Ann Is A Mean Angry Woman
-
thealj wrote:
Who is Ann Coulter anyways?
She is a political commentator, who unlike the left, uses logic and facts. MOΛΩN ΛABE
-
What does that have to do with what i said? MOΛΩN ΛABE
-
Brit wrote:
Gee, Stan, I thought you I remember you agreeing with evolution.
I do.
Brit wrote:
Ann seems to think that you believe it only because you are morally bankrupt.
However, I don't fault those who take issue with the theory. I do agree with those like Coulter that the theory of evolution is used by the left as yet another means of beating Christianity into submission rather than as a means of understanding the universe. "The theory of evolution prooves that your religion is untrue so you must let the state teach your children the TRUTH!" Besides, the left want's to teach only those aspects of evolutin that support their anti-religious agenda. They would never teach those aspects of evolution that don't support their agenda. For example, if evolution is true, than it stands to reason that non-Africans should be somewhat evolutionarily advanced different in many ways than Africans, as we are the result of 50 to 100 thousands years of separate evolution adapting to more hostile and challanging enviroments. There are studies which suggest some slight average differences in intellectual abilities between the two groups which could be explained by evolution theory. Yet, the left would never entertain such a heretical assault on one of its own core moral principles - it would just be all racist to even suggest it. So much for science. EDIT - I took out the "advanced" term because it implies that evolution is purposefully directional. The rest of my comment stands. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 20:12 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
For example, if evolution is true, than it stands to reason that non-Africans should be somewhat evolutionarily advanced different in many ways than Africans, as we are the result of 50 to 100 thousands years of separate evolution adapting to more hostile and challanging enviroments.
No. No. No. No. Somehow, I think you're being facetious, and don't need me to explain. - F
-
Brit wrote:
Gee, Stan, I thought you I remember you agreeing with evolution.
I do.
Brit wrote:
Ann seems to think that you believe it only because you are morally bankrupt.
However, I don't fault those who take issue with the theory. I do agree with those like Coulter that the theory of evolution is used by the left as yet another means of beating Christianity into submission rather than as a means of understanding the universe. "The theory of evolution prooves that your religion is untrue so you must let the state teach your children the TRUTH!" Besides, the left want's to teach only those aspects of evolutin that support their anti-religious agenda. They would never teach those aspects of evolution that don't support their agenda. For example, if evolution is true, than it stands to reason that non-Africans should be somewhat evolutionarily advanced different in many ways than Africans, as we are the result of 50 to 100 thousands years of separate evolution adapting to more hostile and challanging enviroments. There are studies which suggest some slight average differences in intellectual abilities between the two groups which could be explained by evolution theory. Yet, the left would never entertain such a heretical assault on one of its own core moral principles - it would just be all racist to even suggest it. So much for science. EDIT - I took out the "advanced" term because it implies that evolution is purposefully directional. The rest of my comment stands. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 20:12 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
"The theory of evolution prooves that your religion is untrue so you must let the state teach your children the TRUTH!"
Who said that (besides you, that is)? If there is a god, then he created evolution as a means to propagate his children. If not, then evolution is a good theory to explain how life progresses.
Stan Shannon wrote:
if evolution is true, than it stands to reason that non-Africans should be somewhat evolutionarily different in many ways than Africans
Non-Africans are evolutionarily different and I don't know anybody who thinks otherwise. However, the races are different in the way that breeds of cats are different. Human races have not speciated and, with the erasure of geological boundaries and the resultant cross-breeding, they may never speciate.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There are studies which suggest some slight average differences in intellectual abilities
There are studies which suggest left-handed people have higher intelligence than right-handed people. Therefore, righties are dummies, thus proving evolution valid.
-
Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon A vegan is someone who never heard a carrot cry!
Mike Gaskey wrote:
no she's not, she's our Al Franken
So, she's a mean angry transvestite? :)
-
You can watch the video of her talking to Matt Lauer here: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much." http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/06/coulter-911/[^] She comes off crazier than Tom Cruise. The saddest thing about Coulter isn't that isn't full of crazy angry lies, but the fact that her books sell so well (it's #3 at Amazon right today). I expect there to be crazy people in the world, but it says something very sad about humanity and humanity's future that people are actually buying her crap. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
Brit wrote:
it says something very sad about humanity and humanity's future that people are actually buying her crap
Sadly, evolution does not always progress in the forward direction.
