White kid in Texas arrested for "knockout game"

[JohnStOnge]

I got into OCS because I was black.

That may not be true in your case but it's reasonable for people to suspect that because the reality is that there are a lot of policies in place that result in circumstances whereby Blacks that would not "get in" under a "color blind" admission system do "get in."

I think good insight into the existence of and effect of such policies is provided by some language in description of the testimony of Dr. Stephen Raudenbush during the Supreme Court case GRUTTER v. BOLLINGER . That's the one where the University of Michigan Law School was defending consideration of race during admissions decision. Dr. Raudenbush was testifying on behalf of the school; justifying the approach. Here is some language that can be found at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 1#opinion1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

In Dr. Raudenbush's view, a race-blind admissions system would have a " 'very dramatic,' " negative effect on underrepresented minority admissions. App. to Pet. for Cert. 223a. He testified that in 2000, 35 percent of underrepresented minority applicants were admitted. Ibid. Dr. Raudenbush predicted that if race were not considered, only 10 percent of those applicants would have been admitted. Ibid. Under this scenario, underrepresented minority students would have comprised 4 percent of the entering class in 2000 instead of the actual figure of 14.5 percent. Ibid.

So the estimate was that only about 28 or 29 percent of the "underrepresented minority" students admitted to the Michigan Law School in 2000 would have been admitted if they had not been "underrepresented minority" applicants.

The policy was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case. So it's going on.

And the mentality behind the policy is ubiquitous. It's the "diversity" thing. It's why you hear that term all the time. It's the manner in which institutions impose quotas without saying they are quotas.

So the truth is that if you're a White person looking at a Black guy who gained admission to something and you had to bet on whether or not he'd have been granted admission if he wasn't Black you would do well to bet that he would not have. You'd lose some bets if you did that every time. But you'd win a lot more than you'd lose.

That, frankly, is why I think Blacks ought to oppose policies like that. If you're a Black person that would've gotten that slot in Law School or whatever anyway you have to live with the fact that it's reasonable for people to wonder if you're where you are because of policies that favored you because you're Black.

[mrklean]

I got into OCS because I was black.

That may not be true in your case but it's reasonable for people to suspect that because the reality is that there are a lot of policies in place that result in circumstances whereby Blacks that would not "get in" under a "color blind" admission system do "get in."

I think good insight into the existence of and effect of such policies is provided by some language in description of the testimony of Dr. Stephen Raudenbush during the Supreme Court case GRUTTER v. BOLLINGER . That's the one where the University of Michigan Law School was defending consideration of race during admissions decision. Dr. Raudenbush was testifying on behalf of the school; justifying the approach. Here is some language that can be found at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 1#opinion1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

In Dr. Raudenbush's view, a race-blind admissions system would have a " 'very dramatic,' " negative effect on underrepresented minority admissions. App. to Pet. for Cert. 223a. He testified that in 2000, 35 percent of underrepresented minority applicants were admitted. Ibid. Dr. Raudenbush predicted that if race were not considered, only 10 percent of those applicants would have been admitted. Ibid. Under this scenario, underrepresented minority students would have comprised 4 percent of the entering class in 2000 instead of the actual figure of 14.5 percent. Ibid.

So the estimate was that only about 28 or 29 percent of the "underrepresented minority" students admitted to the Michigan Law School in 2000 would have been admitted if they had not been "underrepresented minority" applicants.

The policy was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case. So it's going on.

And the mentality behind the policy is ubiquitous. It's the "diversity" thing. It's why you hear that term all the time. It's the manner in which institutions impose quotas without saying they are quotas.

So the truth is that if you're a White person looking at a Black guy who gained admission to something and you had to bet on whether or not he'd have been granted admission if he wasn't Black you would do well to bet that he would not have. You'd lose some bets if you did that every time. But you'd win a lot more than you'd lose.

That, frankly, is why I think Blacks ought to oppose policies like that. If you're a Black person that would've gotten that slot in Law School or whatever anyway you have to live with the fact that it's reasonable for people to wonder if you're where you are because of policies that favored you because you're Black.

