>>
>> I don't; I'm more concerned with their tendency toward violent crime
>>
>>> (which I assumed was what you meant by moral) but
>>>you should look at more important moral behaviours (or states) (such as
>>>genocide).
>>
>> Yes, the self-genocide, not only here, but also in mother Africa.
>>
>>> Your response is intellectually very disappointing.
>>>2) re: "You liberal whiggers need to go back to the drawing board for a
>>>new
>>>approach [re: preferential treatment]". If you in anyway associate me with
>>>somehow being responsible for the U.S. practise of preferential treatment
>>>then you have clearly lost your grip on reality!!!
>>
>> You make the same tired 1960ish excuses as our whiggers and probably
>> favor the preferential treatment approach.
>and what excuses have I made? I have simply given you other plausible
>explanations for the differences in U.S. black/white/Asian HSV-2 infection
>rates. You on the other hand have failed to given one good reason to support
>your original hypothesis?
See above regarding my data, studies, etc.
All you have done is grasp at straws in a desperate attempt to come up
with another excuse for black anti-social behavior.
You made the assertion, son, now back it up
Way Back Jack
<NoE...@IfYouPlease.org> wrote:
Just one?
Sure, their out of wedlock rate is 70% compared to the white rate of
25%:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf
Furthermore, the rates of their other STDs, e.g., HIV/AIDS. This rate
is also higher in homosexual males.
Are you suggesting that homo males have some sort of medical
predisposition to contracting HIV virus? Eh?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/conditions/06/13/hiv.cases.ap/index.html
The CDC's latest estimates indicate blacks account for 47 percent of
HIV cases; gay and bisexual men make up 45 percent of those living
with the virus that causes AIDS, the health agency believes.
In 2003, the rates of AIDS cases were 58 per 100,000 in the black
population, 10 per 100,000 Hispanics, 6 per 100,000 whites, 8 per
100,000 American Indian/Alaska native population, and 4 per 100,000
Asian/Pacific Islanders.
> Yes, obviously increased
>promiscuity leads to a higher likelihood of HSV-2, but since you are
>well-read in this area can you cite any scientific study that indicates
>promiscuity is the only factor involved in HSV-2 infection? Can you cite any
>scientific study that demonstrates that there there are no racial or other
>sub-populative differences in susceptibility towards HSV-2 transmission?
Can you cite anything at all to prove your assertion?
Medical texts say that HSV-2 is contracted sexually; they don't say
anything about increased biomedical susceptibility among recognized
groups.
Now, do you have anything to add to AMA's knowledge?
>If you can not do any of the above then it would appear that you have picked
>the explanation (for the differences in U.S. black/white/Asian HSV-2
>infection rates) that best suits your offensive, racist agenda!!
"The modern definition of a racist: someone who is winning an
argument with
a liberal."
--- Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (1996)
Furthermore, it seems to me that if blacks do have a medical
predisposition, you admit that there are races other than the human
race. If that's the case, might race also be the reason for their
anti-social behavior and lower IQs? Eh?
>> And the cycle continues; and the beat goes on.
>>
>>> I also argued that if you are going to
>>>make judgements on racial "morality" arguments then you should not
>>>narrowly
>>>confine it to promiscuity
>>
>> I don't; I'm more concerned with their tendency toward violent crime
>>
>>> (which I assumed was what you meant by moral) but
>>>you should look at more important moral behaviours (or states) (such as
>>>genocide).
>>
>> Yes, the self-genocide, not only here, but also in mother Africa.
>>
>>> Your response is intellectually very disappointing.
>>>2) re: "You liberal whiggers need to go back to the drawing board for a
>>>new
>>>approach [re: preferential treatment]". If you in anyway associate me with
>>>somehow being responsible for the U.S. practise of preferential treatment
>>>then you have clearly lost your grip on reality!!!
>>
>> You make the same tired 1960ish excuses as our whiggers and probably
>> favor the preferential treatment approach.
>and what excuses have I made? I have simply given you other plausible
>explanations for the differences in U.S. black/white/Asian HSV-2 infection
>rates. You on the other hand have failed to given one good reason to support
>your original hypothesis?
See above regarding my data, studies, etc.
All you have done is grasp at straws in a desperate attempt to come up
with another excuse for black anti-social behavior.
You made the assertion, son, now mback it up
COLRSJ
<NoE...@IfYouPlease.org> wrote:
Science my ass, darker skinned people commit more crime per capita,
now stfu and hug your nigger friends loser boi.
No Name
"Tommy" <127....@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:2823205.TsxR6kjnMd@FreeBSD...
> No Name wrote:
>
>
>> Can you cite one scientific study that compellingly indicates that U.S.
>> blacks are more "promiscuous" than U.S. whites? Yes, obviously increased
>> promiscuity leads to a higher likelihood of HSV-2, but since you are
>> well-read in this area can you cite any scientific study that indicates
>> promiscuity is the only factor involved in HSV-2 infection? Can you cite
>> any scientific study that demonstrates that there there are no racial or
>> other sub-populative differences in susceptibility towards HSV-2
>> transmission?
>
> ignore the disease ratio between White & Black.
I'm ignoring nothing. I was simply asking for **any** scientific proof
(other than I don't like niggers so this must be the reason why) that
indicates the ***cause*** of the statistics. You really need to educate
yourself a little bit about causation!
>
> Why ask:
> "Can you cite one scientific study that compellingly indicates that U.S.
> blacks are more "promiscuous" than U.S. whites?"
>
> How about I ask you: Can you explain the higher disease rate of Blacks
> compared to that of Whites? Uh, do ya think that 'promiscuous sex' may
> have
> something to do with the higher HSV-2 among Blacks?
No as I indicated earlier this is not a topic of great interest to me.
However, it seems to be a topic of interest to you, the orginal poster, and
to all the others who like to mindlessly recite these statistics. So I am
surprised that none of you have offered anything of substance to back your
conclusions. Again, the person making the hypothesis is required to
demonstrate some proof. Not the person questioning the (lack of) scientific
rigour of the hypothesis.
>
> --
> Tolerance is how far a mechanical part can deviate from the
> norm before it screws up the entire machine. -Any Mechanic
No Name
reason for the high out of wedlock rate is that the darkies are lazy and
want to get generous welfare. If that is the case then the higher out of
wedlock rate does not necessarily indicate higher promiscuity. It could
simply indicate that promiscuous blacks carry are less likely to use birth
control or to abort their fetuses than promiscuous whites/Asians. Perhaps
U.S. blacks are more religious than whites/Asians and are less likely to
have abortions.
Don't bother writing back and asking me to cite a study for this. You are
the one who has to prove your hypothesis but clearly out of wedlock rates
do not prove increased promiscuity.
>
> Furthermore, the rates of their other STDs, e.g., HIV/AIDS. This rate
> is also higher in homosexual males.
>
> Are you suggesting that homo males have some sort of medical
> predisposition to contracting HIV virus? Eh?
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/conditions/06/13/hiv.cases.ap/index.html
>
> The CDC's latest estimates indicate blacks account for 47 percent of
> HIV cases; gay and bisexual men make up 45 percent of those living
> with the virus that causes AIDS, the health agency believes.
>
> In 2003, the rates of AIDS cases were 58 per 100,000 in the black
> population, 10 per 100,000 Hispanics, 6 per 100,000 whites, 8 per
> 100,000 American Indian/Alaska native population, and 4 per 100,000
> Asian/Pacific Islanders.
>
>> Yes, obviously increased
>>promiscuity leads to a higher likelihood of HSV-2, but since you are
>>well-read in this area can you cite any scientific study that indicates
>>promiscuity is the only factor involved in HSV-2 infection? Can you cite
>>any
>>scientific study that demonstrates that there there are no racial or other
>>sub-populative differences in susceptibility towards HSV-2 transmission?
>
> Can you cite anything at all to prove your assertion?
>
possiblility.
> Medical texts say that HSV-2 is contracted sexually; they don't say
> anything about increased biomedical susceptibility among recognized
> groups.
