Why half of all drowners are black: physical proof (now with less offensive heavy metal)

[Ex-User (9086)]

I can only praise the inquisitiveness of people involved. If it weren't for you, we wouldn't have a clue as to how body density may play a role in black drowning rates.

I'm relieved such ideologically unbiased and dedicated people work tirelessly to ensure we know everything there is to know on the topic.

It is only sensible that focus should be directed towards issues likely obfuscated by political and cultural opinions, that's where science commonly fails to address serious, often life saving information.

You deserve greater recognition, this should be at the desk of every key scientist, then they wouldn't be able to ignore the facts.

 

[ApostateAbe]

A short video about being fooled from aggregated data, and coming to wrong conclusions from statistical information.

https://youtu.be/bupRD1Cd1Mk

I think it was Carl Sagan who was most responsible for the proverb, "Correlation is not causation." It was an item in his "Baloney Detection Kit." It started a trend of millions of people seeing a correlation used as part of an argument and saying, "Bullshit! Correlation is not causation." Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit and the many lists of logical fallacies that you can find on the Internet seem to be overused as a means of impulsive denialism. If you don't want to believe something, then just try your best to find a logical fallacy that best fits and use it as a rhetorical weapon. They don't know how to accept a probable claim. They just know how to deny claims, probable or not.

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9

The problem is that correlation is an essential part of any case for causation (not the only part). Without a correlation, you have a very weak case for causation at best. To make a sound case, you need both correlation and the most probable causal link. A correlation is either explained by pure randomness (like mere time-series correlations) or by a causal link of some sort. If X non-randomly correlates with Y, then either X causes Y, Y causes X, or a third variable Z causes both X and Y. A correlation is the first step, and the next step is to make a case for why the proposed causal link is most probable out of other options available.

 

[Brontosaurie]

applause to your patience and clarity

Blarraun is a whiny kid with no point.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I can only praise the inquisitiveness of people involved. If it weren't for you, we wouldn't have a clue as to how body density may play a role in black drowning rates.

I'm relieved such ideologically unbiased and dedicated people work tirelessly to ensure we know everything there is to know on the topic.

It is only sensible that focus should be directed towards issues likely obfuscated by political and cultural opinions, that's where science commonly fails to address serious, often life saving information.

You deserve greater recognition, this should be at the desk of every key scientist, then they wouldn't be able to ignore the facts.

Thanks! I already had a big head. It is hard to find a hat that fits.

 

[Grayman]

I can only praise the inquisitiveness of people involved. If it weren't for you, we wouldn't have a clue as to how body density may play a role in black drowning rates.

I'm relieved such ideologically unbiased and dedicated people work tirelessly to ensure we know everything there is to know on the topic.

It is only sensible that focus should be directed towards issues likely obfuscated by political and cultural opinions, that's where science commonly fails to address serious, often life saving information.

You deserve greater recognition, this should be at the desk of every key scientist, then they wouldn't be able to ignore the facts.

Scientific studies usually occur when there is money to support those studies. The source of that money might be a product of political agendas or corperate/company profits since the suppliers of such money are either goverments or companies.
This is one variable and a large one that contributes to the overall scientific bias. In some cases their bias enables their survival.

 

[Fukyo]

Blarraun is a whiny kid with no point.

>getting outmaneuvered in an argument
>better call him a name

>someone is not agreeing with my position
>better accuse him of SJWing it up and not being objective

Malice? The only thing that can be possibly constructed as such is your hair trigger temper and disproportionate vehement outrage at whichever backhanded motivation for criticizing and deconstructing something you've (mis)read into people's posts. You are possessed by subtext and your subsequent disgust at things you intuit. How you can posit yourself as a defender of intellectual integrity is beyond me.

 

[Brontosaurie]

you only read my posts did you?

nice piece of drama though

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Scientific studies usually occur when there is money to support those studies. The source of that money might be a product of political agendas or corperate/company profits since the suppliers of such money are either goverments or companies.
This is one variable and a large one that contributes to the overall scientific bias. In some cases their bias enables their survival.

