Tuesday, 7 October 2008

Stat slap down.

In part 2 of my daily S.A.S debunking .....they posted up a few stats.

South African murders claim the lives of nine male victims to every female victim (National Injury Mortality Surveillance System, 2005 data);

Now if true , does this not validate the fact that violent crime in South Africa is chiefly to do with drunken infighting etc, rather than the cold blooded planned stuff? Consider this...

That means that in South Africa the murder rate for women is 4.2 out of 100 000. This is lower than the United states and most of Europe. If living here did expose individuals to random daily threats of violence irrespectible of who you are, then how can you explain this figure ?

Clearly a great majority of the violence going on is between young men in the townships. Anyone who is in touch with normal South Africans can easily tell you this. If you avoid certain places, people and behaviours you can greatly diminish your chance of anything happening to you. If you are not a member of the exremely poor, young black male class who hang out and socialise at rough township areas then it's perectly honest of me to say "You are safer in South Africa than the united States of America."

Think about this. Only 4.2 out of 100 000 women ??? Seriously , even I'm shocked by how low that is for an African country supposively known for its violence against women. It really does validate my view of what's really going on and should bring great comfort to any of you who don't "hang" in the wrong places and circles. The low number of tourist deaths also validates this. The fact of the matter is that while violence exists in South Africa, it exists in pockets and is it easy to avoid the great brunt of it. Those not exposed to brunt are no more at risk, if even less so that the rest of the world.

53 comments:

Anonymous said...

See article:-

http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=856419

Ruling party will be ANC
Official opposition will be ANC light.

Very interesting!

Any comments?

Anonymous said...

"That means that in South Africa the murder rate for women is 4.2 out of 100 000.
This is lower than the United states and most of Europe."

How did you calculate this rate of 4.2 p/100 000?

What is the murder rate for women in the US and Europe and what is the source of your information to support this?

The Rooster said...

Well if the murder rate overall is 38 per 100 000 , and there are 9 times as many men being murdered as women , then it's pretty easy to work out. For every women killed nine men are killed...to find the amount of women divide by 9.

America has a 5.7 out of 100 000 people murder rate. So less women get murdered in South Africa than people in the united states.

Eat facts ...dickwad.

The Rooster said...

Anon at 12.45...I think it's awesome. Could see 3 parties coming into play in the country. A really healthy situation.

The Rooster said...

The party seems like it wants to stick to the ideals the A.N.C are founded on and it's association with its proud past. As an intellectual movement you can't fault the A.N.C...so I don't see anything wrong with that. However they have seem some corruption and "bullyism" etc and they want to go their own way...good for them. The parties will drift their own way as times goes on and loose whatever ties they have.

Anonymous said...

South Africa has consistently under-performed in fighting crime, and its insensitive approach is exemplified by Police Commissioner Jackie Selebi remaining in his post despite a strong prima facie case of corruption against him.

This was academic and author Mamphele Ramphela's response to South Africa's extraordinarily low score in the safety and security category in this year's Mo Ibrahim Index of African Governance. In that category, it ranked 42nd out of the 48 sub-Saharan countries.

The index, compiled by a team led by Professor Robert Rotberg of Harvard University, was released in Addis Ababa on Monday. Ramphela is on the board of the Mo Ibrahim Foundation.

She said law enforcement authorities were weak. "We have never managed to get on top of the crisis. If police files keep disappearing and cases don't make it to court, then you have a problem."

The culture of lawlessness was rampant, she said. The police were deeply corrupt - "no other country would tolerate having a police chief like Selebi remaining in his position".

Only Somalia, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chad, Liberia and Central African Republic, which all are or have been in a state of war, scored lower on safety and security. South Africa's scorecard is similar to those of Kenya and Burundi.

The figures cover the years between 2002 and 2006, and so would not include the xenophobic outbursts and what many perceive to be a worsening crime situation since then.

The Rooster said...

yeah right....as if subsaharan countries other than namibia or Botswana even have statistics.

Look crime has gone down since 1994. If anything the period that crime "got out of control" was the years leading up to 1994. When the A.N.c took over we've seen nothing but a steady decrease. Byt the way I don't suggest this has anything to do with better policing...what a fucking unsophisticated and cynical view of the world.