Likely because they have done no studies of sub-populative HSV-2
susceptibility, and if no such studies have been done then given that
sub-populations often do exhibit different disease susceptibilities and
treatment responses then it can't simply be dismissed.
>
> Now, do you have anything to add to AMA's knowledge?
>
>
>>If you can not do any of the above then it would appear that you have
>>picked
>>the explanation (for the differences in U.S. black/white/Asian HSV-2
>>infection rates) that best suits your offensive, racist agenda!!
>
> "The modern definition of a racist: someone who is winning an
> argument with
> a liberal."
> --- Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (1996)
You are harldy winning this argument. You have yet to offer any proof, just
more unfounded conclusions.
Again I didn't make any excuses for black anti-social behaviour. More
precisely, I gave you three other reasonable alternative factors that could
account for different infection rates other than assuming it is simply
because of increased promiscuity. Again the hypotheis is yours to prove not
mine to disprove. You have not come close to doing so.
No Name
> Furthermore, it seems to me that if blacks do have a medical
> predisposition, you admit that there are races other than the human
> race. If that's the case, might race also be the reason for their
> anti-social behavior and lower IQs? Eh?
>
I have already debunked your hypothesis of black people having a stronger
genetic predisposition towards killing people than whites or Asians, or do
you need another history lesson!!
As for lower IQs and your implication that it is caused by genetics, like I
wrote before I prefer to disect one topic at a time. When I have some time I
might research the topic and then I will either a) discover the truth that
you deep thinkers have unbiasedly recognized; or more likely b) find that
your conclusions ignore many other plausible explanations.
No Name
"COLRSJ" <utahra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lh6mk1pak41pbegld...@4ax.com...
that whites/Asians have typically killed far more people than blacks have.
So, if you are trying to argue that your U.S. crime statistics demonstrate
that blacks have a higher genetic predisposition towards violence than
whites/Asians then the greater historical evidence does not back up your
argument.
On the other hand, if you just want to be obscene, offensive, and to
demonstrate your ignorance & low intelligence then congratulations - mission
accomplished!!
Way Back Jack
<NoE...@IfYouPlease.org> wrote:
>>
>> Furthermore, it seems to me that if blacks do have a medical
>> predisposition, you admit that there are races other than the human
>> race. If that's the case, might race also be the reason for their
>> anti-social behavior and lower IQs? Eh?
>>
>"anti-social" behaviour. Again when it comes to killing people I think that
>I have already debunked your hypothesis of black people having a stronger
>genetic predisposition towards killing people than whites or Asians, or do
>you need another history lesson!!
Your history lesson was debunked.
When blacks advance beyond blow guns and spears, they'll outkill
everyone.
They're doing a hell of a job with Saturday night specials in the US.
>As for lower IQs and your implication that it is caused by genetics, like I
>wrote before I prefer to disect one topic at a time. When I have some time I
>might research the topic and then I will either a) discover the truth that
>you deep thinkers have unbiasedly recognized; or more likely b) find that
>your conclusions ignore many other plausible explanations.
Translation: You're running away.
As for genetics, I'll rely on the experts, not some excusemaking
whigger.
Way Back Jack
<NoE...@IfYouPlease.org> wrote:
Perhaps if pigs had wings they could fly.
Their OOW rates are yet another indication to accompany their STD
rates as indicators of promiscuity.
You have offered no such evidence; just off-the-wall excuses.
What, no response for the male homosexuals? Perhaps their AIDS rate
is high becasue they're religious?
>> Furthermore, the rates of their other STDs, e.g., HIV/AIDS. This rate
>> is also higher in homosexual males.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that homo males have some sort of medical
>> predisposition to contracting HIV virus? Eh?
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/conditions/06/13/hiv.cases.ap/index.html
>>
>> The CDC's latest estimates indicate blacks account for 47 percent of
>> HIV cases; gay and bisexual men make up 45 percent of those living
>> with the virus that causes AIDS, the health agency believes.
>>
>> In 2003, the rates of AIDS cases were 58 per 100,000 in the black
>> population, 10 per 100,000 Hispanics, 6 per 100,000 whites, 8 per
>> 100,000 American Indian/Alaska native population, and 4 per 100,000
>> Asian/Pacific Islanders.
>>
>>> Yes, obviously increased
>>>promiscuity leads to a higher likelihood of HSV-2, but since you are
>>>well-read in this area can you cite any scientific study that indicates
>>>promiscuity is the only factor involved in HSV-2 infection? Can you cite
>>>any
>>>scientific study that demonstrates that there there are no racial or other
>>>sub-populative differences in susceptibility towards HSV-2 transmission?
>>
>> Can you cite anything at all to prove your assertion?
>>
>Again, I have made no assertion. I have simply provided an alternative
>possiblility.
You've provided bullshit excuses.
>> Medical texts say that HSV-2 is contracted sexually; they don't say
>> anything about increased biomedical susceptibility among recognized
>> groups.
>Likely because they have done no studies of sub-populative HSV-2
>susceptibility, and if no such studies have been done then given that
>sub-populations often do exhibit different disease susceptibilities and
>treatment responses then it can't simply be dismissed.
>>
>> Now, do you have anything to add to AMA's knowledge?
>>
>>
>>>If you can not do any of the above then it would appear that you have
>>>picked
>>>the explanation (for the differences in U.S. black/white/Asian HSV-2
>>>infection rates) that best suits your offensive, racist agenda!!
>>
>> "The modern definition of a racist: someone who is winning an
>> argument with
>> a liberal."
>> --- Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (1996)
>
>You are harldy winning this argument. You have yet to offer any proof, just
>more unfounded conclusions.
I'm the only one here who has offered evidence of their promiscuity
and the dire effects it has on society.
Thus, my game, my set my match.
Nope, you need to provide something for your excuses.
We're waiting ..... still waiting.
Way Back Jack
<NoE...@IfYouPlease.org> wrote:
Truth be told, God help the world if the bruthas in sub-Saharan Africa
ever advance beyond spears and blow guns.
No Name
The same could be said for the explanation that you have rigourously fixated
upon.
>
> Their OOW rates are yet another indication to accompany their STD
> rates as indicators of promiscuity.
>
> You have offered no such evidence; just off-the-wall excuses.
Again I don't have to offer evidence since I am not claiming that these are
the reasons. You are really of limited intelligence if you can't understand
that all I have done is given you alternative possible explanations. You
still haven't given me one scientific reason as to why you so strongly hold
to one only possible explanation when there are obviously many other
possible factors.
Are you so biased that you can not admit that **if** (U.S.) blacks are less
likely to use birth control than (U.S.) whites/Asians then all other factors
being the same blacks would be expected to have increased STD rates as well
as increased OOW rates than whites/Asians.
LOL, obviously you have no sense of modern-day science. Stop and think about
it.
You cite statistical differences amongst two sub-populations. You then offer
your opinion as to the **cause** of these differences but you do provide not
a shred of scientific evidence. I question your conclusion and give you
alternative or coextensive factors that could plausibly account for (or
contribute to) the differences.
Your rational conclusion is that you must be right, and that the only
feasible explanation must be your original conclusion, even though you
obviously do not have an ounce of evidence to support your conclusion.
Again, since this a topic for which you consider yourself to be a well-read
expert then why can't you provide any evidence that scientifically supports
your conclusion.
I just spent less than 5 minutes reading about HIV and came across a single
recent study that **suggests** that circumcision provides an even stronger
protection against HIV infection than was previously thought. It also
highlights that HIV infection rates are more than 500% greater in certain
African areas where circumcision is not practiced compared to certain
African areas where circumcision is commonplace.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL&type=printableL
I also found that in the U.S. "For most of the past 20 years,
proportionately more white newborns received circumcisions than did black
infants."
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/circumcisions/circumcisions.htm
So since I am a newbie to this topic and this is information that you were
undoubtedly aware of, can you please explain why is it completely
"Pigs-having-wings-and-flying", "whigger-making-excuses" impossible that
differences in U.S. black vs. white circumcision rates could be a factor in
different HSV-2 infection rates.