Yes. Though I hardly find it applicable in this case. Valid research is still useful, I'd think of it being censored or re-worded when presented to the general opinion, while having all the considerations hidden but applied.

Thanks! I already had a big head. It is hard to find a hat that fits.

Cheers m8, I'm making a toast.

 

[Fukyo]

Policing people for questioning something for "inappropriate" reasons is a trick that gets old. Now it was racism, a while ago it was Jennywocky's feminist motivations in asking for sources to claims to be supplied.

you only read my posts did you?

nice piece of drama though

Why don't you address what is being said, instead of making short dismissive quips?

Am I wrong? Did your arguments not basically come to "THD is intentionally nitpicking to disqualify a line of thinking because he thinks it's racist"?

 

[onesteptwostep]

• Racial drowning differences in America were the same in the 1980s as today (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000804.htm).
• There are many other factors that explain drowning rates, and I do not dismiss those other factors, but, if the factor on the table has predictive power, then the other more-speculative factors do not and cannot possibly push this one off the table.
• Data for drowning rates exist for other races (the Native American drowning exceeds that of black Americans), but I do not have body density data for other races.
• This data can and is used to reinforce a racial stereotype, and common sense revolts against it. I am of the belief, however, that physics is more important. Physics saves lives, delusions generally don't.

What exactly do you mean when you say physics saves lives?

What do you propose, that we start funding programs so that blacks have a lower body density? Create buoyancy products aimed at blacks?

Stop piling stupidity.

Again, studies on body densities are pointless. It's a trivia amongst a sea of other factors. It's not physics which you think are important, the focus of the 'physics' you're talking about are body densities, which you link with race.

Even if you do talk about physics, it's not the body densities that account for drowning rates. You know this well yourself.

On the study you just linked, where are the statistics based on ethnicity? And why does it only account for North Carolina? The other study accounts for all drownings within all 50 states. (confirmation bias much?)

And even within the study you linked, it shows that alcohol levels were present within nearly 50% of the drowners. I wonder if that has to do anything with body density? Uh, actually let me think: no. It was the intoxication that made them drown, not because they felt heavy.

Again, stop with this nonsense, please.

My motivation isn't saving lives. My motivation is to promote scientific truths in spite of ideologies. Whenever an ideology says, "Don't think this, don't say this, don't be a heretic, don't claim this is probable unless you are absolutely certain about it and maybe not even then," that is where I would prefer to shine a spotlight for the whole world to see. I may do so even if it costs lives! But, if it saves lives, then it is not only a reason for me to believe it but also a reason for anyone who pretends black lives matter. Otherwise, maybe black lives don't matter but ideological dogma does.

"I think the reason why blacks drown more is because of their body density! I don't really care if they drown a lot, I'm just really curious on if body density is the cause of all this!"

You should probably take a course on morality while you're at it.

 

[redbaron]

Problem:

The rate at which black drownings far exceed whites is primarily in the 8-12 age group.

The data cited for comparison is for average sized, 80kg males. It's not scientifically sound to conflate the two groups. In adults though, drowning disparity is lesser. If bone density has the profound effect you say, we'd need to show that children of different races do indeed have the same bone density disparities.

Further to that, it's been shown that certain exercises increase bone density. People with an active lifestyle who engage in high impact (jumping, running) or strenuous (weightlifting) exercise have denser and stronger bones as a result. Are they at greater risk of drowning, or is their increased overall fitness a boon?

What about obesity rates? Blacks are the most obese adult demographic in the USA. Perhaps overall fitness affects drowning rates too? Asians are the least obese and have the lowest drowning rates among adults. Still you have to factor for how often Asians typically go to pools.

For the age group of 8-12, there's a lot more research needed on why it's the greatest source of disparity for drowning rates of different races.

It's one thing to say, "I don't discount other data" but presenting arguments without giving fair credence to other factors for is essentially doing just that.

Again, studies on body densities are pointless. It's a trivia amongst a sea of other factors.

