Terrorist opens fire at a country music festival in Las Vegas - Page 29 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

Suntzu wrote:Only about half the scientific community embrace the concept of race, mostly from the hard sciences like math, physics, chemistry, genetics, etc.
I am sure you have a source to support such a ridiculous claim... right?
Black crime typically has some motivation behind it, mostly due to socio-economic reasons similar to how white trailer trash behave. But there seems to be something defective within the white genome that causes white people to become suddenly violent for no readily explainable reason, like when a school of sharks is exposed to a single drop of blood.
SpecialOlympian wrote:Black crime typically has some motivation behind it, mostly due to socio-economic reasons similar to how white trailer trash behave. But there seems to be something defective within the white genome that causes white people to become suddenly violent for no readily explainable reason, like when a school of sharks is exposed to a single drop of blood.

There also seems to be a link between low I.Q. and criminality. :D
More or less what anyone born into his time and place would having studied genetics, which is to say far less than we know now and far more than his grandfather did.

In any case it doesn't provide supernatural insight that grants him intellectual insights greater than the entire field of genetics and biology.

"A survey, taken in 1985 (Lieberman et al. 1992), asked 1,200 American scientists how many disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were for anthropologists:
physical anthropologists 41%
cultural anthropologists 53%[163]

The figure for physical anthropologists at PhD granting departments was slightly higher, rising from 41% to 42%, with 50% agreeing. Lieberman's study also showed that more women reject the concept of race than men.[164] This survey, however, did not specify any particular definition of race (although it did clearly specify biological race within the species Homo sapiens); it is difficult to say whether those who supported the statement thought of race in taxonomic or population terms.

The same survey, taken in 1999,[165] showed the following changing results for anthropologists:
physical anthropologists 69%
cultural anthropologists 80%

However, a line of research conducted by Cartmill (1998) seemed to limit the scope of Lieberman's finding that there was "a significant degree of change in the status of the race concept". Goran Štrkalj has argued that this may be because Lieberman and collaborators had looked at all the members of the American Anthropological Association irrespective of their field of research interest, while Cartmill had looked specifically at biological anthropologists interested in human variation.[166]

According to the 2000 edition of a popular physical anthropology textbook, forensic anthropologists are overwhelmingly in support of the idea of the basic biological reality of human races.[167] Forensic physical anthropologist and professor George W. Gill has said that the idea that race is only skin deep "is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm" and "Many morphological features tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones. This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc. (For example, more prominent noses humidify air better.)" While he can see good arguments for both sides, the complete denial of the opposing evidence "seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all". He also states that many biological anthropologists see races as real yet "not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship".[167]

In partial response to Gill's statement, Professor of Biological Anthropology C. Loring Brace argues that the reason laymen and biological anthropologists can determine the geographic ancestry of an individual can be explained by the fact that biological characteristics are clinally distributed across the planet, and that does not translate into the concept of race. He states:

Well, you may ask, why can't we call those regional patterns "races"? In fact, we can and do, but it does not make them coherent biological entities. "Races" defined in such a way are products of our perceptions. ... We realize that in the extremes of our transit – Moscow to Nairobi, perhaps – there is a major but gradual change in skin color from what we euphemistically call white to black, and that this is related to the latitudinal difference in the intensity of the ultraviolet component of sunlight. What we do not see, however, is the myriad other traits that are distributed in a fashion quite unrelated to the intensity of ultraviolet radiation. Where skin color is concerned, all the northern populations of the Old World are lighter than the long-term inhabitants near the equator. Although Europeans and Chinese are obviously different, in skin color they are closer to each other than either is to equatorial Africans. But if we test the distribution of the widely known ABO blood-group system, then Europeans and Africans are closer to each other than either is to Chinese.[168]"
:eh: Quoting scientific things from 32 years ago isn't exactly supporting your claim, or dismiss discoveries made in the last 32 years, particularly in that of genetics.

Things like this weren't done in the 80s:

The decade we learned the language of life
How the mapping of the 3bn letters of the human genome sparked a new age of biology that is only just beginning
https://www.theguardian.com/science/200 ... ge-of-life

By your reckoning, I can pull out my 1928 encyclopedia, and quote you relevant science, that will dismiss what we know now? :lol:

These books are hilarious to read, now, btw...
Fine... 18 to 32 year old information.

We've learned more in the last 10 years, than the last 50 years, so you need to brush up on current events in genetics. The Human Genome project wasn't even complete until after 2000.

What you said doesn't refute anything.

Race in the new era of human genetics research
In the Stanford study, over 92% of alleles were found in two or more regions, and almost half of the alleles studied were present in all seven major geographical regions. The observation that the vast majority of the alleles were shared over multiple regions, or even throughout the entire world, points to the fundamental similarity of all people around the world—an idea that has been supported by many other studies.

If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races.

Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other.

In the biological and social sciences, the consensus is clear: race is a social construct, not a biological attribute. Today, scientists prefer to use the term “ancestry” to describe human diversity. “Ancestry” reflects the fact that human variations do have a connection to the geographical origins of our ancestors—with enough information about a person’s DNA, scientists can make a reasonable guess about their ancestry. However, unlike the term “race,” it focuses on understanding how a person’s history unfolded, not how they fit into one category and not another.In a clinical setting, for instance, scientists would say that diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis are common in those of “sub-Saharan African” or “Northern European” descent, respectively, rather than in those who are “black” or “white”.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/ ... t-century/

Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock was quite the fan of President Donald Trump before he killed 58 people and left another 500 injured—the worst mass shooting in recent U.S. history.

Paddock, a millionaire who reportedly would gamble up to $1 million a night in casinos, was attracted to the president's politics because of the boost the stock market has enjoyed since Trump took office, Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo told KLAS, a local CBS affiliate in Las Vegas, during a two-hour interview.

Paddock said "he was happy with Trump because the stock market was doing well," Lombardo said.

Stocks have indeed risen nearly every month since Trump took office—something that has been achieved under no other U.S. president, Forbes reported. But the magazine also noted that the markets have actually seen better gains under five other presidents.

Lombardo said he didn't know offhand who Paddock was talking to when he was talking about Trump, adding that it's the "only thing that we have seen that references politics." Authorities do not believe it correlates to a motive in the shooting.
He said Paddock had no affiliation or communication with terrorist or extremist organizations, and is there no proof that he went overseas or met with any extremist groups.

Investigators have been able to compile a pretty thorough psychological profile on Paddock, Lombardo said, gleaning from interviews that he was narcissistic and obsessed with his status as one of Las Vegas's elite.

However, Paddock had lost a "significant amount of his wealth" since September 2015, which caused him to become depressed, Lombardo said, adding that the sudden changes could have been a "determining factor" in Paddock's plan.

But, Lombardo added, authorities still haven't been able to figure out the trigger point that led to Paddock choosing October 1 as the date for his rampage, or why he chose the Route 91 Harvest festival as his target. Lombardo said the police and the public may never know Paddock's reasoning behind the shooting.

http://www.newsweek.com/las-vegas-gunma ... ium=Social
That's pretty awkward if true. My position has been that he was probably involved in some kind of money laundering or gun running and that's why we can't get security footage of him in the hotel.
Just a guy. Occam's Razor.

It is only awkward if you are the type who takes the actions of a number of nutters and applies it to a larger group.
  • 1
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 36
Trump and Russiagate

Well, that’s one way to look at the world. If one[…]

The death penalty stops recidivism every time. The[…]

Wow, that was from seven years ago? Back then if y[…]

A new strongman will be chosen out of the new olig[…]