Again, let me be clear, at this time, I am not saying that this is the cause
for the differences or that it's even a factor at all. You however are the
one who is emphatically stating that you intelligently know the single
reason for the different infection rates. So it's up to you to cite some
***causative*** evidence.
No Name
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 01:05:31 -0400, "No Name"
> <NoE...@IfYouPlease.org> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Furthermore, it seems to me that if blacks do have a medical
>>> predisposition, you admit that there are races other than the human
>>> race. If that's the case, might race also be the reason for their
>>> anti-social behavior and lower IQs? Eh?
>>>
>>"anti-social" behaviour. Again when it comes to killing people I think
>>that
>>I have already debunked your hypothesis of black people having a stronger
>>genetic predisposition towards killing people than whites or Asians, or do
>>you need another history lesson!!
>
> Your history lesson was debunked.
>
> When blacks advance beyond blow guns and spears, they'll outkill
> everyone.
Such utter nonsense. Your true Neanderthaloid intelligence is really coming
out.
1) Black Africa unfortunately has military spending in billions of $USD
billions.
2) History has documented stupendous volumes of white/Asian killings with
ancient weaponries.
>
> They're doing a hell of a job with Saturday night specials in the US.
>
>>As for lower IQs and your implication that it is caused by genetics, like
>>I
>>wrote before I prefer to disect one topic at a time. When I have some time
>>I
>>might research the topic and then I will either a) discover the truth that
>>you deep thinkers have unbiasedly recognized; or more likely b) find that
>>your conclusions ignore many other plausible explanations.
>
> Translation: You're running away.
No the translation is that unlike you I prefer to intelligently research a
topic before making unfounded conclusions.
>
> As for genetics, I'll rely on the experts, not some excusemaking
> whigger.
Oh you mean the expert scientists on http://www.davidduke.com/ and
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/ where you folks seem to get most of your
information!!
jaona...@nowhere.com
tactic and practice of liberals)
all bullshit and circular crap <snipped>as the wiggers are convoluting the
topic
No Name
<jaona...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:434c79e1$0$5680$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
> you have not said anything you merely make a circular argument (a common
> tactic and practice of liberals)
Such a precise and intelligent response. LOL, perhaps you have the IQ of a
dog running around in a **circle** chasing its tail if you call my response
a **circular** argument.
So a liberal is someone who thinks that a person should have at least a
shred of real evidence that other reasonable possibilities are invalid
before they fixate upon a single all-encompassing conclusive cause for a
phenomena.
>
> all bullshit and circular crap <snipped>as the wiggers are convoluting the
> topic
Actually the topic became convoluted when someone felt the need to include a
list of racial statistics!!
Way Back Jack
<NoE...@IfYouPlease.org> wrote:
>
>"Way Back Jack" <hum...@home.net> wrote in message
>news:434b9c70...@news.newshosting.com...
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 01:05:31 -0400, "No Name"
>> <NoE...@IfYouPlease.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, it seems to me that if blacks do have a medical
>>>> predisposition, you admit that there are races other than the human
>>>> race. If that's the case, might race also be the reason for their
>>>> anti-social behavior and lower IQs? Eh?
>>>>
>>>"anti-social" behaviour. Again when it comes to killing people I think
>>>that
>>>I have already debunked your hypothesis of black people having a stronger
>>>genetic predisposition towards killing people than whites or Asians, or do
>>>you need another history lesson!!
>>
>> Your history lesson was debunked.
>>
>> When blacks advance beyond blow guns and spears, they'll outkill
>> everyone.
>
>Such utter nonsense. Your true Neanderthaloid intelligence is really coming
>out.
>
>1) Black Africa unfortunately has military spending in billions of $USD
>billions.
And, fortunately, they still they cannot advance above 19th century
weaponry.
>2) History has documented stupendous volumes of white/Asian killings with
>ancient weaponries.
Try focusing on modern-day atrocities.
Such as Rwanda.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/
(...)
Leave None to Tell the Story:
Genocide in Rwanda
(...)
Study it well, I will give you a test tomorrow.
>>
>> They're doing a hell of a job with Saturday night specials in the US.
>>
>>>As for lower IQs and your implication that it is caused by genetics, like
>>>I
>>>wrote before I prefer to disect one topic at a time. When I have some time
>>>I
>>>might research the topic and then I will either a) discover the truth that
>>>you deep thinkers have unbiasedly recognized; or more likely b) find that
>>>your conclusions ignore many other plausible explanations.
>>
>> Translation: You're running away.
>
>No the translation is that unlike you I prefer to intelligently research a
>topic before making unfounded conclusions.
Still waiting.
>>
>> As for genetics, I'll rely on the experts, not some excusemaking
>> whigger.
>
>Oh you mean the expert scientists on http://www.davidduke.com/ and
>http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/ where you folks seem to get most of your
>information!!
You say that blacks have a medical susceptibility to STDs, suggesting
a DNA link.
Yet you deny any genetic link to their criminality, immorality, or
animalistic behavior.
Don't look now, but you just shot yourself in the foot.
Way Back Jack
<NoE...@IfYouPlease.org> wrote:
It seems that the medical community is similarly fixated.
"HSV2 is contracted overwhelmingly by sexual contact. Two
non-promiscuous partners who are disease-free have virtually no chance
of contracting the disease." -- Harrison's Principles Of Internal
Medicine -- 15th Edition -- McGraw-Hill Books
>>
>> Their OOW rates are yet another indication to accompany their STD
>> rates as indicators of promiscuity.
>>
>> You have offered no such evidence; just off-the-wall excuses.
"HSV2 is contracted overwhelmingly by sexual contact. Two
non-promiscuous partners who are disease-free have virtually no chance
of contracting the disease." -- Harrison's Principles Of Internal
Medicine -- 15th Edition -- McGraw-Hill Books
Got something to rebut?
>Again I don't have to offer evidence since I am not claiming that these are
>the reasons. You are really of limited intelligence if you can't understand
>that all I have done is given you alternative possible explanations. You
>still haven't given me one scientific reason as to why you so strongly hold
>to one only possible explanation when there are obviously many other
>possible factors.
Tell it to the AMA:
"HSV2 is contracted overwhelmingly by sexual contact. Two
non-promiscuous partners who are disease-free have virtually no chance
of contracting the disease." -- Harrison's Principles Of Internal
Medicine -- 15th Edition -- McGraw-Hill Books
Don't see anything there about blacks having a genetic, biomedical
susceptibility to HSV2.
I DO see something about promiscuity.
>Are you so biased that you can not admit that **if** (U.S.) blacks are less
>likely to use birth control than (U.S.) whites/Asians then all other factors
>being the same blacks would be expected to have increased STD rates as well
>as increased OOW rates than whites/Asians.
"HSV2 is contracted overwhelmingly by sexual contact. Two
non-promiscuous partners who are disease-free have virtually no chance
of contracting the disease." -- Harrison's Principles Of Internal
Medicine -- 15th Edition -- McGraw-Hill Books
Doesn't matter if they use rubbers. If they are clean and monogamous,
they stand an infintesimally small chance of contracting STD.
>>
>> What, no response for the male homosexuals? Perhaps their AIDS rate
>> is high becasue they're religious?
Maybe the homo rate is high because they flap their wrists.
That's no more ridiculous than your other excuses.
How 'bout this:
"HSV2 is contracted overwhelmingly by sexual contact. Two
non-promiscuous partners who are disease-free have virtually no chance
of contracting the disease." -- Harrison's Principles Of Internal
Medicine -- 15th Edition -- McGraw-Hill Books
Note the allusion to promiscuity.
>Your rational conclusion is that you must be right, and that the only
>feasible explanation must be your original conclusion, even though you
>obviously do not have an ounce of evidence to support your conclusion.
"HSV2 is contracted overwhelmingly by sexual contact. Two
non-promiscuous partners who are disease-free have virtually no chance
of contracting the disease." -- Harrison's Principles Of Internal
Medicine -- 15th Edition -- McGraw-Hill Books
>Again, since this a topic for which you consider yourself to be a well-read
>expert then why can't you provide any evidence that scientifically supports
>your conclusion.