I don't agree with this to be honest. It's as worth exploring as other avenues

 

[Reluctantly]

I have noticed some people have an easier time treading water over others, regardless of technique. I have a hard time, but I'm lean and muscular. Overweight people seem to float easier. I thought it was kind of funny and ironic that staying fit could cause me to drown easier at sea. This is from my experience with other people treading water in a pool; after about 5 minutes, I get too tired and start to drown. The same happens with the others that have my body type. It's a little embarrassing really. Maybe if I swam more and improved my technique, it wouldn't be an issue anymore.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

The races of men are distinct subspecies which happen to be capable of interbreeding.

There are three races.

Black. White. Asian. Everything not in one of these categories Is an admixture of two or more in some proportion.

Race is physically as real as anything on this planet.

Every race has it's own unique advantages and disadvantages.

Get over it.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

The races of men are distinct subspecies which happen to be capable of interbreeding.

Black. White. Asian. Everything not in one of these categories Is an admixture of two or more in some proportion.

Get over it.

Haplotype mapping says you're full of it.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Haplotype mapping says you're full of it.

Haplotype mapping doesn't prove it?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Haplotype mapping doesn't prove it?

Hellll no.

 

[Grayman]

The races of men are distinct subspecies which happen to be capable of interbreeding.

There are three races.

Black. White. Asian. Everything not in one of these categories Is an admixture of two or more in some proportion.

Race is physically as real as anything on this planet.

Every race has it's own unique advantages and disadvantages.

Get over it.

Don't pit me in with all you sub-humans. I am a hybrid species of neanderthal-human.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Hellll no.

Huh. The position you are taking is quite unique.

Do you have some sources at the ready?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Huh. The position you are taking is quite unique.

Do you have some sources at the ready?

Ever heard of the internet?

Spoiler

 

[Brontosaurie]

Policing people for questioning something for "inappropriate" reasons is a trick that gets old. Now it was racism, a while ago it was Jennywocky's feminist motivations in asking for sources to claims to be supplied.




Why don't you address what is being said, instead of making short dismissive quips?

Am I wrong? Did your arguments not basically come to "THD is intentionally nitpicking to disqualify a line of thinking because he thinks it's racist"?

i would if there was something to address. a long dismissive quip is not something to address. certainly it's no better than a short one, just a bit more cumbersome.

we know he thinks it's racist (it says so in his posts as one is bothered to check) and we know he's nitpicking since 1. he made extremely flawed analogies to try and portray the hypothesis as completely unfounded and unsupported, projecting logical flaws not present in OP, 2. he brought up other potential factors as though they were to be assumed ontologically prior for no real reason other than their being cultural rather than biological in nature, somehow rendering OP's hypothesis not only superfluous but erroneous or even morally despiccable, and 3. he complained about the hypothesis not being tested yet which is kind of... you know... also it's not just him. Blarraun locked the thread only because "it's stupid", for example. same Blarraun also proceeded to deliver a purely histrionic post with no point beyond ridiculing the amateurishness of the speculative scientific pursuit which of course is inherent to the format and context itself and a rather silly thing to point out. furthermore, Rook joined merely to mock the idea with some gothic word salad and zero argument or reference to any of the actual claims.

this gets ridiculously thorough. it would be easier if people just read instead of making up stories. you claim that i'm "possessed by subtext" but i can see nothing but assumptions and lopsided accusations in what you write.

try and picture an equivalent hypothesis without any racial connotations. say it would be about concrete molds or butterflies or something. the vitriol would be absent then. it would be an idea rather than something to instinctively dismiss as unscientific thinking.

that address enough?

regarding the feminist thing: she asked for sources on some very uncontroversial stuff. she perceived an anti-feminist subtext in the collection of mostly well-known claims, and went at it with a blunt instrument by pretending a reason for great skepticism directed at the claims themselves instead of the implied conclusion, which was to be criticized. you see i'm not the only one operating in subtext, i'm just quite candid about it.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

long dismissive quip

bronto is intentionally nitpicking to disqualify a line of thinking because he thinks I think it's racist.