There are less violent crimes because people have less reason to commit violent crimes. The gdp has grown 6 fold since then , 75% of people now have jobs and the rest have welfare subsidies and grants. Millions more People have electricity, water and more importantly hope and education. This is why crime has gone down.

Draw me a map of a countries economuic growth and it's violent crime and the pattern is always in reverse proportion. Only a cynical dumb fuck whose thought nothing about human beings and how they respond to their environment thinks the only reason people don't commit crime is because the police stop them. Fuck off with that braindead useless reactive instead of proactive bullshit.

varkots said...

"That means that in South Africa the murder rate for women is 4.2 out of 100 000. This is lower than the United states and most of Europe."

Carefull, lower than their female death rate? No.... What is their ratio? What if the rest of the world's stats roughly matches up with this? Please check bro.

Took me 1 minute in Google to find this:

Richard Hernstein has noted that the more heinous the crime, the greater the disproportion between men and women. This certainly holds true for homicide. According to statistics published by the U.S. Department of Justice, men committed 87.5 percent of murders in 1999,
The ratio of male to female homicides was approximately nine to one. Almost three-fourths of male homicides and 80 percent of female homicides were perpetrated against men.


Now, just because I replied, and pointed out an error in your conjecture, does not, a cunt, me make.

Admit it, or you one.

Anonymous said...

@rooster 01.27

As usuual you didnt answer the question and followed up with insults.

You stated that in your post that the murder rate for women is 4.2 out of 100 000 in SA.

It isn,t. It is in fact 3.8. Dickwad. You can't even get your own supporting facts right. Arsehole.

(9 times more men get murdered than women I.E. for every 9 men there is one women : 9+1 = 10
MR is 38/100 000 therefore 38 /10 = 3.8) F#ckwit!

Secondly you stated in the original post that the murder rate for women in SA is lower than the murder rate for women in USA and most of Europe

But now you state this in your comment @ 1.27: -
"So less women get murdered in South Africa than people in the united states."

Of course less women get murdered in SA than all the murders in USA.
Moron!

You answer the comment from anon 12.52 by stating a completely different murder rate I.E. the total murder rate in the USA. What the f#ck has that got to do with the murder rate of women. Doos.

Lastly, you didn't quote any stats for Europe and you havn't supported your claim with a source for the murder rate of women in the USA and Europe.

Once again you have tried to avoid answering for your allegations and claims through subterfuge and deception.

Prick!

So little man, it would seem that you are not as clever as you think.

Don't bother responding to this your opinions are worthless.

Anonymous said...

Its all bullshit!!

Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors.

varkots said...

Found some more, chuck this in with the previous comment if you want, this is more recent stats from the USA:


Offending rates for both males and females followed the same pattern as victimization rates

Males were almost 10 times more likely than females to commit murder in 2005.


Homicide Type by Gender, 2005

Male - 88.8% Female - 11.2%

Anonymous said...

"Look crime has gone down since 1994. If anything the period that crime "got out of control" was the years leading up to 1994."

I'd argue that crime is still out of control. With 18000 murders, 40000 rapes occuring annually, and including the hijackings, assaults, robberies, tax evasion, drugs, and a SAPS apprehension rate of less than half, I'd conclude that crime is certainly not regulated or under control.

Anonymous said...

# ndependent Foreign Service

South Africa has consistently under-performed in fighting crime, and its insensitive approach is exemplified by Police Commissioner Jackie Selebi remaining in his post despite a strong prima facie case of corruption against him.

This was academic and author Mamphele Ramphela's response to South Africa's extraordinarily low score in the safety and security category in this year's Mo Ibrahim Index of African Governance. In that category, it ranked 42nd out of the 48 sub-Saharan countries.

The index, compiled by a team led by Professor Robert Rotberg of Harvard University, was released in Addis Ababa on Monday. Ramphela is on the board of the Mo Ibrahim Foundation.




'Governance performance across African countries is improving'
South Africa ranked fifth overall, and third in two of the five categories.

But in the "safety and security" category, South Africa scored 61,1, and only six formerly war-torn countries scored lower. Ramphela said crime was under-reported, which meant the situation was probably worse than the 61,1 score.

