Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

onbeing.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 308 posts

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#261

Post by yummyfajitas »

coldtea wrote: post #259
yummyfajitas wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moron4hire stated a very clear theory: the disparity in crime rates is caused by income/poverty. That particular theory is wrong. Now you seem to be claiming that the disparity in crime rates is caused by some complex combination of things. Can you clearly state what that combination is and what evidence would prove your views wrong? Or are your views not even wrong?

> Now you seem to be claiming that the disparity in crime rates is caused by some complex combination of things. Not just me. Sociologists also. > Can you clearly state what that combination is * Emphasis on extreme individualism (everyone for himself, or at best, his family) that destroys community bonds (that in other places serve to provide assistance to the individual, guidance etc). * Extremely materialistic soc…

India has the same general conditions as described above, and to a far greater extent than the US or France. Rather than individualism it's "every family for itself", but apart from that your description fits India better than the US.

Crime, apart from sex crime, is far lower. On many occasions I've walked around at night and been in no danger.

I'm not even sure if black Americans satisfy your criteria, actually. The US has a huge safety net - most of the bottom ventile are supported by the government. And my general impression is that black communities are far more collectivist than the rest of the nation. Do you have data on this?

Something really weird. On the one hand, the minute I heard your theory, I immediately thought "wow, this has to be overfitting". Then it took only a few minutes to realize these conditions are actually quite common and probably describe everything besides Scandinavia. And even those Scandinavian nations have subgroups with far higher crime than income levels would predict.

I'm sorry you found my question insulting. I'm simply attempting to determine if there is a real theory here; many people expressing similar mood affiliation to you have none, and I'm trying to avoid getting into a long debate about mood. My apologies.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#262

Post by fsloth »

peterfirefly wrote: post #253
fsloth wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an example of Aristotle being quite useless: When I need to figure out mechanics I'd rather use Newton's mechanics than Aristotle's.

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/gait_anim.html Part 8: "The reason why snakes are limbless is first that nature makes nothing without purpose, but always regards what is the best possible for each individual, preserving the peculiar essence of each and its intended character, and secondly the principle we laid down above that no Sanguineous creature can move itself at more than four points. Granting this it is evid…

Could you elaborate why you choose this particular bit?

Aristotle's production is full of enumerations of the observable phenomena but the science as we know it today got going only after people started to figure out they actually should test the conclusions they drew from their observations and found out that Aristotle was in several places in fact not correct but merely blowing so much hot air to impress his audiences.

I was not questioning the cultural merits of his legacy, but merely the practical. His political and pedagogic writings are far more interesting, IMO, as studies of the human condition.

While the roots of science have several offshoots buried in greece soil the tree started to seriously bear any fruit only after Baconian inquiry was accepted by the european intelligentzia.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#263

Post by ZeroGravitas »

peterfirefly wrote: post #252
EpicEng wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please describe the difference between racial and religious discrimination. In practice, how does it differ? It's all the same; some group doesn't like you because of who and what you are.

Religions can be rely evil and bad. They often are. You choose whether to follow an evil religion. You can't choose what colour of skin you are born with or the facial bone structure. You /can/ change those things later but it is expensive, requires surgery or bad chemicals and is really unpleasant. Discriminating against religions is a completely different (and much more defensible) matter than discriminating agains…

The vast majority of people follow the dominant religion of the area they are born and/or their parents. In practice this makes it interchangeable with racism in most cases.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#264

Post by icantthinkofone »

trhway wrote: post #242
icantthinkofone wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He charged the officer and was shot once. Then he charged again and was shot again. Then, he came within 10 feet to tackle the officer and that was when he was killed. This was not 10 (or so) consecutive shots. If the first shots didn't stop him, why would you believe the second grouping would? Or the next? What was Brown's intent once he reached the officer?

Brown didn't attack or charged the officer. That's a lie by the officer. Ever watched "Chicago"? "They both reached for the gun". Prosecutor, just accidentally, a clerical error mind you, withheld witness' transcripts from the grand jury in the Brown's case. We all know what happened - Brown was executed for angering the officer, for not demonstrating full submission from the moment the officer started harassing Brow…

I forgot the count but it was between 10 and 20 eyewitness accounts and direct interviews by the grand jury state Brown charged at the officer. It's obvious you didn't look at any of the documents or read any of the online articles or television by news organizations who did read the documents and state the same thing.