-
Wjousts wrote:
Don't use you ignorance of evolutionary theory to try any justify your own bigotry.
Thanks for proving my point. I just knew one of you guys would help out. :laugh: So much for intellectual curiosity at the risk of calling your moral beliefs into question. Christians ain't got nothing on you. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 19:29 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
You ignore the lack of diversity within human populations. There is more diversity within the few remaining mountain gorillas than in the entire human population. You also ignore that, if anything, hunter/gatherer societies should actually be genetically smarter and stronger due to the fact that they actually need to use their strength and their wits to survive every day as opposed to "civilized" peoples living in overcrowded cities where the most important characteristic for survive is resistance to the diseases that thrive in over-crowded human populations. (This was an arguement made by Jared Diamond in his Pulitzer prize winning book "Guns, Germs and Steel") Geography has far more to do with the state of human societies than your 19th century view of racial superiority. Why do you cite the peer-reviewed papers that support you theory? or do you join the creationists (including Ann) in believing that science is part of the left-wing conspiracy? -- modified at 20:45 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
"The theory of evolution prooves that your religion is untrue so you must let the state teach your children the TRUTH!"
Who said that (besides you, that is)? If there is a god, then he created evolution as a means to propagate his children. If not, then evolution is a good theory to explain how life progresses.
Stan Shannon wrote:
if evolution is true, than it stands to reason that non-Africans should be somewhat evolutionarily different in many ways than Africans
Non-Africans are evolutionarily different and I don't know anybody who thinks otherwise. However, the races are different in the way that breeds of cats are different. Human races have not speciated and, with the erasure of geological boundaries and the resultant cross-breeding, they may never speciate.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There are studies which suggest some slight average differences in intellectual abilities
There are studies which suggest left-handed people have higher intelligence than right-handed people. Therefore, righties are dummies, thus proving evolution valid.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Non-Africans are evolutionarily different and I don't know anybody who thinks otherwise. However, the races are different in the way that breeds of cats are different. Human races have not speciated and, with the erasure of geological boundaries and the resultant cross-breeding, they may never speciate.
But that isn't the point of my "facetious" post. Has the separate evolution of non-African hominids adapting to more alien and challanging environments resulted in some mesurable difference in the intellectual abilities of those seprrate populations? And if not, why not? If a million years of hominid evolution was sufficient to change a hairy half ape into Albert Einstien would one not expect some small, but measurable differences to emerge over the course of 50 to 100 thousans years, if evolutionary theory as we currently understand it is valid? Now, I don't pose that question because I really care about the answer. Is it a legitimate scienfic question contributing to a better understanding of evolution or is it purely racist? I pose it in order to present a argument for the hypocrisy of the left. It is a question they would never entertain or allow to be promulgated if someone did. They would immediately dismiss it as racist, and throw up a smoke screen of obfuscation to ensure that it was not introduced into the general public discourse.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
There are studies which suggest left-handed people have higher intelligence than right-handed people. Therefore, righties are dummies, thus proving evolution valid.
Being left handed, I have always known that.;P "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 21:00 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
-
You ignore the lack of diversity within human populations. There is more diversity within the few remaining mountain gorillas than in the entire human population. You also ignore that, if anything, hunter/gatherer societies should actually be genetically smarter and stronger due to the fact that they actually need to use their strength and their wits to survive every day as opposed to "civilized" peoples living in overcrowded cities where the most important characteristic for survive is resistance to the diseases that thrive in over-crowded human populations. (This was an arguement made by Jared Diamond in his Pulitzer prize winning book "Guns, Germs and Steel") Geography has far more to do with the state of human societies than your 19th century view of racial superiority. Why do you cite the peer-reviewed papers that support you theory? or do you join the creationists (including Ann) in believing that science is part of the left-wing conspiracy? -- modified at 20:45 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
Wjousts wrote:
You ignore the lack of diversity within human populations.
No I don't. In fact, the greater genetic diversity that exists among Africans should mean that the most intelligent people on the planet would be African, even if the other populations had some small greater average intelligence.
