If you were deidre, he would not be referring to you.

 

I've read this about 10 times, once for each word: Translation; I'm losing it.

 

That's pretty much a sexist statement...

 

And I agree with you. The new guy hasn't been here long enough to realize.

Oops, and I gather he's gone now. Well that was certainly short but sweet.

 

whos deirdre?

 

Now we know that u r not the bright crayon in the box....

 

How do you know D ..79 is a girl ... ???????????
Maybe d..79 is a 50 year old trucker ........
Or worse, a Politician.

 

That seems to be the same neighborhood I'm living in. She is one of the most revolting, sorriest excuses for a human being who likes to think she's a good person I have ever had the displeasure of encountering.

Since we're in the same neighborhood, I suggest a little get together... :excited:

Jeff

 

You don't show up often enough my friend pffawg9999. I loved the way you put that.

So much in fact I hope Kimiko takes you up on your offer.

 

I never said they are inferior. They are different, and Viva la Difference!

 

OMG, DL, you violated the PC laws once again.

Genetic differences do not exist to those folks.

 

Oh no DL I applied your test and looked up the number of Nobel prizes won by men as opposed to women and there were a lot more men so they must be genetically inferior

So you support the theory that Arabs, blacks and Hispanics are genetically inferior and genetically more prone to violence and crime. I kind of figured you were that way all along tenguy.

 

The repercussions of PC and genetic differences:

https://www.trinicenter.com/sciencenews/genesandrace.htm

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/82830.php

The PC crowd is generally populated by those of the more liberal persuasion, isn't it interesting that they discount important genetic differences and the effects they cause, for the preservation of a myth.

 

I haven't seen anyone argue against differences here, tenguy. What is argued is that those differences make one inferior or, according to DL, more likely to be among the dregs of society because of those differences. Difference does not denote either superiority or inferiority, it merely denotes difference.

For instance, it has been repeatedly shown that men are more adept as spacial orientation and tend to have better reflexes than women. If one were seeking to pick a fight, one could say that I'm trying to imply that women are all visually stunted and sluggish. But only if one were trying to pick a fight. If one approached the situation from a rational and logical standpoint, one could easily determine that by saying those things about men, it is not implying a deficiency in women, merely a different skill set. Women have a much better grasp at language and verbal skills then men do, as countless studies have also shown. Women, by and large, have larger vocabularies at earlier ages than their counterparts.

Taken from an evolutionary standpoint, this makes perfect sense and it's only a negative if one tries to make it such by distorting or misrepresenting the facts. These are general estimations and does not mean that there aren't some women out there who can best any man she meets in tests of reflex or spacial orientation and that there isn't a man out there that can't kick ass in Scrabble. However, when looking at the tests as a whole, men tend to score higher on one set of criteria, women on the other.

So, in a nutshell, of course there are differences between the genders. Our minds process information in different ways. We view the world from different perspectives. But when it comes to one being inferior, as in of less worth or less capable than someone of another skin tone, that's a whole other ball game all together. Even DL admitted that he had no evidence to back up his accusations and assertions that one is genetically predisposed to be harmful to society.

In that light, I must admit, you look rather silly defending him. He has apparently made these sorts of accusations in other threads, hence the long-standing animosity about it and openly admits that he can't support his claims with anything even resembling hard facts.

It seems to me you just want to pick a fight, mild though it may be.

And studying the likelihood of the prevalence of diseases among certain ethnic backgrounds is also not un-pc. For instance, African Americans seem to suffer from an unusually high rate of sickle-cell anemia. Or so I read somewhere once. This also does not imply inferiority. It would be a disservice to them to not try and understand why this might be so.

-S-

 

A number of factors influence success, including motivation. Men are more motivated to succeed because success makes a man more desirable to women. It is much less likely to make a woman more desirable to men.

The New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd dealt with this in her book, Are Men Necessary?

Although women prefer successful men, men, as I have already suggested, prefer young women. In his book The Evolution of Human Sexuality, Donald Symons argues that young women - let us say, those of about deidre79's age - are best able to have healthy babies. Men can beget healthy babies well into middle age.

Also, it usually takes a gifted man a certain amount of time before his gifts become apparent. Thus, throughout human evolution, women who preferred successful men, even when they were older, were more likely to have superior children. Men who preferred young women were more likely to have babies that lived.

The central argument of Symons' book is that differences between men and women - or differences between males and females of any species - are due to the fact that different qualities enhance the ability of each to survive and reproduce. This is as true for behavioral characteristics as it is for physical ones.

Of course, being genetically superior is not enough. A man has to prove it. Thus men are more motivated to succeed, and to win Nobel Prizes.

 

Thank you.

 

Damn, I hate it when I get propositioned and don't even know about it until 10 hours later!

 

There is no evidence that your genes make you more likely to be a criminal. Until you have some, it's all speculation as DL openly admitted. And, as I said before, if genetics did predispose people to crime, what are we to make of Australia? A prison colony. A dumping ground by the United Kingdom for all manner of undesirable. Yet their murder rate is roughly half of ours.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21670/Crime-Statistics-Murders

On the data on that page, we are ranked #8, Australia is #27. I fit was so simple as genetics for this sort of thing, you should have one of the most lawless places on the earth as the genes that would lead to criminal behavior would have been reinforced for generations because most of the available people of breeding age would have all carried this same set of genes.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you have no data to back up your hypothesis and that is the same as it being worthless. If you have evidence that criminal behavior is so easily controlled by genes, kindly provide it and we can all analyze it together for it's merits. I already told DL that if he could provide something along those lines I would consider giving the hypothesis credence, but he couldn't, and I'm guessing neither can you.

And we know that diseases can be passed down through DNA. We have identified some of them. We can prescreen people for the genetic defects that lead to certain conditions. We can't do that for 'criminal' behavior. Especially since that is a very slippery word. Often what constitutes criminal behavior can change from era to era. So is it a specific gene that leads one to murder or is it just a gene that makes one want to go against the societal norms. You see how this can be something that's hard to pin down when you have nothing to base it on.

You really ought not to accept claims based on no evidence. But then again, you and DL both suffer from that particular... difference, don't you.

-S-