Try this one:
"HSV2 is contracted overwhelmingly by sexual contact. Two
non-promiscuous partners who are disease-free have virtually no chance
of contracting the disease." -- Harrison's Principles Of Internal
Medicine -- 15th Edition -- McGraw-Hill Books
>I just spent less than 5 minutes reading about HIV and came across a single
>recent study that **suggests** that circumcision provides an even stronger
>protection against HIV infection than was previously thought. It also
>highlights that HIV infection rates are more than 500% greater in certain
>African areas where circumcision is not practiced compared to certain
>African areas where circumcision is commonplace.
>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL&type=printableL
What aboutmale fags? Are they non-circumsized vs. the general male
population?
>I also found that in the U.S. "For most of the past 20 years,
>proportionately more white newborns received circumcisions than did black
>infants."
>
>http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/circumcisions/circumcisions.htm
Do the black vs. white rates correlate to this:
US black rate of infection: 58 per 100,000
US white rate of infection: 6 per 100,000 **
http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/conditions/06/13/hiv.cases.ap/index.html
>So since I am a newbie to this topic and this is information that you were
>undoubtedly aware of, can you please explain why is it completely
>"Pigs-having-wings-and-flying", "whigger-making-excuses" impossible that
>differences in U.S. black vs. white circumcision rates could be a factor in
>different HSV-2 infection rates.
>Again, let me be clear, at this time, I am not saying that this is the cause
>for the differences or that it's even a factor at all. You however are the
>one who is emphatically stating that you intelligently know the single
>reason for the different infection rates. So it's up to you to cite some
>***causative*** evidence.
Go back to your research and tell me what you found re: "Promiscuous
sexual activity and AIDS."
Or would you like me to do it for you?
No Name
Even I know that the regular use of condoms has been proven to reduce HIV
rates. Apparently male circumcision is a factor for HIV transmission.
Pre-sexual hygiene may be a factor for HIV transmission. Also, you have not
pointed to any study investigating different transmission susceptibility
between different ethnic groups. You have not proven your hypothesis!
>
>
>>>
>>> Their OOW rates are yet another indication to accompany their STD
>>> rates as indicators of promiscuity.
>>>
>>> You have offered no such evidence; just off-the-wall excuses.
>
> "HSV2 is contracted overwhelmingly by sexual contact. Two
> non-promiscuous partners who are disease-free have virtually no chance
> of contracting the disease." -- Harrison's Principles Of Internal
> Medicine -- 15th Edition -- McGraw-Hill Books
>
>
> Got something to rebut?
>
>
>>Again I don't have to offer evidence since I am not claiming that these
>>are
>>the reasons. You are really of limited intelligence if you can't
>>understand
>>that all I have done is given you alternative possible explanations. You
>>still haven't given me one scientific reason as to why you so strongly
>>hold
>>to one only possible explanation when there are obviously many other
>>possible factors.
>
> Tell it to the AMA:
>
> "HSV2 is contracted overwhelmingly by sexual contact. Two
> non-promiscuous partners who are disease-free have virtually no chance
> of contracting the disease." -- Harrison's Principles Of Internal
> Medicine -- 15th Edition -- McGraw-Hill Books
>
Even I know that the regular use of condoms has been proven to reduce HIV
rates. Apparently male circumcision is a factor for HIV transmission.
Pre-sexual hygiene may be a factor for HIV transmission. Also, you have not
pointed to any study investigating different transmission susceptibility
between different ethnic groups. You have not proven your hypothesis!
> Don't see anything there about blacks having a genetic, biomedical
> susceptibility to HSV2.
>
> I DO see something about promiscuity.
>
>>Are you so biased that you can not admit that **if** (U.S.) blacks are
>>less
>>likely to use birth control than (U.S.) whites/Asians then all other
>>factors
>>being the same blacks would be expected to have increased STD rates as
>>well
>>as increased OOW rates than whites/Asians.
>
> "HSV2 is contracted overwhelmingly by sexual contact. Two
> non-promiscuous partners who are disease-free have virtually no chance
> of contracting the disease." -- Harrison's Principles Of Internal
> Medicine -- 15th Edition -- McGraw-Hill Books
>
> Doesn't matter if they use rubbers. If they are clean and monogamous,
> they stand an infintesimally small chance of contracting STD.
>
>>>
>>> What, no response for the male homosexuals? Perhaps their AIDS rate
>>> is high becasue they're religious?
>
> Maybe the homo rate is high because they flap their wrists.
>
> That's no more ridiculous than your other excuses.
The reason for the increased male homosexual rate may very well be different
than the reason for the increased U.S. black rate.
Bringing homosexuals into this is really muddying the issue and I would have
preferred to focus on one issue at a time. Since you are however,
interestingly fixated with homosexuals as well, I will make the following
claim:
I suspect that the increased HIV infection amongst homosexual males is that
they are more likely to have unprotected, anal sex, with multiple partners
than heterosexual males.
I certainly however do not believe that homosexual males are gentically or
innately more promiscuous than heterosexual males. I think that it is easier
for homosexual males to find multiple partners who are willing to engage in
unprotected sex than it is for heterosexual males.
If you think that most 18-35 year-old heterosexual males would turn down the
opportunity to engage in sex with multiple beautiful women then you and I
definitely live in different worlds! Wait, sorry, I forgot most U.S.
white/Asian 18-35 year-old heterosexual males would turn down such an
opportunity because that would be promiscuous!!
Yes, but obviously this does not mean that promiscuity is the only factor.
Even I know that the regular use of condoms has been proven to reduce HIV
rates. Apparently male circumcision is a factor for HIV transmission.
Pre-sexual hygiene may be a factor for HIV transmission. Also, you have not
pointed to any study investigating different transmission susceptibility
between different ethnic groups. You have not proven your hypothesis!
>>Again, since this a topic for which you consider yourself to be a
>>well-read
>>expert then why can't you provide any evidence that scientifically
>>supports
>>your conclusion.
>
> Try this one:
>
> "HSV2 is contracted overwhelmingly by sexual contact. Two
> non-promiscuous partners who are disease-free have virtually no chance
> of contracting the disease." -- Harrison's Principles Of Internal
> Medicine -- 15th Edition -- McGraw-Hill Books
>
Yes, but obviously this does not mean that promiscuity is the only factor.
Even I know that the regular use of condoms has been proven to reduce HIV
rates. Apparently male circumcision is a factor for HIV transmission.
Pre-sexual hygiene may be a factor for HIV transmission. Also, you have not
pointed to any study investigating different transmission susceptibility
between different ethnic groups. You have not proven your hypothesis!
Ummm, YES I WOULD, that is what I have been asking you to do from the
beginning. Show me some real (i.e. preferably at least semi-empirical)
research that backs up your fixated conclusion that the **fundamental**
reason for different HIV or HSV-2 infection rates amongst U.S.
blacks/whites/Asians is that **U.S.** blacks are more promiscuous than U.S.
whites/Asians. or at the very least show me some research that indicates
that the other possible reasons I have given have been scientifically
discounted.
No Name
Boy you really do learn slowly don't you. If blacks had an innate genetic
predisposition towards violence whereas whites/Asians had an innate genetic
pre-disposition towards peacefulness and tranquility then one would expect
the *historical* facts to prove this out. So, no, it does not make sense to
claim genetic predispositions and then just simply throw out the last 1000
years of history to prove your point!!
Perhaps your memory is failing you, but in my previous posting I
"tongue-in-cheek" cited the so-called Second Congo war as an unfortunate
example of how blacks can occasionally stoop to the appalling violent
behaviour that whites/Asians have repeatedly demonstrated throughout history
(***including modern-day atrocities***).
jaona...@nowhere.com
the CDC has all the info you need it has been posted time and time again
because you choose to ignore or deny it does not exclude it
try again
jaona...@nowhere.com
On 11-Oct-2005, yom...@home.com (Way Back Jack) wrote:
> You say that blacks have a medical susceptibility to STDs, suggesting
> a DNA link.