Man... Check out this awesome gold chain recipe I just found!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MifXUbrjYr8&feature=youtu.be&t=91

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

1. he made extremely flawed analogies to try and portray the hypothesis as completely unfounded and unsupported, projecting logical flaws not present in OP.

Now you would have to explain what logical and otherwise flaws did you find. Saying something is flawed is not valid criticism.

All you did was a long winded reiteration of what you've already said here, nothing of substance.

Onestep and THD and RB provided viable arguments as to why linking unrelated, regional studies and forming a hypothesis based on them is erroneous.

You didn't even explain why you think the studies from OP are valid, you didn't refute claims to contrary, other than stating something is obvious.

All you did in this thread was:
-say op claim is valid and hypothesis is substantiated
-say we are biased/politically correct/unable to 'science'/histrionic, and other ad hominem
-say it may be a relevant factor

Nothing you did holds any merit, your statements have no basis, they are hollow yes/no opinions.

For starters, you could refute the position that the data gathering and hypothesis is incorrect, considering that age groups and regional evidence are disconnected from statistical results that rely on them. There's many more arguments that you can reply to if you are willing to properly contest what was already said.

If you think the research and hypothesis is valid, explain it to us, instead of saying it is, or saying it's obvious.
Learn2arguem8.

Outpacing any possible attacks on my lacking argumentation, you can address this post first, if you can, which may be impossible given your usual heavy-handedness.

Unless you stop being actively dismissive with your ad hominem and unsupported dismissal, provide a logical reasoning as to why something is false, incorrect or incomplete, you don't deserve to be called a participant in the discussion.

You are just a tiny misguided nuisance undeserving of any respect at this point and your next post may attest to that or not.

 

[Brontosaurie]

bronto is intentionally nitpicking to disqualify a line of thinking because he thinks I think it's racist.

Man... Check out this awesome gold chain recipe I just found!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MifXUbrjYr8&feature=youtu.be&t=90

you said it's racist. read your own posts.

bunch of liars.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

you said it's racist. read your own posts.

bunch of liars.

If you think someone calling something racist or not, invalidates their arguments, you are silly.

By making these short replies you are only degrading the quality of this thread and taking it further away from rational discussion into a petty squabble.

 

[Reluctantly]

oh racism, Racism is a joke,
What's black on top and white on bottom?
see see

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

you said it's racist. read your own posts.

bunch of liars.

http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=493979&postcount=25&highlight=gold+chains+admitted+to

http://intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=493905&postcount=2&highlight=gold+chains

http://intpforum.com/showpost.php?p...that+isn't+to+say+the+ambiguous+racism+fun+of

oh racism, Racism is a joke,
What's black on top and white on bottom?
see see

 

[Brontosaurie]

If you think someone calling something racist or not, invalidates their arguments, you are silly.

By making these short replies you are only degrading the quality of this thread and taking it further away from rational discussion into a petty squabble.

he specifically said "bronto thinks i think it's racist" as if that was not the case. what the fuck are you doing.

yeah, as if he didn't make a "these short replies". this is a joke.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Now you would have to explain what logical and otherwise flaws did you find. Saying something is flawed is not valid criticism.
.

here's an example:

"Hey, deer seem to get hit more often on roads than in parking lots or fields. And they seem to get hit more often on major highways than on city streets or country roads.

IT MUST BE THEIR ANTLERS WEIGHING THEM DOWN!!!"

antlers is not something that varies between deer on roads and fields respectively, and thus could not explain the discrepancy between deers dying on roads and fields. density apparently is something that varies between blacks and whites, and thus could explain the discrepancy between blacks and whites drowning.

do you understand why this analogy is flawed and tries to paint a logical fallacy that isn't there originally? it really is quite obvious.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Antlers sure do vary between deer, raccoons, opossums, and birds.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Antlers sure do vary between deer, raccoons, opossums, and birds.

so then your analogy should pertain to a discrepancy between roadkill on those animals, not between places deers go. the analogy would still be inadequate though, for reasons that are yet again obvious yet which i'm willing to explain if aynone should be annoying enough to request that.

why are we discussing THD's petty and blatant fallacies?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

so then your analogy should pertain to a discrepancy between roadkill on those animals, not between places deers go.

why are we discussing THD's petty and blatant fallacies?

