Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - DonaldD

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
General Comments / Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« on: August 07, 2019, 10:52:39 AM »
OK, my bad, the project "Lakhta" did span multiple countries, not just the US, and I did not catch that detail.  My apologies - I should have caught that earlier.

General Comments / Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« on: August 07, 2019, 10:48:18 AM »
It is true, what I cited to focuses on the actual report and data.  You still are not acknowledging that your source's implication of a $1.25 million per month ad effort was a misrepresentation? 
My source?  That quote is from the link you yourself provided to the actual text of the indictment;D

Seriously, go to your link, go to page 6, section 11.b as you pointed out, and cut and paste that section in your next response.

General Comments / Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« on: August 07, 2019, 09:53:21 AM »
Read it again.  What I cited to is pulling Mueller's quotes and actual data.  What you cited to was a direct misrepresentation of what it was purported to reference
Not true.  Yes, what you cited made reference to some of the Mueller report's findings.  However, where it goes wrong is using only the ad and YouTube buys in its analysis of the totality of Russian interference, and making its hand-waving conclusions based on those smallest of efforts, whereas the vast majority of Russian interference was not related to either.

Those involved spent some $1.25 million per month on ad campaigns and measured their efforts much as an ad agency would, according to the indictment.
That's not what the indictment said.  Check out page 6, Section 11(b).  Their entire budget (including employee hundreds of people as alleged by Mueller's team) reach $1.25 million by June of 2016.  That's not the ad spend amount, nor is it an average spend.
That is quite literally what the indictment stated, in the very section you reference, and which I quoted directly in yesterday's quote. I even bolded the reference to monthly budgets.  Nowhere does that section make reference June of 2016.  Maybe you assumed that monthly budget was consistent throughout the "project", as opposed to the monthly budget in place by the end of the election - but from where did you pull "June"?  Regardless, the words I literally quoted should have made it clear to you:
By in or around September 2016, the ORGANIZATION’s monthly budget for Project Lakhta submitted to CONCORD exceeded 73 million Russian rubles (over 1,250,000 U.S. dollars), including approximately one million rubles in bonus payments.
At any rate, my point was simply that your linked article ignored the vast majority of Russian efforts (probably about 98%, financially) so it's analysis and conclusions are flawed at their root.  This doesn't disprove their hypothesis, but it clearly shows that they have not made a convincing argument.

General Comments / Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« on: August 06, 2019, 04:58:17 PM »
The rest of the Russian efforts were pretty ineffectual.
Except that the link in the opening post actually ignored the vast majority of the scope of the Russian interference, and for the 1%-2% of the Russian efforts that it did address, the source just hand-waved those efforts away because, well, the internet is really big, ignoring the details and just waving around the authors' hands.

So no, you cannot claim, using this source, that the Russian efforts were pretty ineffectual.  They may have been, but that source is useless in making the case.

General Comments / Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« on: August 06, 2019, 02:56:17 PM »
And by misrepresented, I mean it ignored what the Russian operation was primarily doing, which was NOT purchasing ads and creating YouTube videos.

General Comments / Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« on: August 06, 2019, 02:50:14 PM »
DonaldD, I don't find that particularly responsive
Was it supposed to be responsive? You just posted a poorly researched article with conclusions that were convenient to your own position.  I just posted other articles, as easily searchable, that came to different conclusions.

I also later showed that your article misrepresented the scope of the Russian efforts, which were off by at least a factor of 100.

General Comments / Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« on: August 06, 2019, 02:47:33 PM »
From Seriati's link:
Some more numbers from the Mueller report help put the issue in perspective. Between January 2015 and August 2017, Facebook identified 470 IRA-controlled accounts out of more than 1 billion active daily users. "The IRA purchased over 3,500 advertisements," the report says, "and the expenditures totaled approximately $100,000" — roughly 0.0004 percent of Facebook's ad revenue in 2016.

But from ( there is a claim that in the indictment announced in February 2018, Mueller's team claimed that the 13 Russian nationals (and the 3 Russian entities) were spending 1.25 million dollars per month:
Those involved spent some $1.25 million per month on ad campaigns and measured their efforts much as an ad agency would, according to the indictment. It says the group kept track of metrics like views and comments, and measured engagement.
Who to believe?  This should be pretty easy to confirm... and it is (
Defendants and other co-conspirators carried out their activities to interfere in the U.S. political
system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
a. The ORGANIZATION employed hundreds of individuals for its online operations,
ranging from creators of fictitious personas to technical and administrative support.
The ORGANIZATION’s annual budget totaled the equivalent of millions of U.S.


By in or around September 2016, the ORGANIZATION’s monthly budget for
Project Lakhta submitted to CONCORD exceeded 73 million Russian rubles (over
1,250,000 U.S. dollars), including approximately one million rubles in bonus
Now, why would the article exclude the vast majority of the known funding of the Russian efforts during the 2016 election?