Of the Black people who applie to Post Grad Education or 70% females. The Majority of them could have gotten into grad programs at other schools. My wife was offered a full Ride to attend the Phd. Program at the University of MN. She said it was too far from home just to attend school.

[CID1990]

That may not be true in your case but it's reasonable for people to suspect that because the reality is that there are a lot of policies in place that result in circumstances whereby Blacks that would not "get in" under a "color blind" admission system do "get in."

I don't think color blind systems would be possible anyway with all the Shaniquas and D'Quans in this country. We'd have to redact names from applications or something.

[Skjellyfetti]

I don't think color blind systems would be possible anyway with all the Shaniquas and D'Quans in this country. We'd have to redact names from applications or something.

Don't act like black people are the only ones with weird names.

I went to high school with kids named Spotswood, Taliaferro, Bose, Maxwell, McLean, Prescott, etc. Those were all FIRST names at one small school in the South I attended for high school.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Fine but none of those sound black..........Shaniquellifetti

[CID1990]

I don't think color blind systems would be possible anyway with all the Shaniquas and D'Quans in this country. We'd have to redact names from applications or something.

Don't act like black people are the only ones with weird names.

I went to high school with kids named Spotswood, Taliaferro, Bose, Maxwell, McLean, Prescott, etc. Those were all FIRST names at one small school in the South I attended for high school.

Yeah, but my point is that those names absolutely SCREAM white guy (probably shops at Eddie Bauer regularly too)

Just like Shaqueefa and D'Narious SCREAM black people

So you'd have to redact names

[mrklean]

My first Roomate was name Joe Dingbalm(Tampa, FL)....lol We used to call him Dingger for short Ding is now a lawyer for the Dept of the labor.

[mrklean]

Don't act like black people are the only ones with weird names.

I went to high school with kids named Spotswood, Taliaferro, Bose, Maxwell, McLean, Prescott, etc. Those were all FIRST names at one small school in the South I attended for high school.

Yeah, but my point is that those names absolutely SCREAM white guy (probably shops at Eddie Bauer regularly too)

Just like Shaqueefa and D'Narious SCREAM black people

So you'd have to redact names

Hey, also TreVarious, De Marco, and DeMarquavious. One of my Wife's Students.

[YoUDeeMan]

Of the Black people who applie to Post Grad Education or 70% females. The Majority of them could have gotten into grad programs at other schools. My wife was offered a full Ride to attend the Phd. Program at the University of MN. She said it was too far from home just to attend school.

Do you post while drinking of are you just this dumb all the time?

BTW, nothing you posted addresses JSO's facts.

[YoUDeeMan]

I don't think color blind systems would be possible anyway with all the Shaniquas and D'Quans in this country. We'd have to redact names from applications or something.

Don't act like black people are the only ones with weird names.

I went to high school with kids named Spotswood, Taliaferro, Bose, Maxwell, McLean, Prescott, etc. Those were all FIRST names at one small school in the South I attended for high school.

Amazing...you missed yet another point.

And you still haven't answered my question.

[Skjellyfetti]

And you still haven't answered my question.

I haven't answered YOUR question?

You mean the question you asked me so you could weasel out of answering mine... like a complete fucking pussy.

As to your question...I'll pose you one right back. Are blacks innately better athletes?

No. They're not. They certainly perform better in most sports... but, I would argue that is cultural and not biological.

Jews dominated basketball in the prewar days. People used racial stereotypes to justify their dominance -- they're small and quick, they're sly and tricky, etc. Jews are now almost entirely absent from the NBA. I do not think they lost basketball skill do to biology.

Jews in the prewar days were concentrated in the ghettos of northern major cities -- especially New York. The urban environment, little upward mobility, and an abundance of time devoted to sports -- particularly basketball, and to a lesser extent baseball -- provided jews with more training and more desire to succeed in sports.