She said law enforcement authorities were weak. "We have never managed to get on top of the crisis. If police files keep disappearing and cases don't make it to court, then you have a problem."

The culture of lawlessness was rampant, she said. The police were deeply corrupt - "no other country would tolerate having a police chief like Selebi remaining in his position".

Only Somalia, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chad, Liberia and Central African Republic, which all are or have been in a state of war, scored lower on safety and security. South Africa's scorecard is similar to those of Kenya and Burundi.

The figures cover the years between 2002 and 2006, and so would not include the xenophobic outbursts and what many perceive to be a worsening crime situation since then.

South Africa's position overall remains the same as last year.

The index assesses African governments against 57 criteria. Now in its second year, it's an initiative of Sudanese cellphone mogul Mo Ibrahim.

Mauritius again emerged as the clear winner, scoring 85,1 points. It was followed by the Seychelles (79,8), Cape Verde (74,7) and Botswana (74,0). South Africa's highest score in the five categories is in "participation and human rights", (86,3) but interestingly it stays in fifth place, beaten by Sao Tome and Principe (93,8), Mauritius (92,2), Liberia (87,9) and Botswana (87,4).

South Africa's second highest score (78,1) is in the category "rule of law, transparency and corruption".

Covering the time before the crisis surrounding ANC President Jacob Zuma, during which there were several stand-offs between the courts and politicians, the score will probably be lower next year, and bring South Africa down overall.

Going by rankings, South Africa did the best in the category "human development", posting 68,7. It was beaten by Mauritius (89,9) and the Seychelles (88,4).

Somalia scored lowest overall on 18,9, belying claims by the Department of Foreign Affairs that Somali refugees could safely return to Mogadishu, the capital. The country's safety score is 38,8, down from 46 in 2005.

Cape Verde, Sao Tome and Principe and Gabon posted scores of 100 in safety and security. Rwanda, scene of the 1994 genocide, posted 98,4.

Ibrahim said: "Obscured by many of the headlines of the past few months, the real story coming out of Africa is that governance performance across (many) African countries is improving.

"I hope that these results will be used as a tool by Africa's citizens to hold their governments to account, and stimulate debate about the performance of those who govern in their name."

The Rooster said...

We'll fuck me senseless , you're right ....so the female murder rate is 3.8 %. Whatever....the point remains exactly the same. The perception that everyone is in the same danger in South Africa is plain wrong.

Bit dishonest with your u.S stats though aren't you ? We're not talking about who committed homocide...we're talking about who the victims are.

And I don't know what the rates for women are in those countries. I only said as a woman the murder ratio is lower in South Africa than overall for the united states. That for a country with a reputation for being violent towards women. Admit it...this suprises you and validates my proposal that crime is very much ammontst a certain risk group.


Is crime under control ? As I said increasingly as social economic conditions improve so does crime. Do we have rule of law ? Certainly...I feel the great majority of South Africans are law abiding, descent and good people. I reject the idea that we're a bunch of savages as S.A.S would have its foriegn readers believe.

Anonymous said...

I admit that I stole this from another blog.
So credit to A.N. Other.


Non-racism on its head?


A quick refresher course is needed first.

What is the definition of racism? Well, according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, it is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race".

People who don't believe this are non-racists or liberals. Or more likely denialists of convenience, or just plain idiots. Let me tell you how I've come to this conclusion.

If a white guy calls a black guy "kaffir" then by definition he is making a racist slur and the black in question is likely to be quite miffed. But what is the typical reaction of an average white guy when labeled "whitey", "white bastard", "boer" or "redneck" by a black?

Mostly nothing. No reaction. Zip. Nada. Perhaps a knowing grin, at most. And if said white guy happens to be a liberal non-racist, then he must also be a screaming closet racist hypocrite, because in the action of non-reaction, he acknowledges both significant racial difference and superiority!

Deep, huh?

But lemme explain more clearly for all formerly disenfranchised readers and other mentally challenged folk who've lost the philosophical plot here.

Y'see, if blacks go apeshit when slapped with racial slurs, then sympathetic, non-racist liberal whites MUST also go apeshit when slapped with similar insults. For if they do not, then it means either (a) they agree with such "insults" which therefore become statements of fact (yes I'm white, so what?) or (b), their EQ is further evolved, so that slurs are no more than water off a duck's back: sticks and stones may break my bones, but...