General Comments / Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« on: August 06, 2019, 02:35:08 PM »

General Comments / Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« on: August 06, 2019, 02:26:32 PM »
And here's a straightforward read showing how influential Russian influence efforts really were:

General Comments / Re: Trump's asylum rule
« on: August 04, 2019, 08:30:48 PM »
It's true that the United States has no obligation towards refugees
This is not true.  The United States is a signatory of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the key multilateral treaty in international refugee law.

It lays out, among other things, the responsibilities of signatory states to those defined as refugees under the treaty. So yes, the United States has agreed that it does have obligations to refugees.

General Comments / Re: Socialism
« on: August 04, 2019, 08:13:59 PM »
Socialism is, by definition, the government control, through ownership, of the means of production
That is only a part of the definition (see above for a more fulsome definition). Like it or not, there are other aspects of the word, aspects that other people believe are embodied by the word, that have nothing to do with the means of production.

Medicaid?  That's socialism, too.  The problem is that, in the USA, the word has been used pejoratively for so long that many if not most people in the country are simply incapable of discussing the word coherently.

Here's a suggestion: when those radical Democrats are talking about democratic socialism, they are not talking about the government taking over the means of production; and if you are stuck on that limited definition, you will never understand what they are going on about.

General Comments / Re: Socialism
« on: August 03, 2019, 10:13:43 PM »
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole
It's convenient to only pick and choose parts the definition I know... No true Scotsman, eh?

General Comments / Re: Socialism
« on: August 03, 2019, 07:49:22 AM »
The SEC is socialism. Getting rid of it would be a mistake.

General Comments / Re: Socialism
« on: August 02, 2019, 02:18:13 PM »
The Drake - define "socialism"

General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 31, 2019, 06:47:37 PM »
Try to keep up, Crunch.  It's as if you haven't understood a single word posted in the past 2 pages.

General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 31, 2019, 01:27:24 PM »
In no other scientific field would a strong theory base be called a fact, nor would people be expected to fall in line when declining to accept it
In the scientific arena, people are not expected to "fall in line".

The majority of the confusion arises in this area in the non-scientific arena and having confidence in false expertise: as one example, people continue to raise urban heat island effects on urban sited temperature stations as a reason to disbelieve AGW in general: this is an internet/general populace issue, not a scientific concern.  Anybody who brings up UHI without any knowledge of the underlying scientific history is of course not going to be taken seriously, because they are raising points that have been addressed already, and have not even bothered to review the studies in this area.

Now, if someone who is familiar with the knowledge in an area of expertise, and brings forward new points while addressing previous studies and possibly brings up issues with those earlier findings - well, their findings might not be immediately welcomed (there is of course resistance to new ideas, especially if there is a body of evidence being refuted) but such a person would not be faulted for bringing forward such a challenge.

You have no idea what I value, Pete.

Your question had nothing to do with any of what you just wrote.  I get that your underlying assumptions presupposed both bad intent on my part, as well as value judgments of any negative response to your question.  But an answer to your question as written does not even remotely lead where you have blindly sprinted towards.

General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 31, 2019, 07:49:10 AM »
And now you're showing what I was initially pointing, you're looking at an abstraction being done at a high level
No.  incorrect.  There is no abstraction. You gave UHI as a reason to disbelieve that AGW is occurring ("I believe a lot of temperate recording stations have been significantly impacted by Urban Heat Island over the past 100 years as well.") Yet at a very detailed level, these temperature stations have been demonstrated to show consistent warming with all other stations. Remove those stations, and the warming trend does not change in any significant way. 

Your very specific hypothesis was shown to be inaccurate based on studies that were designed to analyze this very specific question. This has nothing to do with any of my motives, notwithstanding you trying to make it about those.

You're so angry, Pete..."irrationally"?  Really?  If you ask an open ended questions, and you get a response, here's a hint: don't read the response as if the person responding knows all of your unstated assumptions, and don't read into the response imagined insults that aren't there.

 In response to the quote, though, what part of all that is in dispute, BTW? The way that "old growth" is being used above is pretty indistinguishable from "mature"

General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 31, 2019, 02:28:44 AM »
You do realize there are multiple layers to "no impact" as you're wanting to sell it.
You still refuse to address the basic mistake you continue to make.  You made a claim that UHI effects were so damaging to the temperature record that they were the the very first reason you had for disbelieving in AGW.

There are studies showing that the temperature stations that should be affected by UHI do not show warming inconsistent with the rest of the temperature stations. In fact, there is a slight bias in urban sites to less cooling.

This is purely a question of mathematics. If you exclude UHI affected stations, the resulting temperature anomalies are essentially unaffected.  Instead of admitting that you did not know this, and instead of then looking at these studies and maybe reevaluating part of your position, you double down on your resistance to addressing new knowledge, instead focussing on how I am "selling" the purely mathematical analyses that happen to undercut your misunderstanding, one that you should have set aside a decade ago.