>
> Yet you deny any genetic link to their criminality, immorality, or
> animalistic behavior.
I think what the moron poster is trying to lead to is the myth that the
government ,science or some un-named conspirator designed HIV/AIDS to attack
blacks this is just a guess as the moron in question is most convoluted
Way Back Jack
ANALYSIS OF HATE CRIME Bias-motivated crime has unique
characteristics. As in heterosexual rape, victims and offenders come
from different groups. Unlike rape, however, hate crime is reciprocal.
Each group can prey upon the other. Though not obvious, these singular
aspects incline the data in a unique way. The sizes of victim and
offender groups influence victimization rates in a way that is often
more significant than intrinsic group bias. Methods are developed for
interpreting hate-crime statistics. They are applied to recent FBI
data.
Would you believe that a black in the US is about 20 times more
likely to be a victim of hate crime than a white? This is not the
claim of a left-wing crazy. It comes from data in the 1998 hate-crime
report of the FBI. Data from the two previous reports yield about the
same odds. We will try to put the facts in perspective.
In 1990, Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act, requiring the
Justice Department to collect and publish annual statistics on crimes
that "manifest prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation,
or ethnicity." To comply, the FBI collects data submitted voluntarily
by local law-enforcement agencies, and assembles them into an annual
summary report. Most of the analysis you will find here pertains to
the numbers found in these reports.
Anyone who has pored over Government documents, knows first-hand how
agencies can manipulate data to make a point. Crime statistics are a
good example, the treatment of hate-crime data being especially
egregious. The Justice department has wide latitude in how they comply
with the Hate Crime Statistics Act. Accordingly, it has bent the data
toward its own ends by omitting categories for ethnic offenders. Thus,
Hispanics cannot be hate criminals, only hate victims. When a Hispanic
commits a hate crime, he is counted as white. When he is a victim, he
becomes Hispanic. In this way the FBI pads the number of white
offenders. Despite this baggage we can learn much from the FBI data.
By focusing on victims, we can sidestep Justice Department attempts at
obfuscation.
Minorities suffer simply because they are minorities.
A blueprint for hate-crime data
In a nation of more than 270 million inhabitants, composed of
various ethnic, racial and religious groups, targets for hate crime
abound. Anyone inclined to commit a hate offense will have no trouble
finding a victim. The Census Bureau reports that as of July 1, 1998
there were approximately 223.0 million whites residing in the U.S.,
34.4 million blacks, 30.4 million Hispanics, 10.5 million Asians and
Pacific Islanders, and 2.4 million Native Americans, not to mention
Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Moslems. The target is enormous. For
practical purposes it is infinite.
If there are 1,000 hate criminals in an offender group, there will be
1,000 or more victims in the victim group. Regardless of the victim
group's size, 1 million, 10 million or 50 million, the 1,000 hate
criminals in the offender group will commit the same number of
offenses. For a given hate-crime proclivity, the size of the offender
group determines the number of its offenses. All things equal, a
majority group produces more offenders than a minority group.
Differential group tendencies not withstanding, a majority group
simply has more members.
The size of the victim group is also important. It determines how well
the group absorbs the crime directed toward it. If a thousand crimes
are perpetrated against a group of one million and a like number
against a group of ten million, each member of the smaller group
suffers a tenfold greater risk. Consequently, with respect to hate
crime, minorities are at a double disadvantage having nothing to do
with differential bias. A large dominant group produces many
offenders, whose crimes must be borne by relatively few in a minority
victim group. In other words, minorities suffer simply because they
are minorities. This is a mathematical reality having nothing to do
with differential group bias. One should always view hate-crime
evidence against this backdrop.
Inverse square risk
For simplicity, assume a black and white universe. This is not too
bad a model for the US, because blacks and whites combine to form more
than 95 percent of the population. From our previous discussion, we
know the probability of a white being hate-victimized in a given year
is proportional to the black population and inversely proportional to
the white population. An analogous relation exists for the probability
of a black being hate-victimized.
Quadratic dependence on group size makes it the major determinant of
the black to white risk ratio.
Suppose our black and white universe contains NW whites and NB blacks.
Let pW and pB be the probabilities, respectively, of a white or black
being victimized in a given year. Assuming the average number of
victims per offender is constant across the two groups, we can write,
The quantities, kB and kW , are constants closely related to the
respective probabilities that a black or a white is a hate-criminal.
If there were one victim per offender, the constants would be
precisely these probabilities. We call kB and kW the black and white
hate proclivities, respectively. They are intrinsic group properties.
From (1) we can write the (per capita) risk ratio, pB /pW :
And we have the interesting result that the per capita risk ratio
varies inversely with the hate-proclivity ratio and also inversely
with the square of the group size ratio. Quadratic dependence on group
size makes it the major determinant of the black to white risk ratio.
As the disparity in group size grows, minority group members rapidly
become more vulnerable. At the same time, members of the dominant
group become safer.
In the special case where both groups have equal proclivities for
committing hate crime, kW = kB, and
That is, assuming equal hate proclivity, the per capita risk ratio is
the inverse square of the group population ratio.
We need to ask . . . not why the per capita risk ratio of blacks to
whites is so high, but rather why is it so low?
Equal hate proclivity hypothesis
We began by noting that a black in the US is about 20 times more
likely to be a victim of hate crime than a white. The actual figure
from the 1998 FBI data is 21.8. We can now correctly interpret this
observation. Because the Justice department skews the data by
excluding Hispanics from offender status, we cannot achieve the level
of accuracy we would like. However, we can come pretty close by
considering only victims and excluding Hispanics from the analysis.
The FBI includes hate crime against property in their tabulation, and
counts "offended" properties as victims. We consider here only crimes
against persons.
If you were one of the 195.4 million non-Hispanic whites in the U.S.
in 1998, there were 32.7 million non-Hispanic blacks potentially ready
to abuse you in some way and vice versa. For the moment assume that
racial and ethnic groups share equal tendencies to abuse members of
other groups. That is, if one in every thousand whites has this
proclivity, then also one in every thousand blacks or Native Americans
or Asians has it as well. We call this the equal hate-proclivity
hypothesis. Under it, we seek the relative hate-crime risk to groups
of various sizes. According to (3), under the equal hate proclivity
hypothesis, a black should have been (195.4/32.7)2 or 35.7 times more
likely than a white to be a victim of hate crime in 1998. Put in this
light, we see that in reality the relative risk of blacks (21.8 times
that of whites) was less than expected assuming no differential group
bias. In fact, the black risk was only 61 percent of that expected
from group size considerations alone. We need to ask, therefore, not
why the per capita risk ratio of blacks to whites is so high, but
rather why is it so low? The answer is simple: The equal hate
proclivity hypothesis is false.
Differential hate proclivities
We can calculate the hate-proclivity ratio from the FBI data. In
1998, excluding Hispanics, we find an observed per capita risk ratio
of 21.8, and from the census, a population ratio square, (NW /NB )2,
of 35.7. Then from (3), the ratio of hate proclivities, kB /kW is
35.7/21.8 = 1.6. That is, if blacks were 1.6 times more likely to
commit hate crimes than whites, the FBI data are explained.
If we also know the number of black and white victims, NVB and NVW ,
respectively, we can evaluate the individual hate proclivities. From
(1), the probability of a black being victimized by a white is kWNW
/NB . This quantity is also the rate of black victimization, or NVB
/NB . Consequently,
The FBI reports the number of hate-offenders by race, though the white
offender entry is inflated by the inclusion of Hispanics. For 1998,
the report lists 1303 suspected black offenders and 2084 suspected
white offenders. This yields a per capita offender ratio (B/W) of 1.7,
in reasonable agreement with the hate-proclivity ratio of 1.6. Table 1
summarizes these calculations for the three most recent FBI reports.
Hate-proclivity ratio
(kB /kW )
Per capita offender ratio
(black / white)
1998
1.6
1.7
1997
2.0
2.0
1996
1.9
2.0
Table 1. The hate-proclivity ratio compared with the per capita
offender ratio.