Both (a) and (b) play squarely into the definition of racism above, affirming both difference and superiority at the same time. Through simple inaction. Literally by simply being born white.

So to all you liberally-minded non-racists out there: being true to your professed values necessitates that you go off the rails with fury if called a "whitey".

If you don't, then you're a racist pig!

Anonymous said...

"Is crime under control ? As I said increasingly as social economic conditions improve so does crime. Do we have rule of law ? Certainly...I feel the great majority of South Africans are law abiding, descent and good people. I reject the idea that we're a bunch of savages as S.A.S would have its foriegn readers believe."

That's political spinning.

Crime is not regulated nor is it under control. Therefore, it is out of control. Just admit it.

The Rooster said...

Look twatfuck. I don't care what reasons some airy fairy pc police liberal don't "believe" in racism. I'm no fucking Hippie and I'll tell you why I don't believe in it.

Scientifically it fails !!!

Since the inception of social darwism (wiki it) it's been proposed by post victorian modernist, reductionists that the dominance of the western man is based on some form of greater evolution. They measured the cranial area of different races , did experiment, went on journeys around the world and basically did science backwards....worked from a conclusion to a hypothesis towards data .....AND STILL FAILED.


We've debunked the idea of race as a concept hundreds of years ago already. With twin studies and genetics and the social science movement of the 20th dentury we've doubly driven the stupid idea right into the ground. The phenotypical differences between people are not significant predictors of theur behaviour. People cultures and behaviour is social constructed to the nth degree.

So don't confuse this as an issue of political correctness. The reason intelligent and informed people don't believe in race is not because they are trying to be polite...it's because they're being scientific. Go read a fucking book and come back and try again.

varkots said...

Rooster, please slow down when you read my comments it clearly states that:

Offending rates for both males and females followed the same pattern as victimization rates

and also:

Almost three-fourths of male homicides and 80 percent of female homicides were perpetrated against men.

I also found this on wikipedia:

"In 2004, males were almost 10 times more likely than females to commit murder. Men are also far more likely than women to be the victims of violent crime, with the exception of rape"

Anonymous said...

You can't be racist towards a chimp. It also seen as inferior to the human gene.

If you believe macroevolution to be true, then it's just a matter of time when science will reveal that not all humans are equally evolved, much like not all birds are equally evolved and so on.

Racism can fall away when we begin to understand that, say, Asians are more highly evolved than any other human subgenre.

And this is beginning to happen in science.

The Rooster said...

Oh what bollocks.

Asians are the superior race ? I reject that as much as i reject anything else. In fact when iq testing has been done in schools asians that come from countries where the culture demands much more hours and disclipline they out perform asians living in western countries all the time. Asians stdents in western countries whose parents are recent emmigrants and still push this culture of constant study on to them also do better that their asian peers from asian countries who don't have these social pressures (You will find a great deal difference between indian , japanese , koreans and chinse and others asians such a thai's loasians , cam bodians etc) ...or those whose parents grew up in the more lax western culture. These consitant facts go to show that people of the same races ability on iq tests perfeorm entirely different according to how they are brought up. All studies done have always disproved the notion of race being behind any human achievement.

Regarding evolution...all the significant differences in human beings are phenotypical ...we've only been a subspecies for around 150 000 years and different "races" for much less than that. There simply hasn't been any time or significantly differing environmental pressures for any significant racial difference to take root.

Anonymous said...

Using Asians was an example, you dimwit.

My point is that science is starting to reveal evidence that not all humans are equal.

In fact, for logical reason SHOULD we believe that we ARE equal? It doesn't make sense.

Anonymous said...

OOOOOOOO!!! Touchy Touchy

Did as you asked and read a book.

Since you did'nt specify which book or make any recommendations I read a book about marketing and information technology and quite frankly it hasn't helped one bit.

Perhaps I'll read something deeply philosophical and philanthropic later.


Phenotypical differences between people are not significant predictors of their behaviour?

Bwahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

It was the also the view held by Hume, Kant, and Hegel that the different branches of humanity were distinguishable not only phenotypically but also temperamentally and intellectually. Kant and Hume associated the dark pigmentation of persons of African origin with cognitive deficiencies, and Hegel wrote disparagingly of the natural temperament of Africans as explanatory of their cultures.

In the meantime quimjizz you just keep convincing yourself that all is well in Liberal La La land.

Tit for tat.

Tit!

varkots said...

Anonymous said...

"If you believe macroevolution to be true,"

Macro evolution is a direct result of micro evolution.

"then it's just a matter of time when science will reveal that not all humans are equally evolved "much like not all birds are equally evolved and so on."

No shit, ever hear of Sickle-cell?

But! and this is a big BUT mister, I'll use pseudo science as it fits me, there is no "EQUALLY" in evolution. There is no better or worse, no good or bad. There is just natural selection.

I tell you what, I'll go get a black scientist to come and explain this to you, and if I do, try and keep up.

"And this is beginning to happen in science."

You wouldn't know science if it bit you in the ass, going by your last post.

The Rooster said...

Michelle , want to try make that comment again , this time fucking off with trying to market your business on here ?

The Rooster said...

Nonsense....science is proving time and time again through twin studies and the likes that our genetics are an extremely superficial determination of our behaviour (even when exactly the same).

Anonymous said...

"Nonsense....science is proving time and time again through twin studies and the likes that our genetics are an extremely superficial determination of our behaviour (even when exactly the same)."

Yes, when the assumption that "all humans are equal" is upheld.

To assume that all humans are equal is to prove that ignorance really is bliss.

We're nothing more than cells that have evolved at different speeds.

Anonymous said...

most of the comments on this shitty blog are nothing more than taking the piss out of rooster. hahahaha!

it's so easy to rev rooster's motor and give him a hard-on. just tell him that his stats are shit, and watch him go off like a penis in a pussy.

most of my comments are simply to get him going. hahahaha!

Anonymous said...

OOOOOOOOOOOO! Touchy touchy

I did as you asked and read a book. But you didn't specify or recommend anything so i read a book on marketing and information technology.

Maybe I'll read something deeply philosophical and more philanthropic later.

"The phenotypical differences between people are not significant predictors of their behaviour."

There is also the view held by Hume, Kant, and Hegel that the different branches of humanity were distinguishable not only phenotypically but also temperamentally and intellectually. Kant and Hume associated the dark pigmentation of persons of African origin with cognitive deficiencies, and Hegel wrote disparagingly of the natural temperament of Africans as explanatory of their cultures.

So listen quimjizz you just keep telling yourself that everything is great in Liberal La La Land

Tit for tat.

Tit!

klippies101 said...

hey all

klippies101 said...

Solidarity Helping HandHome
Who are we?
Personnel
What do we do?
Media statements
Poverty
Photos
Get involved
Sponsors
In the news
Contact us
Newsletters
Afrikaans
Poverty
Lift the lid
The story of white poverty in the new South Africa



More than 430 000 white South Africans are currently classified as absolutely poor. For years this type of poverty has been kept silent while these small communities of poor people – tucked away from the rest of society – lead a precarious existence. Solidarity’s Helping Hand Fund’s poverty report will now break this silence. The report investigates the levels of the increasing poverty problem in various South African cities and towns.

http://www.helpinghandfund.co.za/?page_id=123

white pvoerty is real i think your site rooster is untrue and i agree with alot of stuff sas says expcet for the rascim thats not on

The Rooster said...

So much rubbish being posted here I don't know where to start. Tell you what kiddies i'll give some of your silly ideas a full post tomorrow. For now I'm going to dial out of your stupidity for a few hours and have a glass of wine.

klippies101 said...

well check the site out see tis real for yourself i know i have seen the many many poor whites in durban but have also seen many many poor people of other races also

klippies101 said...

well dude i left sa in 97 cause of the violent crime and returned for first time in 2005 and was carjacked so rooster i dsagree with u crime in sa is oput of control durban is a mess

and i now am back in australia and i meet on average around 5 south africans a day in oz and they r all new to oz and they all same the same thing

sa is dangerous so bad no one goes aout at night anymore

well lekker slaap all

i will post this again so i know u saw it and i was sick in durbs to the hosptils r dirty theres no doctors or nurses the city is flithy and full or crime i know tons of peoplr form durban in austrsalia and they say dont go out at night way to dangerous and i tell them i miss south africa and they all say the place is a hell hole dont go back

Dark Raven said...