Wjousts wrote:
You also ignore that, if anything, hunter/gatherer societies should actually be genetically smarter and stronger due to the fact that they actually need to use their strength and their wits to survive every day as opposed to "civilized" peoples living in overcrowded cities where the most important characteristic for survive is resistance to the diseases that thrive in over-crowded human populations. (This was an arguement made by Jared Diamond in his Pulitzer prize winning book "Guns, Germs and Steel")
Irrelavent obfuscation.
Wjousts wrote:
Why do you cite the peer-reviewed papers that support you theory?
Because no such papers exist. Which begs the question, why not? The question has never even been asked for fear of being called racist. I would think that would be of some concern for those whos interests are purely scientific.
Wjousts wrote:
or do you join the creationists (including Ann) in believing that science is part of the left-wing conspiracy?
Yes, I do join them in the sense that the left carefully uses selective scientific conclusions to support their agenda. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 20:59 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
-
Nah she is out for attention to sell books. "All press is good press", I belvieve that is the term. She probably doesn't even really beleive what she writes, just trying to make some dollars. how vital enterprise application are for proactive organizations leveraging collective synergy to think outside the box and formulate their key objectives into a win-win game plan with a quality-driven approach that focuses on empowering key players to drive-up their core competencies and increase expectations with an all-around initiative to drive up the bottom-line. But of course, that's all a "high level" overview of things --thedailywtf 3/21/06
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
"All press is good press"
The most "successfull commentators" have discovered that if you're really extreme, you can attract more attention which equates to money because you attract a following of people that will hate you as well as those who love you. The more they're talked about negatively, the more important they're seen to be by their followers. The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Non-Africans are evolutionarily different and I don't know anybody who thinks otherwise. However, the races are different in the way that breeds of cats are different. Human races have not speciated and, with the erasure of geological boundaries and the resultant cross-breeding, they may never speciate.
But that isn't the point of my "facetious" post. Has the separate evolution of non-African hominids adapting to more alien and challanging environments resulted in some mesurable difference in the intellectual abilities of those seprrate populations? And if not, why not? If a million years of hominid evolution was sufficient to change a hairy half ape into Albert Einstien would one not expect some small, but measurable differences to emerge over the course of 50 to 100 thousans years, if evolutionary theory as we currently understand it is valid? Now, I don't pose that question because I really care about the answer. Is it a legitimate scienfic question contributing to a better understanding of evolution or is it purely racist? I pose it in order to present a argument for the hypocrisy of the left. It is a question they would never entertain or allow to be promulgated if someone did. They would immediately dismiss it as racist, and throw up a smoke screen of obfuscation to ensure that it was not introduced into the general public discourse.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
There are studies which suggest left-handed people have higher intelligence than right-handed people. Therefore, righties are dummies, thus proving evolution valid.
Being left handed, I have always known that.;P "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 21:00 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. The BELL CURVES of different groups overlap considerably, but groups often differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line. The BELL CURVES for some groups (Jews and East Asians) are centered somewhat higher than for whites in general. Other groups (blacks and Hispanics) are centered somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites.[^] So, unless you're Jewish or East Asian, Stan, you probably shouldn't throw stones at others' intellectual capacity. :)
-
Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. The BELL CURVES of different groups overlap considerably, but groups often differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line. The BELL CURVES for some groups (Jews and East Asians) are centered somewhat higher than for whites in general. Other groups (blacks and Hispanics) are centered somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites.[^] So, unless you're Jewish or East Asian, Stan, you probably shouldn't throw stones at others' intellectual capacity. :)
Since you are talking about racial equality, i thought i would throw this in. So far this year in little rock (a city that i live relatively close to), there have been 33 homicides, and every single one of them has been in the black/mexican part of town. That is clearly just because whites are prejudice against them, right? :rolleyes: MOΛΩN ΛABE
-
Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. The BELL CURVES of different groups overlap considerably, but groups often differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line. The BELL CURVES for some groups (Jews and East Asians) are centered somewhat higher than for whites in general. Other groups (blacks and Hispanics) are centered somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites.[^] So, unless you're Jewish or East Asian, Stan, you probably shouldn't throw stones at others' intellectual capacity. :)
So, why isn't that information taught in public schools to support evolutionary theory?