Church burnings
Between January 1995 and November 1996 the burning of black
churches in the South created a sustained news frenzy. By the summer
of 1996, Americans had been treated to over 2,000 articles in major
newspapers, many on the front page. Not to be outdone, church arson
lead all other stories in the TV nightly news.
Political types of various stripes chimed in. Ralph Reed, then
Director of the Christian Coalition, termed the arsons, "the greatest
outbreak of violence against the black church since the height of the
civil rights movement." Deval Patrick, assistant attorney general for
civil rights, proclaimed the fires to be "an epidemic of terror."
President Clinton, in one of his weekly radio addresses, recalled in a
now famous evocation, "vivid and painful memories of black churches
being burned in my own state when I was a child." (It was later
discovered that no black church had been burned in Arkansas during his
childhood.) Clinton called a conference of Southern governors to deal
with the burnings. He toured burned-out churches, once on his 50th
birthday. The press tagged along. Congress, not to be upstaged, passed
the Church Fire Prevention Act of 1996, making church burning a
federal crime.
Not everyone bought in. Michael Fumento, writing in the Wall Street
Journal, analyzed the data and found that much of it was spurious. He
showed that there had been no increase in church arson in the South
from 1990 to 1995. Fumento noted that in 1995, USA Today reported 45
arsons against white churches, compared to 27 against black churches.
He also observed that the 1996 figures were inflated by copycat
crimes.
Eventually, numbers began to roll in indicating that more white than
black churches had been torched. It did not make much difference to
some in the press. Paula Walker, vice president and news director of
WNBC-TV, reacted to the reports while attending a National Association
of Black Journalists convention in August 1996. She concluded that,
"There didn't seem to be much substantiation other than raw numbers."
. . . while whites were being blamed for burning black churches, and
were drowning in their own guilt, the facts reveal a black was 5 times
more likely than a white to commit bias-motivated church arson.
We can put the Church-burning data under the microscope. Our foregoing
analysis, with some modification, is well suited to the task. Faced
with the fact that bias-motivated crime is only a small fraction of
total crime, hate-crime activists fall back on the position that these
offenses are underreported. But the charred ruins of a burned-out
church cannot go unreported. We include all the burnings in our
analysis, including copycat arsons. We also make the worst-case
assumptions, ascribing bias-motivation to an arson whenever there is
doubt.
We want to calculate, from available data, the hate-proclivity ratio,
kB / kW , as it applies to church burning. For this case it is the
ratio of proclivities of blacks and whites, respectively, to torch
each other's churches. People are the perpetrators, but victims now
are churches. We use asterisks to denote torched churches and write
from (4),
where N*W and N*B are the numbers of white and black churches,
respectively, burned between January 1995 and November 1996. Of the
298 incidents during this period, federal investigations found 43
percent involved black churches. About 2/3 of the arsons were
determined to be bias motivated. If the same fraction applies to both
black and white churches, its precise value is not important.
The states where most of the burnings occurred were Texas, Tennessee,
South Carolina and Florida. Blacks make up about 20 percent of the
population in these states. Putting all the numbers into (5), yields
kB / kW = 5.3. That is, while whites were being blamed for burning
black churches, and were drowning in their own guilt, the facts reveal
a black was 5 times more likely than a white to commit bias-motivated
church arson.
Comments
Obsession with hate crime has spawned official subcategories of
offenses: anti-white, anti-black, anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native,
anti-Asian/Pacific Islander, anti-multi-racial group, anti-Hispanic,
anti-other ethnicity/national origin, anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic,
anti-Protestant, anti-Islamic (Moslem), anti-other religion,
anti-multi-religious group, anti-atheism/agnosticism/etc., anti-male
homosexual, anti-female homosexual, anti-homosexual,
anti-heterosexual, anti-bisexual, and multiple bias. Each year when
the FBI publishes its hate-crime report, it lists about 8,000 of these
offenses. To put this in perspective, violent crime alone numbers
about 8 million annually. The overriding reality is that hate crime is
a tiny fraction of total crime. A 1960's observer propelled into the
future would surely think we have gone berserk.
Each year, when the FBI releases its hate crime report, the press and
other media take notice. Race bias is the favorite theme, though
anti-homosexual acts are making a run for first place. Here are some
typical headlines.
(AP) FBI: Most Hate Crimes Racially Motivated and Directed at Blacks
(CNN) Whites commit most hate crimes
(Washington Post) Reported hate crimes are on the rise in the United
States, and African Americans continue to be victims of such acts more
often than any other group, experts said today
(Los Angeles Times) Racial Bias Tied to Most Hate Crimes in 1998, FBI
Says
Both FBI press releases and the media omit the singularly compelling
fact that hate crime is a minute fraction of total crime. Selective
exaggeration is not restricted to hate crime. An analogous pattern
emerges in the reporting of AIDS. AIDS accounts for under 1 percent of
deaths in the US, less than from the respiratory diseases, bronchitis,
emphysema and asthma. When did you last see a bronchitis headline?
In its last complete National Criminal Victimization Survey (1994),
the Justice Department revealed blacks to have committed 1,600,951
violent crimes against whites. Only 15 percent of these had robbery as
a motive. We can safely infer that most of the rest had race as at
least a partial motive. Eighty-five percent of the attacks were
assaults and rapes. While blacks were committing these 1.6 million
crimes against whites, whites were reciprocating with 165,345 violent
offenses against blacks. Blacks, representing thirteen percent of the
nation, committed more than 90 percent of the violent interracial
crime. Fifty-seven percent of the violent crime committed by blacks
had white victims. Less than 3 percent of violence committed by whites
had black victims. In 1994, a black was 64 times more likely to attack
a white than vice versa. This is the real story of hate in America. It
is the media's well-kept secret.
###
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:07:04 -0400, "No Name"
Way Back Jack
<NoE...@IfYouPlease.org> wrote:
Then of course we have Cecil's fine text: "Monogamous individuals are
not at risk for contracting the disease." The medical community is
apparently impressed with promiscuity as the causative factor.
It is of course typical of the whigger set to attribute genetics
selectively: They insist that our poor, oppressed blacks have a
racially-genetic predisposition to contracting diseases, but insist
that we are all of one race, the human race, when the facts of black
criminality, immorality, and animalistic behavior are pointed out.
Then of course we have Cecil's fine text: "Monogamous individuals are
not at risk for contracting the disease." The medical community is
apparently impressed with promiscuity as the causative factor.
It is of course typical of the whigger set to attribute genetics
selectively: They insist that our poor, oppressed blacks have a
racially-genetic predisposition to contracting diseases, but insist
that we are all of one race, the human race, when the facts of black
criminality, immorality, and animalistic behavior are pointed out.
Yes, I agree that the AIDS rates among male homosexuals is also linked
to promiscuity.
Then of course we have Cecil's fine text: "Monogamous individuals are
not at risk for contracting the disease." The medical community is
apparently impressed with promiscuity as the causative factor.
It is of course typical of the whigger set to attribute genetics
selectively: They insist that our poor, oppressed blacks have a
racially-genetic predisposition to contracting diseases, but insist
that we are all of one race, the human race, when the facts of black
criminality, immorality, and animalistic behavior are pointed out.
>>>Again, since this a topic for which you consider yourself to be a
>>>well-read
>>>expert then why can't you provide any evidence that scientifically
>>>supports
>>>your conclusion.
>>
>> Try this one:
>>
>> "HSV2 is contracted overwhelmingly by sexual contact. Two
>> non-promiscuous partners who are disease-free have virtually no chance
>> of contracting the disease." -- Harrison's Principles Of Internal
>> Medicine -- 15th Edition -- McGraw-Hill Books
>>
>
>Yes, but obviously this does not mean that promiscuity is the only factor.
>Even I know that the regular use of condoms has been proven to reduce HIV
>rates. Apparently male circumcision is a factor for HIV transmission.