One of the biggest lies told, in all this, is that Brown had his hands up and said, "Don't shoot!". Never happened but I'm betting you believe that, too.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#265

Post by peterfirefly »

fsloth wrote: post #262
peterfirefly wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/gait_anim.html Part 8: "The reason why snakes are limbless is first that nature makes nothing without purpose, but always regards what is the best possible for each individual, preserving the peculiar essence of each and its intended character, and secondly the principle we laid down above that no Sanguineous creature can move itself at more than four points. Granting this it is evid…

Could you elaborate why you choose this particular bit? Aristotle's production is full of enumerations of the observable phenomena but the science as we know it today got going only after people started to figure out they actually should test the conclusions they drew from their observations and found out that Aristotle was in several places in fact not correct but merely blowing so much hot air to impress his audien…

Because it is part of a particularly daft bit about the number of "points" and locomotion.

It is also there he insists that flies have four legs.

(Yes, there is a particular insect from his area that seemingly only has four legs -- but it is still daft.)

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#266

Post by peterfirefly »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #263
peterfirefly wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Religions can be rely evil and bad. They often are. You choose whether to follow an evil religion. You can't choose what colour of skin you are born with or the facial bone structure. You /can/ change those things later but it is expensive, requires surgery or bad chemicals and is really unpleasant. Discriminating against religions is a completely different (and much more defensible) matter than discriminating agains…

The vast majority of people follow the dominant religion of the area they are born and/or their parents. In practice this makes it interchangeable with racism in most cases.

So that gives immigrants a get out of jail free-card? One that converts don't have?

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#267

Post by peterfirefly »

peterfirefly wrote: post #252
EpicEng wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please describe the difference between racial and religious discrimination. In practice, how does it differ? It's all the same; some group doesn't like you because of who and what you are.

Religions can be rely evil and bad. They often are. You choose whether to follow an evil religion. You can't choose what colour of skin you are born with or the facial bone structure. You /can/ change those things later but it is expensive, requires surgery or bad chemicals and is really unpleasant. Discriminating against religions is a completely different (and much more defensible) matter than discriminating agains…

s/rely/really/ :(

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#268

Post by of »

freddealmeida wrote: post #205
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he attacked the police officer and tried to take the officer's gun. I wish this single sentence was underscored and repeated every time this issue comes up. Physical evidence confirms this sequence of events: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/24/ferguso... There would not be blood inside the police car if Brown hadn't been reaching into the car. In what scenario was it reasonable for Brown to reach in…

He was just a child. It doesn't matter. We shouldn't be killing children.

This is a good point - why has everyone downvoted it?

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#269

Post by aswanson »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #224
aswanson wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I presented no disputed testimony...I stuck with things that are strongly supported by the physical evidence. Yes you did. hits an officer in the face and tries to take the officer's gun That is Wilson testimony. Not an objective fact. ...and then turns and runs toward the officer.. This also is not an objective fact. You disputed this yourself in stating that Browns velocity could not be determined. It just as plaus…

"hits an officer in the face and tries to take the officer's gun" That is Wilson testimony. Not an objective fact. Wilson was treated for redness to his face, as confirmed in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuupBHUGbYo#t=1m02s In the commonly-believed version of events, Brown would not have been able to injure Wilson's face like that, since he was supposedly running away. But since the officer's face was in fact inju…

No, you're being sneaky here. "Hit's the officers face AND tries to take his gun"...There was some redness on his face which was probably the result of the struggle. I'll grant that, even though it's possible Wilson self-injured, or got an officer to do that for him, but that's too speculative for argument. But, again, there is not undisputed FACT that he reached for his gun. You are conflating the redness on Wilsons face into "fact" that he reached for his gun. Again, there is no objective account of this and there is no "commonly agreed version of events".

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#270

Post by aswanson »

peterfirefly wrote: post #251
malyk wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what if Brown wasn't attacking the officer but defending himself? Dorian Johnson's story is that Wilson almost ran them over, slammed his door into them, and then grabbed Brown and pulled him through the window. IF Michael Brown is struggling to get free after being unnecessarily assaulted by Wilson and then sees Wilson draw his gun then of course he is going to strike the officer trying to flee. And this is why…

> [...] and then grabbed Brown and pulled him through the window. How do you do that with a "teen" of that size?

He probably meant grabbed him by the arm or neck through the window. Dorian Johnson stated he grabbed his neck through the window. He obviously didnt mean "pulled his whole body through the window".
Post reply on HN