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
you probably shouldn't throw stones at others' intellectual capacity.
I didn't see anyone throwing stones. Besides, I might very well be part Jewish (Edit- of course it is also possible that I might be part African). "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 21:33 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
-
Wjousts wrote:
You ignore the lack of diversity within human populations.
No I don't. In fact, the greater genetic diversity that exists among Africans should mean that the most intelligent people on the planet would be African, even if the other populations had some small greater average intelligence.
Wjousts wrote:
You also ignore that, if anything, hunter/gatherer societies should actually be genetically smarter and stronger due to the fact that they actually need to use their strength and their wits to survive every day as opposed to "civilized" peoples living in overcrowded cities where the most important characteristic for survive is resistance to the diseases that thrive in over-crowded human populations. (This was an arguement made by Jared Diamond in his Pulitzer prize winning book "Guns, Germs and Steel")
Irrelavent obfuscation.
Wjousts wrote:
Why do you cite the peer-reviewed papers that support you theory?
Because no such papers exist. Which begs the question, why not? The question has never even been asked for fear of being called racist. I would think that would be of some concern for those whos interests are purely scientific.
Wjousts wrote:
or do you join the creationists (including Ann) in believing that science is part of the left-wing conspiracy?
Yes, I do join them in the sense that the left carefully uses selective scientific conclusions to support their agenda. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 20:59 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
No I don't. In fact, the greater genetic diversity that exists among Africans should mean that the most intelligent people on the planet would be African, even if the other populations had some small greater average intelligence.
Non sequitur. - F
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No I don't. In fact, the greater genetic diversity that exists among Africans should mean that the most intelligent people on the planet would be African, even if the other populations had some small greater average intelligence.
Non sequitur. - F
How? In terms of population distributions, a population with greater genetic diversity should have a broader bell shaped curve on all measurable attributes - being more well representated at the statistical extremes. The non-african population has very little genetic diverstiy, hence would have a steeper, narrower curve even if that curve were shifted slightly in one direction or the other. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
How? In terms of population distributions, a population with greater genetic diversity should have a broader bell shaped curve on all measurable attributes - being more well representated at the statistical extremes. The non-african population has very little genetic diverstiy, hence would have a steeper, narrower curve even if that curve were shifted slightly in one direction or the other. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
a population with greater genetic diversity should have a broader bell shaped curve on all measurable attributes - being more well representated at the statistical extremes. The non-african population has very little genetic diverstiy, hence would have a steeper, narrower curve even if that curve were shifted slightly in one direction or the other.
Your argument boils down to this: A = {0, 2, 4} std.dev = 2, avg = 2 B = {3, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1} std.dev = 1.6, avg = 1.86 You are arguing that because A:std.dev > B:std.dev, max(A) > max(B). Demonstrably false. Non sequitur. There are other reasons wrt natural selection why this makes no sense, either - consider - a narrow distribution implies a period of strong selection. If there is strong selection on a positive trait such as intelligence, then under evolutionary theory the "narrower curve" WILL shift to the right. - F
-
Wjousts wrote:
You ignore the lack of diversity within human populations.
No I don't. In fact, the greater genetic diversity that exists among Africans should mean that the most intelligent people on the planet would be African, even if the other populations had some small greater average intelligence.
Wjousts wrote:
You also ignore that, if anything, hunter/gatherer societies should actually be genetically smarter and stronger due to the fact that they actually need to use their strength and their wits to survive every day as opposed to "civilized" peoples living in overcrowded cities where the most important characteristic for survive is resistance to the diseases that thrive in over-crowded human populations. (This was an arguement made by Jared Diamond in his Pulitzer prize winning book "Guns, Germs and Steel")
Irrelavent obfuscation.
Wjousts wrote:
Why do you cite the peer-reviewed papers that support you theory?
Because no such papers exist. Which begs the question, why not? The question has never even been asked for fear of being called racist. I would think that would be of some concern for those whos interests are purely scientific.
Wjousts wrote:
or do you join the creationists (including Ann) in believing that science is part of the left-wing conspiracy?
