• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Sign in to follow this  
spygirl

Black crime!

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, spygirl said:

Ah but where pinny?

Midsomer?

Crikey there's a murder every hour there. I have moved, and I am in Northamptonshire. Wicker Man country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spygirl said:

2h!

Northamtons boots.

Voices from the fire. Not virgins.

Swampthing respun.

Fucking tragic for shoe shops round here, ironically. I'll have to buy a pair online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, spygirl said:

See! They do use black in a crime description. Sometimes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-46850055

.

Quote

"This must have been very distressing for those involved and I want to reassure the victims and those that live locally that we are doing everything we can to find the offenders quickly," Insp Graham Dalton said.

"I do believe this is connected to Operation Gravity drug dealing and would ask anyone with information regarding those involved to contact the police immediately."

 

 

What exactly does that mean.  "Connected to Operation Gravity" - they should be more clear.  Reading that phrase it's almost as if it was a drugs raid and the offenders might have been plain clothes officers who made a mistake and they don't want to admit it.

I'd be amazed if it means that but even druggies would have to stretch stupidity to its limits to gate crash a "children's birthday party" looking for and demanding the drugs. 

Does the absence of any images or description of the children and their parents suggest that they might have been white, of colour or a mixture - why no people images and interviews.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, M S E Refugee said:

https://news.sky.com/story/dna-pioneer-james-watson-stripped-of-honours-after-reckless-race-remarks-11606108

Closed minded scientists think that Dr Watson is a bigot and they do not wish to entertain the possibility that he may well be right on race and intelligence.

He is falling down IMO in being insufficiently nuanced in that he is projecting averages onto whole populations.  Averages are just that; if you have a society where 10% of very intelligent people rule 90% of very unintelligent people then it can work perfectly well despite having a low average IQ.

You could go away from what he has said thinking all black people are thick, a notion of which any clip of Dr Thomas Stowell will disabuse you, so to my mind he shouldn't have said it as that is what some people will do.

He is not wrong in what he says but he has not put it fully into context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe like lots of other people he's fed up and sick of having to tip toe around as if on broken glass or eggshells just in expressing an opinion.  All the nuances would come out if open and civilised debate and discussion was allowed. 

The extremist censors are the real culprits, racists, fascists, unbalanced controllers and even nazis in all this.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

He is falling down IMO in being insufficiently nuanced in that he is projecting averages onto whole populations.  Averages are just that; if you have a society where 10% of very intelligent people rule 90% of very unintelligent people then it can work perfectly well despite having a low average IQ.

You could go away from what he has said thinking all black people are thick, a notion of which any clip of Dr Thomas Stowell will disabuse you, so to my mind he shouldn't have said it as that is what some people will do.

He is not wrong in what he says but he has not put it fully into context.

It is probably more lying by omission by the media to make him look bad as I am sure such a complex subject can't be distilled into a couple of sentences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, M S E Refugee said:

It is probably more lying by omission by the media to make him look bad as I am sure such a complex subject can't be distilled into a couple of sentences.

Very probably but that's what the media does: take things out of context.  These are direct quotes from him.

I know she got little sympathy for it but Edwina Currie lost her job for saying that most of the chicken and egg production in Britain was infected with salmonella when it absolutely was just that.

However her lack of caveats around that (proper cooking destroys it) meant that the British chicken industry went into its biggest crash ever.  I worked with somebody in 89 whose father had a chicken farm; he said it had been terrible.

If you're a public figure you go have to be careful what you say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James Watson isn't the only Nobel Prize winning scientist to disgrace himself spouting tendentious and offensive rubbish about race and gender. The distinguished physicist William Shockley's career ended in much the same way.  Both were brilliant mavericks in their youth who favoured instinct over received opinion; both nurtured an exaggerated sense of their own importance in later life.

Quote

Another factor was at work, friends told STAT. Watson made his one and only important scientific discovery when he was only 25. He discovered nothing of importance afterward, even as colleagues were cracking the genetic code or deciphering how DNA is translated into the molecules that make cells (and life) work. Yet Watson viewed himself “as the greatest scientist since Newton or Darwin,” said a longtime colleague at CSHL (who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation from the lab). To remain on the stage and keep receiving what he viewed as his due, he needed a new act to retain a few photons of the public spotlight.

“In the old days, Jim actually had power and could satisfy himself by getting things done the way he saw fit,” said the colleague. “The current Jim has no power.” Added Hopkins, “He built the field of modern biology, but he didn’t know when to get off the stage.” The outrageous statements kept him on it.

https://www.statnews.com/2019/01/03/where-james-watsons-racial-attitudes-came-from/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

James Watson isn't the only Nobel Prize winning scientist to disgrace himself spouting tendentious and offensive rubbish about race and gender. The distinguished physicist William Shockley's career ended in much the same way.  Both were brilliant mavericks in their youth who favoured instinct over received opinion; both nurtured an exaggerated sense of their own importance in later life.

 

 

Im not sure dna was such a big discovery. Important yes.

People are clueless how it works, which woukd point to some further complexity that has been missed. I remember how gene sequencing was going to fix everything. It didnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Im not sure dna was such a big discovery. Important yes.

People are clueless how it works, which woukd point to some further complexity that has been missed. I remember how gene sequencing was going to fix everything. It didnt.

Turned out to be a step on the road not the end of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.