augusta24 wrote: » I think the govt should have hiked up the price on alcohol (and way more on cigarettes too) if you choose to spend money on alcohol then that's your choice... Pisses me off so much how it didn't get a hike this year or last year yet all of these other changes are screwing people over terribly!
Fishooks12 wrote: » Yes because Pubs, nightclubs and off licences don't employ people that would be laid off as a result of such a hike on already disgracefully high prices....genius Not to mention the majority of us like having a few pints to take the edge of the sheer misery of the rest of the cuts
Mike 1972 wrote: » The amount of press coverage (and not just in the tabloids) given to white, middle class, young British girls who go missing/get murdered tends to be way OTT this is particularly the case when the Girl in question was on a foreign holiday at the time or there is the suggestion that the murderer was a paedophile (if murderer was male this is more or less taken as a given).
Its your choice to have those few pints, its a luxury
Unlike the families who can't afford to pay their esb bills, or the young people on disability allowances who have had their income cut severely. What about the ridiculous price of petrol for those who need to drive to get to work? Alcohol is a luxury and hiking the price up would not see pubs and nightclubs etc closing as a result, that industry is one of the few that is actually doing well at the moment.
Fishooks12 wrote: » . So why raise the price even more with tax and deny people that luxury? That's a bit of a contradiction to your original point Ha, no it's not, pubs and night clubs are closing through-out the country because people can't afford it anymore Drink in Ireland is already at an extortionate rate compared to the rest of Europe. Not great for tourism either having people forking out over €5 for a pint in temple bar
The Combover King wrote: » African people consistently score low in intelligence tests and contribute very little to academic fields. Ashkenazi Jews consistently score high in intelligence tests and dominate most academic fields. It looks like there are at least some inherent differences in intelligence between populations. It's very simple.
Joseph Graves wrote: Psychometricians admit that intelligence is clearly a polygenic trait (e.g., Jensen, 1973). The existence of a continuous distribution of intelligence, although not necessarily a bell- shaped one, is itself an indication of a polygenic trait. Jensen advanced the argument that there must exist differences at literally thousands of loci that account for the African deficit in intelligence. Despite this assertion, he was never able to demonstrate mechanistically why or how the existence of genetic variation necessarily meant the deficiency of one population in a particular trait. Thus, his scenario was, in the final analysis, ridiculous. It is true that at the time he put forth his argument, data were just emerging on the measurement of genetic variation (polymorphism) in humans of various races (Nei & Livsh its,, 1989; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1982). However, anthropological data demonstrating that even morphological traits are not consistently differentiated between races had existed for centuries (J. Diamond, 1994, Brace, 1995). Take the example of skin color, which varies on a cline from tropical to arctic. Several "racial" groups have dark skin, including non- European Caucasians and Australoids. A tree of human "racial" groups would have both of these populations on the branches farthest away from Africans (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994). Thus, clearly dark skin does not vary consistently with "racial" category. To modern population geneticists the idea that races differ consistently for any trait is nonsense. For example, there is more genetic variation among the people of the African continent than there is among all the rest of the human species combined (J. Diamond, 1994), and there is absolutely no reason to suppose that this variation excludes alleles that impact intelligence. Moreover, as Dobzhansky and Montagu (1975) so eloquently point out, natural selection for mental ability is overwhelmingly uniform throughout the world.Source: The Pseudoscience of Psychometry and The Bell Curve The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 64, No. 3, Myths and Realities: African Americans and the Measurement of Human Abilities (Summer, 1995), pp. 277-294
The Combover King wrote: » It's two thirds genetic and one third environmental, trust me. This will be my last post on this issue.
augusta24 wrote: » Its your choice to have those few pints, its a luxury. Unlike the families who can't afford to pay their esb bills, or the young people on disability allowances who have had their income cut severely. What about the ridiculous price of petrol for those who need to drive to get to work? Alcohol is a luxury and hiking the price up would not see pubs and nightclubs etc closing as a result, that industry is one of the few that is actually doing well at the moment.
C Loring Brace wrote: Traits that are clinally distributed are under the control of selective forces that are distributed in graded fashion. Traits that cluster in certain regions are simply the results of relatedness and are not adaptively important. Traits that are of equal survival value for all human populations should show no average difference from one population to another. Human cognitive capacity, founded on the ability to learn a language, is of equal survival value to all human groups, and consequently there is no valid reason to expect that there should be average differences in intellectual ability among living human populations. The archaeological record shows that, at any one time during the Pleistocene, survival strategies were essentially the same throughout the entire range of human occupation. Both archaeological and biological data contribute to the picture of the slow emergence of human linguistic behavior and its subsequent maturation. The similarities in human capability were not the result of a sudden, recent, and localized common origin. Instead, the widely shared common human condition was the consequence of a long-term adaptation to common conditions during which specific unity was maintained by low but nontrivial rates of genetic exchange among groups. The differences in human lifeways that have arisen since the end of the Pleistocene-and in most instances much more recently-have had too little time to have had any measurable effect on the generation of inherited differences in intellectual ability. When average group differences in "intelligence" test scores are encountered, the first conclusion to be drawn is that the circumstances under which intellectual capabilities are nurtured and developed are not the same for the groups in question. Where such tests show different "racial" averages in test scores, this should be taken as an index of the continuing effects of "race" prejudice and not of inherent differences in capability.Source: An Anthropological Perspective on "Race" and Intelligence: The non-clinal nature of human cognitive capabilities Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 55, No. 2, 3 JAR Distinguished Lectures (Summer, 1999), pp. 245-264Link
The Combover King wrote: » It's two thirds genetic and one third environmental, trust me.
This will be my last post on this issue.
racso1975 wrote: » Don't agree with the price of a pint going up in pub but something should of been done about the below cost selling in shops and off licenses
mach1982 wrote: » People don't use their brains any more . I wanted to say peopel are stupid but thought that is a bit too strong.
hooradiation wrote: » Oh, and as an aside - if you, in all seriousness, refer to people as "sheep" or "sheeple" then you fully deserve to have your skull caved in with the nearest blunt object, you smug, condescending ignorant fuck.
mach1982 wrote: » People don't use their brains any more.
Dudess wrote: » Why is it that when some genius says everyone else is sheeple, they are so confident that they are exempt from this affliction?
Dudess wrote: » Why not perhaps over 75? 60 isn't old at all in this day and age - only to kids. My folks are in their 60s and perfectly capable and .
hooradiation wrote: » Along with "open your mind" and "wake up!" the above is part of a triumvirate of phrases that say more about the speaker than anything else. Or, if you'd prefer, peddling this teenage nonsense makes you look foolish.