Yes, I do join them in the sense that the left carefully uses selective scientific conclusions to support their agenda. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 20:59 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because no such papers exist. Which begs the question, why not? The question has never even been asked for fear of being called racist. I would think that would be of some concern for those whos interests are purely scientific.
Or alternatively, they don't exist because your theory is pure bunk.
-
Since you are talking about racial equality, i thought i would throw this in. So far this year in little rock (a city that i live relatively close to), there have been 33 homicides, and every single one of them has been in the black/mexican part of town. That is clearly just because whites are prejudice against them, right? :rolleyes: MOΛΩN ΛABE
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Non-Africans are evolutionarily different and I don't know anybody who thinks otherwise. However, the races are different in the way that breeds of cats are different. Human races have not speciated and, with the erasure of geological boundaries and the resultant cross-breeding, they may never speciate.
But that isn't the point of my "facetious" post. Has the separate evolution of non-African hominids adapting to more alien and challanging environments resulted in some mesurable difference in the intellectual abilities of those seprrate populations? And if not, why not? If a million years of hominid evolution was sufficient to change a hairy half ape into Albert Einstien would one not expect some small, but measurable differences to emerge over the course of 50 to 100 thousans years, if evolutionary theory as we currently understand it is valid? Now, I don't pose that question because I really care about the answer. Is it a legitimate scienfic question contributing to a better understanding of evolution or is it purely racist? I pose it in order to present a argument for the hypocrisy of the left. It is a question they would never entertain or allow to be promulgated if someone did. They would immediately dismiss it as racist, and throw up a smoke screen of obfuscation to ensure that it was not introduced into the general public discourse.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
There are studies which suggest left-handed people have higher intelligence than right-handed people. Therefore, righties are dummies, thus proving evolution valid.
Being left handed, I have always known that.;P "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 21:00 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
But that isn't the point of my "facetious" post. Has the separate evolution of non-African hominids adapting to more alien and challanging environments resulted in some mesurable difference in the intellectual abilities of those seprrate populations? And if not, why not?
Because you presuppose that intellegence is the only factor of "fitness". Why should being more intellegent be an advantage as opposed to say...being more resistant to the diseases in over-crowded and dirty medieval European cities (stock that you are probably largely derived from)? You have noticed that even stupid people manage to reproduce haven't you? When the science doesn't fit your bias you assume it must be the science that is bias. I know I got my book of left-wing conspiracies that we must propagate with my Ph.D. Time to don your tin foil hat again Stan.
-
Wjousts wrote:
You ignore the lack of diversity within human populations.
No I don't. In fact, the greater genetic diversity that exists among Africans should mean that the most intelligent people on the planet would be African, even if the other populations had some small greater average intelligence.
Wjousts wrote:
You also ignore that, if anything, hunter/gatherer societies should actually be genetically smarter and stronger due to the fact that they actually need to use their strength and their wits to survive every day as opposed to "civilized" peoples living in overcrowded cities where the most important characteristic for survive is resistance to the diseases that thrive in over-crowded human populations. (This was an arguement made by Jared Diamond in his Pulitzer prize winning book "Guns, Germs and Steel")
Irrelavent obfuscation.
Wjousts wrote:
Why do you cite the peer-reviewed papers that support you theory?
Because no such papers exist. Which begs the question, why not? The question has never even been asked for fear of being called racist. I would think that would be of some concern for those whos interests are purely scientific.
Wjousts wrote:
or do you join the creationists (including Ann) in believing that science is part of the left-wing conspiracy?
Yes, I do join them in the sense that the left carefully uses selective scientific conclusions to support their agenda. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 20:59 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because no such papers exist. Which begs the question, why not? The question has never even been asked for fear of being called racist.
That's simply not true - it's because the question is premature. We first need to demonstrate whether or not there is a significant genetic difference in intelligence between ethnicities. AFAIK, nobody has come out with this. Not surprising, because what is the genetic basis for intelligence? Research/debate continues. Only then could we question why those differences arose. I also disagree with your assumption - think of the victimhood points the "left" would be able to gain with the black or mexican communities by demonstrating they are at a genetic disadvantage: and thusly need more handouts. :) - F