>Pre-sexual hygiene may be a factor for HIV transmission. Also, you have not
>pointed to any study investigating different transmission susceptibility
>between different ethnic groups. You have not proven your hypothesis!
Then of course we have Cecil's fine text: "Monogamous individuals are
not at risk for contracting the disease." The medical community is
apparently impressed with promiscuity as the causative factor.
It is of course typical of the whigger set to attribute genetics
selectively: They insist that our poor, oppressed blacks have a
racially-genetic predisposition to contracting diseases, but insist
that we are all of one race, the human race, when the facts of black
criminality, immorality, and animalistic behavior are pointed out.
>
>>>I just spent less than 5 minutes reading about HIV and came across a
>>>single
>>>recent study that **suggests** that circumcision provides an even stronger
>>>protection against HIV infection than was previously thought. It also
>>>highlights that HIV infection rates are more than 500% greater in certain
>>>African areas where circumcision is not practiced compared to certain
>>>African areas where circumcision is commonplace.
>>
>>>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL&type=printableL
>>
>> What aboutmale fags? Are they non-circumsized vs. the general male
>> population?
>>
>>>I also found that in the U.S. "For most of the past 20 years,
>>>proportionately more white newborns received circumcisions than did black
>>>infants."
>>>
>>>http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/circumcisions/circumcisions.htm
>>
>> Do the black vs. white rates correlate to this:
>>
>> US black rate of infection: 58 per 100,000
>> US white rate of infection: 6 per 100,000 **
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/conditions/06/13/hiv.cases.ap/index.html
No response.
>>
>>>So since I am a newbie to this topic and this is information that you were
>>>undoubtedly aware of, can you please explain why is it completely
>>>"Pigs-having-wings-and-flying", "whigger-making-excuses" impossible that
>>>differences in U.S. black vs. white circumcision rates could be a factor
>>>in
>>>different HSV-2 infection rates.
>>
>>>Again, let me be clear, at this time, I am not saying that this is the
>>>cause
>>>for the differences or that it's even a factor at all. You however are the
>>>one who is emphatically stating that you intelligently know the single
>>>reason for the different infection rates. So it's up to you to cite some
>>>***causative*** evidence.
>>
>> Go back to your research and tell me what you found re: "Promiscuous
>> sexual activity and AIDS."
>>
>> Or would you like me to do it for you?
>>
>Ummm, YES I WOULD, that is what I have been asking you to do from the
>beginning. Show me some real (i.e. preferably at least semi-empirical)
>research that backs up your fixated conclusion that the **fundamental**
>reason for different HIV or HSV-2 infection rates amongst U.S.
>blacks/whites/Asians is that **U.S.** blacks are more promiscuous than U.S.
>whites/Asians. or at the very least show me some research that indicates
>that the other possible reasons I have given have been scientifically
>discounted.
Then of course we have Cecil's fine text: "Monogamous individuals are
not at risk for contracting the disease." The medical community is
apparently impressed with promiscuity as the causative factor.
It is of course typical of the whigger set to attribute genetics
selectively: They insist that our poor, oppressed blacks have a
racially-genetic predisposition to contracting diseases, but insist
that we are all of one race, the human race, when the facts of black
criminality, immorality, and animalistic behavior are pointed out.
Bob LeChevalier
>Then of course we have Cecil's fine text: "Monogamous individuals are
>not at risk for contracting the disease."
Which is patently false, since
1) the fact that you are monogamous does not guarantee that your
single partner is
2) there are other means of transmission which are completely
independent of sexual practices. Infants can contract it from their
mothers. Anyone can contract it from contaminated blood,
>>Yes, but obviously this does not mean that promiscuity is the only factor.
>>Even I know that the regular use of condoms has been proven to reduce HIV
>>rates. Apparently male circumcision is a factor for HIV transmission.
>>Pre-sexual hygiene may be a factor for HIV transmission. Also, you have not
>>pointed to any study investigating different transmission susceptibility
>>between different ethnic groups. You have not proven your hypothesis!
>
>Then of course we have Cecil's fine text: "Monogamous individuals are
>not at risk for contracting the disease." The medical community is
>apparently impressed with promiscuity as the causative factor.
It is *a* causative factor. It is neither a necessary nor a
sufficient condition.
And you still haven't presented evidence that any race is more
"promiscuous" than any other. What I have seen is that you are
playing games with multiple definitions of "promiscuous", in the
reference to Cecil apparently defining the term with "not restricted
to one partner", while in some posts defining it as having OOW
children, and in another apparently bringing in homosexuality.
There is no particular evidence that one race is "more promiscuous"
than another if one defines promiscuity as mere non-monogamy. Indeed
in last year's ABC poll, only 19% of adults even CLAIMED to have had
only a single sex partner.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Primetime/PollVault/story?id=156921&page=1
>It is of course typical of the whigger set to attribute genetics
>selectively: They insist that our poor, oppressed blacks have a
>racially-genetic predisposition to contracting diseases, but insist
>that we are all of one race, the human race, when the facts of black
>criminality, immorality, and animalistic behavior are pointed out.
Actually no one is claiming that there is any genetic predisposition
to contracting diseases. There is a genetic predisposition to
contracting CERTAIN diseases if you have certain genes. But that is
known because we've identified the genes and can test individuals for
them.
There is no known genetic test for "criminality, immorality, and
animalistic behavior", and indeed since each of those is defined
socially, there cannot be any. What one person calls "immoral"
another might consider perfectly moral. I wonder how many people who
claimed to have only one sexual partner meant only one over their
whole lifetime, and how many have practiced serial monogamy, which is
"promiscuous" by the multiple partners definition.
>>> Do the black vs. white rates correlate to this:
>>>
>>> US black rate of infection: 58 per 100,000
>>> US white rate of infection: 6 per 100,000 **
>>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/conditions/06/13/hiv.cases.ap/index.html
>
>No response.
It doesn't PROVE anything. You seem to expect others to prove your
case for you.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
No Name
<jaona...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:434c91b6$0$5693$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
> On 11-Oct-2005, yom...@home.com (Way Back Jack) wrote:
>
>> You say that blacks have a medical susceptibility to STDs, suggesting
>> a DNA link.
>>
>> Yet you deny any genetic link to their criminality, immorality, or
>> animalistic behavior.
Dear Way Back Jack:
I did not say that blacks have a medical susceptibility to STDs and I
certainly did not suggest a DNA link. What I did say is that is **possible**
for different ethnic groups to have different susceptibilities to specific
diseases and infections. If this has not been scientifically investigated
then it can not be completely ruled out as a contributing factor to
differences between U.S. white/Asian/black HSV-2 infection rates.
LOL ... I definitely would not (and did not) suggest a DNA link to explain a
phemomena that may not even exist.
You see, I recognize that differing medical susceptibilities can involve
genetics (i.e. at the DNA level) or can involve NON-genetic heriditary or
acquired factors .
I am not aware of any (although I have not researched this) genetic medical
susceptibility that consistently aligns with the monolithic groups (blacks,
whites, Asians) that some people call races. For example the sickle trait
gene crosses the color line affecting some black Africans and some non-black
Meditteraneans.
>
> I think what the moron poster is trying to lead to is the myth that the
> government ,science or some un-named conspirator designed HIV/AIDS to
> attack
> blacks this is just a guess as the moron in question is most convoluted
Dear JanoaJames,
At least Way Back Jack has the semblance of intelligence to criticise me for
his [MIS]interpretation of what I have written. You on the other hand are
such a knuckle-dragging, in-bred, jack-ass that you dare to criticise me for
things that YOU imagine I might say!!!!
jaona...@nowhere.com
talking about so I took a guess as what I stated is a common implication of
wiggers
and again you ignorant wigger
just go to the CDC and then you may slink away
ignoring it will not make it go away
try again
No Name
article and others on the web site. The article's writer (La Griffe Du Lion)
is obviously well-schooled in statistical analysis. There are unfortunately
two aspects of Mr La Griffe Du Lion's analysis that you should recognize:
1) After carefully reading several of Mr La Griffe Du Lion's analyses I have
some concerns with his methodologies in some cases and his reliance on
uncredited sources in others.
