Just talk to the people who spend years going to Africa to build infrastructure and schools to teach them and see what they have to say about this. They are mostly incapable of being schooled and they tend to destroy the stuff you build for them.

If a country is a shithole, it's because of the people living in that country. Africa is pretty much the jackpot as far as continents go. No harsh winters and there's plenty of everything. When white Europeans used to live there it was ancient Egypt and a prosperous civilization. The places with white Europeans are still prosperous civilizations.

There is no magic earth. It's all the people. Hundreds of years a go a German dude (Johann August Sutter) went to California and made a prosperous settlement inside of a desert by redirecting mountain water.

I also own the ISP that hosts this site. Our policies aren't changing anytime soon.

There are exceptions

So we can't generalize, but let's generalize in the title for clickbait anyway.

Study after study indicates running rarely causes or exacerbates arthritis in most runners’ knees

Even if it is rare and thus only affects some runners, it's a bit disingenuous to essentially say "hey, only some people get cancer from smoking and smoking is actually strengthening your lungs".

recruited 82 middle-aged, first-time racers [..] most of their first scans showed signs of incipient joint injuries, including cartilage tears and bone-marrow lesions, any of which could be early steps toward arthritis.

The wisdom I know from health professionals is that running is fucking up your legs and that you should train by doing fast walks instead.

But this simmering damage had been partially reversed by training

Yeah, training is good, but running is doing damage. Do fast walks.

Enjoy it while it last. If Ramble ever gets too big, they'll get bought out/threatened/servers pulled.

That isn't science as such. That's an opinion that might explain why there are countries that don't seemingly do as well.

Dude, it's genetics. There is no such thing as magic earth. Shit people create shithole countries. Simple as that.

Racial? Cultural? Environmental? All factors to that outcome.

It's just that even the richest black people commit more violent crime than the poorest of white folks.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=yvOKYZWjbOc

I never stopped using self-hosted mail. Been using it for about 20 years now and it works fine for me.

Murders of a particular race can be correlated with many factors--perhaps say poverty or drug usage or even extreme wealth or lately "being a rich Russian billionaire." Why those factors exist might be spiritual, economic, self-caused, other-caused, or a whole slew of sociao-political reasons. The bottom line is, if you want to see it as race alone, that's how you are going to see it, but that isn't really science talking. More likely, it is some "liberal academic conditoning" talking, which often masquerades as science.

You have to be blind to not see the correlation with the race:

https://files.catbox.moe/lq2m2o.mp4

What I defined are the pieces that constitute an actual scientific study. What you are trying to make a case for is correlation between murder victims and color. You are confusing "fact" with "Correlation" which is a huge scientific no no. You posted facts. The "pattern" to the numbers could come from any number of factors which may or may not be race related.

is it real?

Yeah, it's called pattern recognition.

If the article is supposed to be especially scary, I'm not sure it is any more scary than anything else Satan does. If you are staying in an evil hotel, you might wind up with some spiritual problems that you'd rather not have.

Nah. Those facts are a reflection of statistical measures of people who get murdered without any operational definitions defining what "murder" is. Skin color, on the other hand, is a measurable difference that people readily detect and foolishly base conclusions upon.

Racism isn't a hate of a skin color. That's the usual deflection. Racism is a reflection of facts like this: https://files.catbox.moe/i96yv9.png

Hang on. I'll get my wallet.

Those of blessed with excess sometimes engage in something called 'charity', you wouldn't understand.

Thanks for validating my "collective power". On the other hand, you aren't going to change a moron's mind so what you are saying is that you like wasting your time talking to morons who are going to do whatever it is they collectively do. You don't even get a share in the power in that scenario--you are just a total loss of life/time.

Even the smartest guy on earth (obviously not me) has to spend all day talking to the intellectually inferior. Morons may be morons, but they have collective power and are important nonetheless.

You nailed it. I'm retarded. Of course, you are trying to argue with a retard, so what does that make you? Not very clever for being so smart, apparently.

New rule: only smart people get to have free speech. (i.e. not you)

Well, that is your retarded argument in a nutshell. Which is the same argument as the censors and those fighting against free speech. I think you struck accidental lucidity.

No, that is someone's IDEA of the free speech argument. This isn't about what I "Like to hear". The classical argument is that you aren't, through free speech, allowed to yell out the word FIRE when there is no fire in a crowded theater. Such an action would cause probable death and panic. Therefore, the statement "your free speech doesn't go past your nose" is usually the metric because when you speak a thing, it enters into a larger arena than just your desire to say a given thing.

I'd argue racist statements are like yelling in that crowded theater when there is no fire. Just because you hate something or someone does not give you an automatic right to start raising an alarm about that someone or group of someones unless you have some kind of actual evidence. So, if I tell you you should be careful of the Chinese because of the Great Firewall and sleeper agents sympathetic to the communist party, that's different than if I say you should beware Chinese cause they gots yellow skins, and I hates me some yellow skins!

It isn't about what I want to hear, but it is about conveying information in a responsible way to a larger accountability than just saying whatever the hell comes into your mind. Most people censor themselves quite heavily, for instance, on a first date since they understand if they say things like "I want to be inside you" or "I want you inside me" most likely that isn't going to function in a way that moves to a second date and if it does, one has to wonder about the longevity of such a relationship since the sexual emphasis was so high and immediate...

No, that's the entire free speech argument. You don't need to protect the right of someone to say what you like to year. You only need to protect the right of someones saying things you do not like to hear.