Guess what happened after the war? Jews began leaving the ghettos (originally referring to Jews... NOT to blacks) for the suburbs and blacks began moving into these city ghettos. The rise of blacks in the NBA coincides with the fall of Jews from the rosters of the NBA.

I do not believe that Jews are innately better at basketball, just as I do not believe that blacks are innately better at sports.



Now, since you've given me crap for not taking the time to answer your question... want to stop being a douche and answer mine?

Are blacks just innately prone to violence?

[mrklean]

Of the Black people who applie to Post Grad Education or 70% females. The Majority of them could have gotten into grad programs at other schools. My wife was offered a full Ride to attend the Phd. Program at the University of MN. She said it was too far from home just to attend school.

Do you post while drinking of are you just this dumb all the time?

BTW, nothing you posted addresses JSO's facts.

That is the fact you backward's azz HICK!!

[YoUDeeMan]

Do you post while drinking of are you just this dumb all the time?

BTW, nothing you posted addresses JSO's facts.

That is the fact you backward's azz HICK!!

Fact: your "fact" is not a sentence...and it doesn't make sense...but you can blame that on my superior education.

[AZGrizFan]

Are blacks just innately prone to violence?

No...it's "cultural".

[93henfan]

And you still haven't answered my question.

I haven't answered YOUR question?

You mean the question you asked me so you could weasel out of answering mine... like a complete fucking pussy.

As to your question...I'll pose you one right back. Are blacks innately better athletes?

No. They're not. They certainly perform better in most sports... but, I would argue that is cultural and not biological.

Jews dominated basketball in the prewar days. People used racial stereotypes to justify their dominance -- they're small and quick, they're sly and tricky, etc. Jews are now almost entirely absent from the NBA. I do not think they lost basketball skill do to biology.

Jews in the prewar days were concentrated in the ghettos of northern major cities -- especially New York. The urban environment, little upward mobility, and an abundance of time devoted to sports -- particularly basketball, and to a lesser extent baseball -- provided jews with more training and more desire to succeed in sports.

Guess what happened after the war? Jews began leaving the ghettos (originally referring to Jews... NOT to blacks) for the suburbs and blacks began moving into these city ghettos. The rise of blacks in the NBA coincides with the fall of Jews from the rosters of the NBA.

I do not believe that Jews are innately better at basketball, just as I do not believe that blacks are innately better at sports.



Now, since you've given me crap for not taking the time to answer your question... want to stop being a douche and answer mine?

Are blacks just innately prone to violence?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzB7IsmOegE[/youtube]

[JohnStOnge]

Of the Black people who applie to Post Grad Education or 70% females. The Majority of them could have gotten into grad programs at other schools.

At any grad schools with the possible exception of one at a HBCU there is going to be a preference for Blacks and other members of "under represented minorities." There are going to be Blacks who get in who would not get in if they were not Black.

That's what the "diversity" thing is all about. Due to court decisions strict quotas are prohibited. By strict quotas I mean specific numbers. So people came up with the idea that "diversity" enhances the situation. For instance they say that having a critical mass of "under represented" minority students enhances the learning experience for the other students. And they say the need to achieve that critical mass justifies giving under represented minority students extra consideration so that they can often get in when they otherwise wouldn't because they contribute to "diversity." But they can never say exactly what a critical mass is because then they'd be citing a specific number and that would be a quota.

So it's kind of a "fuzzy" quota.

Of course it's crap. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that "diversity" in a university results in students being better prepared for performance in their chosen fields. And there's not sufficient evidence to conclude that excluding some students who are more qualified than other students who get in instead of them is better for the society.

But it is what it is. I can't believe anybody would even argue that it does not exist. I can see supporting it, I guess. I still don't agree with it but I can see supporting it. I cannot, however, see denying that it exists.

One thing I always think of when this subject comes up is watching the academic awards ceremonies when my two kids graduated from high school. They honored the top students and announced all the scholarships they were offered. And in both cases it was not the top student in the class who got the most scholarship offers and the most offers to go to prestigious schools. In each case it was not even anybody in the top 10. In both cases it was the top BLACK student who got that.