Now now, remember what I said?

Nothing is obvious to us as it is to you. You have to be patient and lay everything out logically.

Picking THD's deer analogy is one of the least effective ways to start, when the core of the issue hasn't been answered.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

You don't think raccoons, opossums, and birds share the same habitat as deer?

Gawd, I'm terrible...

"Hey, deerblacks seem to get hitdrown more often on roadsin pools than in parking lotsnatural water bodies or fieldsbathtubs. And they seem to get hitdrown more often on major highwaysin public pools than on city streetsin private pools or country roadsneighborhood pools.

IT MUST BE THEIR ANTLERSGOLD CHAINS WEIGHING THEM DOWN!!!"

 

[Brontosaurie]

Now now, remember what I said?

Nothing is obvious to us as it is to you. You have to be patient and lay everything out logically.

Picking THD's deer analogy is one of the least effective ways to start, when the core of the issue hasn't been answered.

yeah i have to pretend you people can't read, as per usual.

the core is resolved by experiment. meanwhile any criticism is welcome but as you can see the thread was flooded by irrelevant hysteria. me pointing out the irrelevance is quite trivial and i'm not the one getting hung up on that.

i'm not saying any criticism toward OP is invalid. several relevant criticisms have been put forth.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

yeah i have to pretend you people can't read, as per usual.

the core is resolved by experiment. meanwhile any criticism is welcome but as you can see the thread was flooded by irrelevant hysteria. me pointing out the irrelevance is quite trivial and i'm not the one getting hung up on that.

Stop playing the hysteria card, it's idiotic.

It's funny how often I see you labelling others as judgemental, when all you can do now is being a condescending arbiter.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Stop playing the hysteria card, it's idiotic.

It's funny how often I see you labelling others as judgemental, when all you can do nowr is being a condescending arbiter.

doesn't matter what i call it, it's there. i could call it just "bad arguments" or "fallacious analogies" instead of hysteria, so you wouldn't get the chance to play the "you said a word that might be used to make unfounded judgments so now your judgment is unfounded even though it's not since you actually explained it in addition to saying the word" card.

i am arguing my case. THD, Rook and you were condescending arbiters in the first place. all you can do is pretend the text in the posts isn't there. do you want me to again demonstrate why you've been condescendig arbiters? i think it's your turn. and please refer to actual arguments and not subtext.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

You made no arguments that I know of, I read all the posts you made in this thread, may have missed some, you could link them then. All you said up to this point was opinionated, baseless or pending your reply.

Refer to post 122 for my arguments.

 

[Brontosaurie]

You made no arguments that I know of, I read all the posts you made in this thread, may have missed some, you could link them then. All you said up to this point was opinionated or pending your reply.

Refer to post 122 for my arguments.

i explained above why his analogy was flawed, which was specifically, precisely what you asked for. substantiating my dismissal of his analogy constitutes an argument for the sub-thesis in question, namely that invalid judgments and arguments (of a certain incilination) have been made against OP.

again, i'm not saying OP is entirely right. i'm not saying all criticism was wrong. please read and comprehend those two sentences. i'm not arguing that OP is infallible so i don't have to make arguments against all criticism towards OP or argue the case of OP in detail.

i have referred to precisely that criticism which i've found erroneous, misguided or overblown. you are demanding asymptotic over-clarity. it's not a fair position to take in a debate. you ask me to provide full arguments and then ignore them still saying i haven't argued. why?

talking is pointing, and you refuse to look where i point then blame me.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

i explained above why his analogy was flawed, which was specifically, precisely what you asked for. substantiating my dismissal of his analogy constitutes an argument for the sub-thesis in question, namely that invalid judgments and arguments (of a certain incilination) have been made against OP.

