Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reasoning why, the 2nd immediately follows the 1st Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment protects ALL your rights.
What do you do, keep one hand on the gun, the other hand on the microphone? I would imagine if it escalated to the point of drawing a weapon, the speaker would already be on the retreat. Not to mention these activists can start carrying firearms too. To quote Lil Wayne, "All my ....az got guns, no registration."
when assaults prevent free speech from taking place, how are said assaults NOT against free speech?
that you somehow believe they are not is the true idiocy.
Really?? Are you going to hold yourself to this line of logic?
When a ban prevents Muslims from coming into the country, how are said ban not a Muslim ban????!!!! Yet the Trump admin keeps telling us it is NOT a Muslim ban!!
If you're right, then the idiocy extends all the way to the White House.
.
Hate groups? You mean like BLM? Or the Black Panthers? Or the army of deranged snowflakes rioting in the streets and physically attacking people? You mean like that?
That's nothing compared to the right-wings' legion of brain dead hate filled murderers who had taken many lives and will take more and more until they destroy this country.
.
The radical left would remove the First Amendment if they could.
Have you ever read 'The Bell Curve"?
I have. I don't think you would agree with the speaker on most of what he wrote 25 years ago, as you seem to be a pretty smart feller. And don't appear to be a white supremacist either. The neo-Nazis just love his stuff.
"Controversial" is a weak word for what the academic world thinks of this guy. Sean Hannity would have gotten a warmer welcome.
I have. I don't think you would agree with the speaker on most of what he wrote 25 years ago, as you seem to be a pretty smart feller. And don't appear to be a white supremacist either. The neo-Nazis just love his stuff.
The Bell Curve just discusses the distribution of IQ within populations, and across populations. Arguing what most scientists already know, that IQ has both an environmental and a genetic component. And that your IQ is strongly correlated with your income, as well as certain social behaviors.
The book isn't aimed at the "Neo-Nazis". And is largely the same theme as his later book, "Coming Apart".
In Coming Apart, he talks about how, in the past, people tended to marry their neighbors, people within their communities. So the 140 IQ doctor, would often marry a girl with just an average IQ, or less, the girl-next-door.
But he argues that society is becoming increasingly stratified. Where the 140 IQ lawyer, will now marry the other 140 IQ lawyer he went to college with, or sits across the aisle from.
He then argues that, the people with the lowest IQ's, are now almost-universally marrying other people with low IQ's. That society is becoming increasingly-segregated by income, and that income correlates to IQ. And that if this pattern continues. Inequality won't only persist, but will deepen, as IQ gaps are likely to widen.
The reason it was attractive to Neo-Nazis, is because it makes reference to IQ differences between nations. With Africans having the lowest IQ scores, by a significant margin. Of course, it also shows Asians as having higher IQ's than Europeans. And Ashkenazi Jews having the highest IQ's of all.
The Bell Curve just discusses the distribution of IQ within populations, and across populations. Arguing what most scientists already know, that IQ has both an environmental and a genetic component. And that your IQ is strongly correlated with your income, as well as certain social behaviors.
The book isn't aimed at the "Neo-Nazis". And is largely the same theme as his later book, "Coming Apart".
In Coming Apart, he talks about how, in the past, people tended to marry their neighbors, people within their communities. So the 140 IQ doctor, would often marry a girl with just an average IQ, or less, the girl-next-door.
But he argues that society is becoming increasingly stratified. Where the 140 IQ lawyer, will now marry the other 140 IQ lawyer he went to college with, or sits across the aisle from.
He then argues that, the people with the lowest IQ's, are now almost-universally marrying other people with low IQ's. That society is becoming increasingly-segregated by income, and that income correlates to IQ. And that if this pattern continues. Inequality won't only persist, but will deepen, as IQ gaps are likely to widen.
The reason it was attractive to Neo-Nazis, is because it makes reference to IQ differences between nations. With Africans having the lowest IQ scores, by a significant margin. Of course, it also shows Asians as having higher IQ's than Europeans. And Ashkenazi Jews having the highest IQ's of all.
Yup. I never said The Bell Curve was targeted at the Nazis or any other group, but it contains a lot of the stuff that they like.
The book is a scientific treatise, not an opinion piece, and has had much serious scientific discussion and dissection ever since its publication. Much of it rose from the lack of scientific review before publication, the common way scientists determine facts from opinion. The Bell Curve's publication was kept very quiet and was sprung on the scientific community in complete surprise.
There are a lot of problems in its statistical evaluations that have faced stiff disagreement. Some of the disagreement comes from the statistical sets that were used, while other comes from flawed interpretation of the statistics.
Since the publication, Charles Murray has made most of his living as a speaker, not as a researcher, and has grown more extreme in some of his positions over the years than he was when he and Richard Hermstein wrote the book.
Hermstein died in 1994, so what his opinions might have been now will never be known, but Murray persists in saying Hermstein would agree with everything he says nowadays.
Their beliefs have become quite widespread since the book was published, as many of their conclusions fit neatly with much older societal beliefs over class, race and culture, but that does not mean the conclusions are correct. Bad science is worse than no science at all.
Really? Protesting and smashing a few things now suddenly the liberals are as evil as right-wingers????
Wake me when a liberal entered a public place and shoots a bunch of people dead like the right-wingers do every freaking month.
.
Who's gonna tell him...?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