It was very obvious.

[JohnStOnge]

No. They're not. They certainly perform better in most sports... but, I would argue that is cultural and not biological.

I'm astounded that you believe that if you're telling the truth.

[YoUDeeMan]

No. They're not. They certainly perform better in most sports... but, I would argue that is cultural and not biological.

Jews dominated basketball in the prewar days. People used racial stereotypes to justify their dominance -- they're small and quick, they're sly and tricky, etc. Jews are now almost entirely absent from the NBA. I do not think they lost basketball skill do to biology.

Jews in the prewar days were concentrated in the ghettos of northern major cities -- especially New York. The urban environment, little upward mobility, and an abundance of time devoted to sports -- particularly basketball, and to a lesser extent baseball -- provided jews with more training and more desire to succeed in sports.

Guess what happened after the war? Jews began leaving the ghettos (originally referring to Jews... NOT to blacks) for the suburbs and blacks began moving into these city ghettos. The rise of blacks in the NBA coincides with the fall of Jews from the rosters of the NBA.

I do not believe that Jews are innately better at basketball, just as I do not believe that blacks are innately better at sports.



Now, since you've given me crap for not taking the time to answer your question... want to stop being a douche and answer mine?

Are blacks just innately prone to violence?

Holy crap, you must be kidding.

So, you are saying that more blacks are playing football (nice try at isolating basketball) than whites because they have more free time in the ghetto? Guess they must be focusing on those skill positions more often.

And more blacks are running fast in their off time than whites, so they end up on the track team? Yup....that's why the first white guy finally ran a sub-10 second 100m in 2010...because whites weren't running a lot (probably because they don't have to dodge as many bullets, right?).

We breed dogs to have certain physical characteristics and a predisposition to certain behaviors, but humans, whose populations were dramatically isolated for millennia, could not possibly have developed differently over time? I mean, 300 years ago you'd never be able to identify an Asian person from a Nordic person, right? And with those outward physical differences, there could not be any possible physical or cognitive differences, could there? I mean, everyone is the same, aren't we? Every race gets the same diseases at the same rate, right? After all, deep down inside, we're exactly the same, right?

Look, the world is changing and people are blending. That is only a bad thing if someone wants to maintain some sort of "purity" standard. But let's not pretend that groups of people aren't different...culturally, mentally, and physically. We, as humans, can reason and attempt to overcome our differences. But why try to hide them? It is odd that on one hand we are trying to spread the good word about the benefits of "diversity," and yet at the same time, we are so afraid to discuss the possibility of any diversity of abilities. Woo-hoo, let's celebrate people's outside and ignore their insides!

To answer your question, I believe that there are differences between people of all races and within races. Sure, part of our differences are culturally based, but there are also physical differences. Certain families have predispositions to certain diseases...many of which impact the brain as well as the body. If such differences can be a result of reproduction in humans, then why is it so far fetched to believe that certain groups of people (again, whose populations were relatively isolated throughout time) developed different abilities that aren't considered diseases?

[Skjellyfetti]

To answer your question, I believe that there are differences between people of all races and within races. Sure, part of our differences are culturally based, but there are also physical differences. Certain families have predispositions to certain diseases...many of which impact the brain as well as the body. If such differences can be a result of reproduction in humans, then why is it so far fetched to believe that certain groups of people (again, whose populations were relatively isolated throughout time) developed different abilities that aren't considered diseases?

Ok, so you're still too much of a mealy mouthed pussy to just simply state your opinion.

I'll help you out and assume you do indeed think blacks are biologically predisposed to violence.

I disagree.

We can move on now. Just wish you weren't such a pussy about it so we could have wrapped it up a week ago.

[YoUDeeMan]

Ok, so you're still too much of a mealy mouthed pussy to just simply state your opinion.

You think blacks are biologically predisposed to violence.

I disagree. We can move on now. Just wish you weren't such a pussy about it so we could have wrapped it up weeks ago.