Ag no chick. It was because you were scared of people seeing what I wrote about yous.

Michelle

Anonymous said...

Four foot tall pears, pleasingly plump, perfectly prepared possibly, to plummet perilously from their precarious perches and pummel any passing pedestrian to a pasty, putrid, pulp.

The Rooster said...

430 000 poor whites ?

There is a 4.3 unemployment rate for white South Africans you muppet. I posted the link to South African demographics a few posts back. Don't post unsubstantuated bollocks being spread by a charity with an obvious agenda to make money.

I don't suggest there are no poor whites....but 430 000 is a number hugely bloated and inflated from reality. There is no way 1 in 10 whites in South Africa are so poor they need charity help. Shut up.

The Rooster said...

There is also the view held by Hume, Kant, and Hegel ...

----------------------


Oh , you missed the part where I specifically mention that this falsified hypothesis came from the post victorian modernist ?

I like Kant and I'm with him on free will. But unlike him and Hume I however have the benefit of a few more hundred years of hard science to fall back on. Remember we're talking about people who were writing at the same time of Newton. They have something to offer on some subjects but are plain wrong on others. Nobody would deny their shortcomings.

The Rooster said...

Using Asians was an example, you dimwit.

My point is that science is starting to reveal evidence that not all humans are equal.

In fact, for logical reason SHOULD we believe that we ARE equal? It doesn't make sense.

-----------------------

That's the thinking of a child. It appears to my eyes different, therefore it must be different.

Human beings have an incredible ability to make out the differences in other human beings. We can remember and differentiate each other in ways that would seem astounding to a third party. This necessary evolutionary tool has however greatly distorted and exageratted any differences between us.

The fact of the matter is when you take human beings of different "races" and condition them in the same environmen and even the cultural playing field they produce the same or extremely similiar results as to how they behave.

The idea of a more aggresive race, or one more prone to rape , or one more capable of intelligence and the likes has been entirely destroyed through thousands and thousands of experiments that set out to prove that there was. Nurture has long since won the nature/nurture debate. To claim otherwise is to write "ignoramus" on your forehead.

The Rooster said...

Sorry Michelle...I'm not advertising your crappy bakery on my site.

Anonymous said...

rooster, so you're saying that all humans are equal.

please.

The Rooster said...

rooster, so you're saying that all humans are equal.

please.

-------------------------


Well compared to me...hell no. I look down upon most of you as a god would an ant. But ammongst yourselves you're all pretty much the same. If you were lucky enough to grow up in a stable environment with a loving family and all the material things you needed to get by, then you'll grow up to be a functioning member of society. Where as if you grew up without those things you're headed down the wrong path....I don't see the point of passing judgments on people for being randomly assigned the conditions with in which they are born. Do you suggest people have some say in this matter ? That's stupid.

Like anyone who hasn't got their head up their arse I'm a stern determinist...free will it a myth and the closest you can come to free will is realising and acknowledging you don't have it( Kant and all that)...but one who believes we're determined by our social conditions rather than our genetics....tabala rasa and all that.

It's not like genetics don't play a small insignificant part in who we end up being. It's just not significant enough to predict their eventual fate....there's just not enough genetic differences between us to do that.....But give me their social conditions they are exposed to and I am pretty sure I could do that with great accuracy.

Anonymous said...

rooster, stop being a politician. just answer this question:

are all humans equal? yes or no.

Anonymous said...

James Watson's comments on the intelligence -- or lack thereof -- of black people have caused quite the uproar, and understandably so: it's not often that someone so prominent and venerated, a veritable intellectual Prometheus, says something so utterly unacceptable to civilized society.

Alexis posted on this last night. Here's what Watson said in the original Times of London interview:

He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.

Anonymous said...

look bottom line kaffirs are stupid and no liberal homo blog owner with his crap comments and defense of the kaffir race will ever disprove that fact

Anonymous said...

who other than rooster honestly gives a fuck about kaffirs, i don't go about thinking about them all day i couldn't care less about them live or die they are insignificant to me.

personally i wish they will all fuck off and die.