2) Let's not get sidetracked however, let's ignore 1) above for now and
let's assume that Mr La Griffe Du Lion's analysis in the article that you
posted is fundamentally correct. So what? His analysis is purely
statistical. There is nothing scientific or empirical that explains the
cause of these statistical findings which is what we were talking about.
This is nothing new and frankly I have no idea why you even bothered to post
this as a response???
"Way Back Jack" <hum...@home.net> wrote in message
news:434cfaaf...@news.newshosting.com...
No Name
Unless you are going to either a) admit that you have no evidence that
proves that promiscuity is the primary causative factor; or b) post the
evidence; then I will let you have the last word on this topic in case you
care to reply with more of your nonsense.
I will however summarize all of the plausible factors of the top of my head
that could contribute towards increased HIV or HSV-2 infection rates:
* Inconsistent use of condoms.
* Higher sex drive (frequency of desire for sex).
* Increased promiscuity (lack of monogamy).
* Lack of (male) circumcision.
* Increased bio-medical susceptibility to infection.
Way Back Jack
>> Then of course we have Cecil's fine text: "Monogamous individuals are
>> not at risk for contracting the disease." The medical community is
>> apparently impressed with promiscuity as the causative factor.
>>
>> It is of course typical of the whigger set to attribute genetics
>> selectively: They insist that our poor, oppressed blacks have a
>> racially-genetic predisposition to contracting diseases, but insist
>> that we are all of one race, the human race, when the facts of black
>> criminality, immorality, and animalistic behavior are pointed out.
>>
>>
>I made no such attribution!!
>
>Unless you are going to either a) admit that you have no evidence that
>proves that promiscuity is the primary causative factor; or b) post the
>evidence; then I will let you have the last word on this topic in case you
>care to reply with more of your nonsense.
>
>I will however summarize all of the plausible factors of the top of my head
>that could contribute towards increased HIV or HSV-2 infection rates:
>
>* Inconsistent use of condoms.
>* Higher sex drive (frequency of desire for sex).
>* Increased promiscuity (lack of monogamy).
>* Lack of (male) circumcision.
>* Increased bio-medical susceptibility to infection.
One black man who dosesn't subscribe to whigger excusemaking:
COMMENT: Black journalist Walter Williams' excellent article supports
the view that irresponsible behavior rather than racism is the cause
of the black family's disintegration.
I would add that the white liberal policy of keeping blacks on the
victim plantation has gone a long way to contribute to this problem.
BroJack
_________
EXCERPT: The black illegitimacy rate is close to 70 percent. Less
than 40 percent of black children live in two-parent families. This
produces devastating socioeconomic consequences, but is it caused by
racial discrimination? Or, might it be a legacy of slavery? In the
early 1900s, black illegitimacy was a tiny fraction of today's rate.
Roughly 75 percent, and in New York City 85 percent, of black children
lived in two-parent households. The fact of lower illegitimacy and
more intact families, at a time when blacks were much closer to
slavery and faced greater discrimination, suggests that today's
unprecedented illegitimacy and weak family structure has nothing to do
with discrimination and slavery. It's explained better by promiscuity
and irresponsibility, and as such it's not a civil rights problem.
___________
http://washtimes.com/commentary/20021124-75776032.htm
Family secrets
Walter Williams
Airing the "family's" dirty laundry in public can qualify one for
less-than-flattering descriptions. That's particularly applicable to a
black person, and even more so when he questions the civil rights
gospel that the problems black people encounter are rooted in racial
discrimination and a legacy of slavery.
To argue that most of the problems black people confront today
have little or nothing to do with racial discrimination risks being
labeled everything but a child of God, not to mention accusations of
having "sold out" and "letting white people off the hook." One need
not deny the existence of racial discrimination to ask the
policy-relevant question: How much of what we see can be explained by
discrimination?
The black illegitimacy rate is close to 70 percent. Less than 40
percent of black children live in two-parent families. This produces
devastating socioeconomic consequences, but is it caused by racial
discrimination? Or, might it be a legacy of slavery? In the early
1900s, black illegitimacy was a tiny fraction of today's rate. Roughly
75 percent, and in New York City 85 percent, of black children lived
in two-parent households. The fact of lower illegitimacy and more
intact families, at a time when blacks were much closer to slavery and
faced greater discrimination, suggests that today's unprecedented
illegitimacy and weak family structure has nothing to do with
discrimination and slavery. It's explained better by promiscuity and
irresponsibility, and as such it's not a civil rights problem.
To point out that black people are the primary victims of violent
crimes is OK. Some of the statistics are staggering. FBI reports on
arrest data show that blacks committed half of all homicides, nearly
half of rapes, 59 percent of robberies and 38 percent of aggravated
assaults. Suggestions about causes and solutions can get you into to
trouble.
It's clear sailing if you argue that the high crime rate is
caused by poverty and discrimination, and the way to get rid of crime
is to eliminate these root causes. But there's a problem with that
theory. It doesn't explain why black communities were far safer in
earlier times, such as in the '20s, '30s and '40s, at a time of far
greater poverty and discrimination, and fewer opportunities. Crime
imposes devastating economic and personal costs on many black
neighborhoods, but it's not a civil rights problem. The high crime
rate represents political choices made by black politicians, civil
rights organizations and many black citizens to tolerate criminals.
Another family secret is that black academic achievement is a
national disgrace. Many youngsters who manage to complete high school
do so not being able to perform at the eighth- and ninth-grade levels.
Standards others have to meet for employment or college admittance
that many blacks cannot meet are labeled racist. Demands are made to
lower standards using face-saving euphemisms such as affirmative
action, diversity and multiculturalism.
The standard civil rights vision of the solution to these
problems for blacks is to vote more Democrats into federal, state and
local offices, and to elect more blacks to city mayorships and city
councils. That theory suggests that cities run by Democrats and black
politicians must be the very cities where illegitimacy and violent
crimes are the lowest and black academic achievement is the highest —
cities such as Washington, D.C., Detroit, Philadelphia, Newark and
East St. Louis. In these cities, blacks hold mayorships and have
representation on city councils. That's a nice theory, but the result
is the exact opposite.
In medicine, misdiagnosis leading to mistreatment and further
injury can lead to malpractice suits. Unfortunately, in politics,
misdiagnosis, mistreatment and further injury lead to re-election.
Walter Williams is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Way Back Jack
Way Back Jack
<NoE...@IfYouPlease.org> wrote:
>Thank you Mr Way Back Jack for posting this information. I read through the
>article and others on the web site. The article's writer (La Griffe Du Lion)
>is obviously well-schooled in statistical analysis. There are unfortunately
>two aspects of Mr La Griffe Du Lion's analysis that you should recognize:
>
>1) After carefully reading several of Mr La Griffe Du Lion's analyses I have
>some concerns with his methodologies in some cases and his reliance on
>uncredited sources in others.
Your concerns like your absence of citations on the other subjects are
not impressive. You may look at the raw data from DOJ upon which he
relies, and arrive at similar conclusions as his.
>2) Let's not get sidetracked however, let's ignore 1) above for now and
>let's assume that Mr La Griffe Du Lion's analysis in the article that you
>posted is fundamentally correct. So what? His analysis is purely
>statistical. There is nothing scientific or empirical that explains the
>cause of these statistical findings which is what we were talking about.
>This is nothing new and frankly I have no idea why you even bothered to post
>this as a response???
I previously put forth my position to let the appropriate scientists
argue etiology, e.g., Rushton vs. Peters, genetics vs. environment.
I'm not concerned primarily with the cause except to rule out
socioeconomic factors as the primary cause. I suspect that the
animalistic behavior can at least be partially attributed to the "You
owes me and I is angry" mindset which is nurtured by the white liberal
establishment to push their agenda for the ultimate socialist utopia.
My question to black race hustlers and their white sycophants is why,
despite two generations of preferential treatment, has your
anti-social behavior worsened. Was it wrong for us to expect some
improvement in your behavior?