No, you are the pussy. You believe everyone is equal...despite the fact that everyone is not biologically equal. That is almost as bad as the folks who believe in Jesus Christ. You have faith without evidence.

Again, why do you believe that people have equal biological predispositions when people, in fact, have different biological predispositions?

You might separate physical dispositions from mental ones...despite the fact that our biological make up can significantly impact our cognitive abilities.

In the end, our world is becoming a melting pot so our differences will be eliminated.

[mrklean]

Ok, so you're still too much of a mealy mouthed pussy to just simply state your opinion.

You think blacks are biologically predisposed to violence.

I disagree. We can move on now. Just wish you weren't such a pussy about it so we could have wrapped it up weeks ago.

No, you are the pussy. You believe everyone is equal...despite the fact that everyone is not biologically equal. That is almost as bad as the folks who believe in Jesus Christ. You have faith without evidence.

Again, why do you believe that people have equal biological predispositions when people, in fact, have different biological predispositions?

You might separate physical dispositions from mental ones...despite the fact that our biological make up can significantly impact our cognitive abilities.

In the end, our world is becoming a melting pot so our differences will be eliminated.

You lack faith because you are weak..PERIOD!

[YoUDeeMan]

You lack faith because you are weak..PERIOD!

In your case, you are wise to make up something other than yourself into which you put your faith and to whom you can assign blame for your failures in life.

[Skjellyfetti]

No, you are the pussy. You believe everyone is equal...despite the fact that everyone is not biologically equal. That is almost as bad as the folks who believe in Jesus Christ. You have faith without evidence.

Again, why do you believe that people have equal biological predispositions when people, in fact, have different biological predispositions?

You might separate physical dispositions from mental ones...despite the fact that our biological make up can significantly impact our cognitive abilities.

In the end, our world is becoming a melting pot so our differences will be eliminated.

I do not think we are all the same biologically. I believe there ARE differences. However, I do not believe those differences are confined racially or geographically. Humans are 99.9% identical genetically. 85% of the .01% difference between humans occurs WITHIN geographically distinct populations. There's no scientific basis for race.

Here's some links on the science if you're interested.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/05/race ... world-html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.americanscientist.org/booksh ... e-finished" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-02-20/ ... ical-basis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bus ... ople-think" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CID1990]

Humans are 99.9% identical genetically. 85% of the .01% difference between humans occurs WITHIN geographically distinct populations. There's no scientific basis for race.

This sounds like a firmly held belief lacking in scientific basis. Sort of like the liberal version of Creationism.

It is misleading. Not sure if you are doing it on purpose for the sake of argument, or you just don't see it, but humans and chimpanzees are 98.8 percent identical genetically. Considering the divergence between us and the chimps over just 1.2% of the genome, then it would be somewhat pollyanna-ish to simply assume that there are not some fundamental differences between humans over .1 percent of the genome.

The science is already there, too- you can look at any number of academic sources that have already established behavioral genetics as viable. Colorado State U has a number of published behavioral geneticists who concentrate on other species in the animal kingdom. One simple analogy uses dogs. There is a large amount of species variation in the domestic dog, but their behavior is still largely influenced by their wolf ancestry. The way they eat, the pack mentality, etc. However, we also know that different breeds over time have developed divergent behavioral manifestations. Everbody knows that Cocker Spaniels tend to be snappers. German Shepards are very pack oriented. Mastiffs are almost to a tee protective of not only their own, but human children. Jack Russell terriers are high strung. So are Border Collies. Labrador Retrievers are loyal and generally trusting of humans in general.

At the VERY least it should be fuel for scientific curiosity, but we all know what happens when you start studying genetic differences between different racial groups. People who simply believe or "feel" that there is no scientific basis for race start crying bigotry and racism and that ends the discussion.

[Pwns]

Look at it this way...personalized medicine based on a patient's genetics is in it's embryonic stage, but drugs targeted to certain ethnic groups are already here and their efficacy on said ethnic groups has been established in clinical trials.

I have some skepticism about racial differences in average intelligence, but saying race is not a valid scientific classification is nonsense.