You did, he replied and you didn't continue, that's between you and THD.

I don't see any other arguments that you've made and I already said this one is pending, because you didn't reply to his explanation of the analogy.

I don't expect you to defend op, I am merely reacting to your incessant ad hominem and belittling of myself and others in this discussion. I don't like this behaviour of yours and you haven't even admitted your fault in this.
You are consistently destroying sensitive discussions with your blunt attacks and opinions, this thread is no exception and I'm focusing on highlighting the problem.

For example saying something is obvious and not worth spelling out is pure disdain.

My arbitrary remarks were ironic, please show any of my posts that are condescending and I will admit they were.

 

[TheManBeyond]

back from working holidays. this thread only proves how intp forum is filled by isfjs and istjs.

 

[Brontosaurie]

You did, he replied and you didn't continue, that's between you and THD.

I don't see any other arguments that you've made and I already said this one is pending, because you didn't reply to his explanation of the analogy.

I don't expect you to defend op, I am merely reacting to your incessant ad hominem and belittling of myself and others in this discussion. I don't like this behaviour of yours and you haven't even admitted your fault in this.
You are consistently destroying sensitive discussions with your blunt attacks and opinions, this thread is no exception and I'm focusing on highlighting the problem.

For example saying something is obvious and not worth spelling out is pure disdain.

My arbitrary remarks were ironic, please show any of my posts that are condescending and I will admit they were.

yeah he replied with more ad-hoc BS and yes ok i shall spend time refuting it in order to argue my point. then you can tell me again that i didn't argue my point. how rewarding.

you said in post 122:

"For starters, you could refute the position that the data gathering and hypothesis is incorrect, considering that age groups and regional evidence are disconnected from statistical results that rely on them. There's many more arguments that you can reply to if you are willing to properly contest what was already said.

If you think the research and hypothesis is valid, explain it to us, instead of saying it is, or saying it's obvious.
Learn2arguem8."

so yes in fact you were expecting me to do just that. defend the OP, and refute all counter-arguments. on all accounts. which is not within reason to expect of me considering what my argument is. honestly, did you even read the thread?

it would be pure disdain of me not to presume those things are obvious to you aswell. they really are obvious. and then when i explained, you ignored it. what's your interest in this whole thing anyway?

so irony can't be condescending? well then let's pick another example: you were content with responding by declaring the thread stupid, then you also closed it with your extra arbiter mod powers. as i've already said. now, there, admit. why do i need to repeat things over and over and over? am i not speaking english?

 

[redbaron]

The problem here is that Bronto thinks ApostateAbe's background research is adequate, whereas other people don't.

Bronto's upset because he thinks people are rejecting (in his mind) a valid hypothesis with adequate background research purely because it's being perceived as racist. Realistically though there's just not enough background research. It could be that this very tiny difference in bone density greatly affects drowning rates...but it could also be dozens of other things and likely a combination of both.

We can discuss it but anything we come up with is going to be conjecture. There's nothing wrong with that, but ApostateAbe is acting very certain of the validity of his hypothesis in the absence of adequate background research to justify such certainty. He's acting like his idea is more than conjecture, which is just bad science no matter which way you slice it.

 

[Brontosaurie]

if background research yields a full account of the discrepancy by other factors, then the hypothesis is invalid. has this been shown?

i already asked if the confident, self-assured tone of OP was the issue. apparently not.

more background research may be needed but the idea cannot be discounted so brashly as some people did.

 

[redbaron]

So the thing you're upset about isn't that people discounted it, but the tone they discounted it in?

 

[Brontosaurie]

So the thing you're upset about isn't that people discounted it, but the tone they discounted it in?

"brashly" could refer to tone. i am rather referring to the rich assortion of hyperbolic knee-jerk non-arguments that have been given, as examplified previously. tone in itself isn't interesting.

i'm definitely not upset about the relevant criticisms.