The Rooster said...

rooster, stop being a politician. just answer this question:

are all humans equal? yes or no.

-----------------------

Yes. All humans have equal potential, bar the pbvious exceptions of those born with broken "hardware" (such as the mentally disabled).

Whether that potential is to fuck up or excell it's equal. Conservativism wants to react to society....liberalism was to proact...I'm neither...but certainly the wisdom goes with being proactive rather than reactive.

The Rooster said...

James Watson is a fucking noob if he can't pick up the simple correlation between Iq testing and social conditions...not to mention the inherent bias in what they test for.

I wrote about this in detail before....stop being a muppet and join the 21st century.

Anonymous said...

"James Dewey Watson (born April 6, 1928) is an American molecular biologist, best known as one of the co-discoverers of the structure of DNA. Watson, Francis Crick, and Maurice Wilkins were awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material".[3] He studied at the University of Chicago and Indiana University and subsequently worked at the University of Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory in England where he first met Francis Crick.
In 1956 he became a junior member of Harvard University's Biological Laboratories until 1976, but in 1968 served as Director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, New York and shifted its research emphasis to the study of cancer. In 1994 he became its President for ten years, and then subsequently served as its Chancellor until 2007, when he was forced into retirement by contoversy over several comments about race and intelligence. Between 1988 and 1992 he was associated with the National Institutes of Health, helping to establish the Human Genome Project. He has written many science books, including the seminal textbook The Molecular Biology of the Gene (1965) and his bestselling book The Double Helix (1968) about the DNA Structure discovery."

versus

"James Watson is a fucking noob if he can't pick up the simple correlation between Iq testing and social conditions...not to mention the inherent bias in what they test for."

Wow, Rooster. You really out did yourself this time. You must obviously be a genius with much the same credentials as Watson. I'm humbled.

Anonymous said...

"are all humans equal? yes or no."

Rooster: yes.

Hahahahaha! Okay then.

The Rooster said...

Yes, Watson is a noob. A noob far too invested in one way of looking at the world. He's a fucking james randi if I ever saw one. Fucking reductionists ...the most dogmatic of all people and the most smug. You'd think they'd be humbled by things like quantum physics ...but not !

Ignorant motherfucking intellectual midgets. Let's celebrate our mediocrity people and follow the dogma of 19th century reductionsm !! Yay !!!

Yes compared to these twats I am a genius.

The Rooster said...

Just to be clear...all biological twin studies have totally disporven the notion that genetics plays a role even ammongst those with exactly the same genetic code.

There are black south Africans with much more similiar genetic code to afrikaaners than nigerians.....and there behaviour is nothing the same. to siggest ngenetics are a big part of behaviour is fucking..sorry to say it this way but you leave me no choice....fucking , fucking , fucking dumb !!!

It goes against everything you could easily observe by just taking your head out of your arse...reading some science...or even for a second not being a total fucking retard.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, Watson is a noob."

You've said it already, Einstein. Nobody gives a shit what you think anyway. Most people visit your blog because it's so funny watching you defend yourself and trying to convince a few racists that they're wrong. The other visits to your blog are from racists.


"He's a fucking james randi if I ever saw one."

And the crap part about that is what, exactly? Nothing, little boy. He's famous and you're not. And you're a fucking Maddox wannabe. So shut the fuck up, you arrogant faggot who devotes all his time to a small bunch of racists and then suddenly believes that his crappy blog is the greatest thing to hit South African cyberspace. Your blog will die out soon enough, once you've realised that you're the brunt of everybody's joke. You're the one being laughed at all the time.

You just don't get it.

"all biological twin studies have totally disporven the notion that genetics plays a role even ammongst those with exactly the same genetic code."

Prove it. Let's see the science. Links. Sources.

The Rooster said...

I spend about 1% of my time on this blog. And i'm not even trying that 1 %. I am also writing a book and holding a full time job. With that said this blog is growing amazingly quickly and let's face it...is pretty fucking awesome. So no...I'll not be crying mysef to sleep about it all.

Where's your readership champ ? Need to slip on here to yap for my attention to get your fix don't you ?

Sad....very sad.