 

[redbaron]

"brashly" could refer to tone. i am rather referring to the rich assortion of hyperbolic knee-jerk non-arguments that have been given, as examplified previously. tone in itself isn't interesting.

i'm definitely not upset about the relevant criticisms.

Alright then so basically you're like the "anti-SJW-knee-jerk reaction SJW knee-jerk reactionary".

No wonder everyone's so confused!

Bed time for me, please leave some tears for me to drink when I wake up.

 

[Brontosaurie]

So basically you're like, the anti knee-jerk knee-jerk. Alright then.

i believe we have the right not to tolerate the intolerant, yes.

 

[onesteptwostep]

i believe we have the right not to tolerate the intolerant, yes.

who's being intolerant lol

when someone goes 'hey black people drown because of their body density' without regards to the sensitivity of the issue, and even claiming that he doesn't care whether they drown or not, don't you think people should give up being tolerant? why the hell focus on body density? I mean there are other factors involved like: lack of parental supervision, intoxication, lack of swimming ability, swimming in danger zones, and so on.

the reason why we're bashing the OP is because THROUGH body density he thinks blacks drown more than whites.

of course this doesn't mean he's a racist, but it certainly shows how myopic his thinking ability is.

what's more is that, if it were in fact whites that drowned more than blacks, this topic of body density would have never been brought up. he's just playing on a stereotype to reach some 'insightful' conclusion. why play on a stereotype? isn't that what racism is, however?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

so yes in fact you were expecting me to do just that. defend the OP, and refute all counter-arguments. on all accounts. which is not within reason to expect of me considering what my argument is. honestly, did you even read the thread?

I wasn't, I didn't know what you were trying to argue, so I assumed you were defending OP and I think you still do it, but I didn't expect you to do something, other than to stop being a jerk and start backing your claims.

Another thing is, that's my argument which you wanted to be provided and it has little to do with your person.

so irony can't be condescending? well then let's pick another example: you were content with responding by declaring the thread stupid, then you also closed it with your extra arbiter mod powers. as i've already said. now, there, admit. why do i need to repeat things over and over and over? am i not speaking english?

It can, show me which was.
I closed that thread because Apostate was indulgently racist and his idea to do it was stupid.

it would be pure disdain of me not to presume those things are obvious to you aswell. they really are obvious. and then when i explained, you ignored it. what's your interest in this whole thing anyway?

My interest is to stop your mindless berserk, from beating people around for making correct observations. To stop you from making them inconvenient to post, to show how you are a nuisance and that you didn't even go much beyond flinging opinions and invectives yourself.

"brashly" could refer to tone. i am rather referring to the rich assortion of hyperbolic knee-jerk non-arguments that have been given, as examplified previously. tone in itself isn't interesting.

i'm definitely not upset about the relevant criticisms.

So much fuss over nothing.

Didn't someone say, you were fighting phantoms.

 

[Brontosaurie]

so the knee-jerk non-arguments were "nothing" and "phantoms" but my knee-jerk arguments against them are very severe and problematic?

lol gtfo you wimps, fuck me this is boring.

oh now now i said words! so now i lost even though your argument is incoherent and mine isn't and you're deliberately misunderstanding in order to prolong unnecessary fuss and you blame me for said fuss because i'm "the messy one" and you can't even bother having anything interesting to say, just ignoring ignoring ignoring



you're dead to me now, crap forums. why did it go so broken? TheManBeyond is spot on.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

so the knee-jerk non-arguments were "nothing" but my knee-jerk arguments against them are very severe and problematic?

lol gtfo you wimps, fuck me this is boring.

oh now now i said words! so now i lost even though your argument is incoherent and mine isn't and you're deliberately misunderstanding in order to prolong unnecessary fuss and you blame me for said fuss because i'm "the messy on" yes classic intpforum

You have not once provided arguments as to why something is knee-jerk, you have not once provided examples of such behaviour that didn't turn out to be reactions to your attacks or correct positions.

Stop being such an infantile nuisance.

Btw. I can do this indefinitely, I have unlimited patience to show how opinionated and lacking logic what you say is.