General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 30, 2019, 07:07:03 PM »
A temperature recording station next to an air conditioner's...
You're pointed to the actual studies showing that you were mistaken, and instead of taking the opportunity to educate yourself, you rationalize why the data and analyses must be wrong, without even looking.  This tells us all we need to know about your inability to accept new ideas and conflicting data. You're basically incapable of being educated.

General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 30, 2019, 06:26:51 PM »
What you are still missing is that the dramatic photos and descriptions have nothing to do with the data that came out of those stations.  Those dramatic photos and descriptions (the plural of "anecdote" is not "data", BTW) were exactly what triggered those analyses that I mentioned earlier, and the analysis of the data showed no warming bias in those questionable sites, nor in urban sites in general.

That you continue to ignore the data and analyses, instead focusing on dramatic photos and your own common sense, is exactly your problem. You are basically saying "I do not care what the data for the questionable sites actually is; my common sense tells me the data must be corrupted and showing a warming bias,  even if the data says otherwise"

Seriously - just read the studies (see Muller/Koch/BEST/UHI)

Another difference is that an old growth forest fosters growth of other symbiotic plants, lichen, mosses and other carbon sinks
There's nothing magical about "old growth" trees vs new growth trees - over millennial time frames, most forests will suffer wild fires that end up clearing the undergrowth completely and allowing new growth from seeds.  And there is nothing inherent in new growth forest that would preclude bio diversity (whether logging companies who end up replanting have this as a priority is a completely different question.)

General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 30, 2019, 05:15:23 PM »
The bigger thing on mentioning UHI though was to point at it "contaminating" the data sets that have been used to produce evidence of warming in many locations, and the UHI encroached upon the reporting stations that were being used.
This tells me that you clearly did NOT understand that your initial point regarding heat islands affecting the temperature record has been shown to be without merit, and that this was demonstrated 10 years ago.  Either that, or that you are incapable of processing conflicting information, specifically that this very point that you are again making has been shown to be without basis... that, or that you are incapable of admitting it.

Seriously, you made a claim.  It has been shown to be wrong.  You are now making a point of not admitting your error.  All while bemoaning what you mistakenly perceive to be this very pattern is others

Can anyone here explain the CO2 difference between old growth forest and Drakes idea of covering the land with new trees?
There's little to no difference, from an old vs new growth perspective, but there is a difference between CO2 uptake between young trees and mature trees - where mature trees take up far more CO2 than younger trees.

Again, upward shifts in Global temperatures, rises water levels, glaciers melting, map to our clearing earths vast primordial forests, thousands of years before human techs polluted at a significant level.
I know it's still the first page, but - I don't think this is true. Notwithstanding that land clearing from thousands of years ago did NOT increase global temperatures at anywhere near the rate since the industrial revolution... Humanity currently releases on the order of 40 billion tons of CO2 annually, compared to roughly 1.5 billion tons as a result of deforested wood releasing CO2.  In some estimates, total CO2 released by the 'deforestation industry' makes up 15% of total annual human output.  Long term (once at steady state) and assuming the complete cessation of deforestation, we would need to re-forest at a rate of 7-20 times the current rate of deforestation in order to offset humanity's other CO2 output... not to mention that such a reforestation project would itself be unlikely, we would quickly run out of un-forested area to reforest.  Re-forestation/cessation of deforestation is important - it is just not a singular solution.

General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 30, 2019, 03:23:59 AM »
And the problem with the Global Warming research as it is, would be that most efforts are focused on the surface and up. Very little of it is looking down, except for some limited research into heat absorption from the top few hundred feet and how it may be working its way into deeper water. Wouldn't that be a kick in the teeth if a significant amount of the warming that was being experienced was not coming from above, but from below? More than 2/3rds of the Earth's surface is under water, plenty of opportunity for (deep water) "hot spots" to add their own inputs into the system.
You think this is "the problem"?  The increase in anthropogenic forcings since the industrial revolution is on the order of 20 times the total steady energy flow from the Earth's interior. This energy flow is very well understood - that it is new to you just means you are not somebody who dedicates their career to studying the relevant areas of research. To put it plainly, the Earth could double it's steady state energy output and it would have little effect on the Earth's energy budget - but we would absolutely notice that doubling, and no such event has occurred.
That's a problem with the models to date. Sure some have come close. Most have been wildly off the mark, almost universally all of which have run warm compared to what we've seen. (Test failed - Step 5)
I find this claim interesting, since your primary basis for disbelieving AGW (on the other thread) is the effect of urban heat islands on the temperature record.  Yet it has been 10 years since several studies were done on the effects of UHI on the temperature record, and those studies showed unequivocally that there was no effect - one study of which was done by a noted skeptic, funded by noted skeptics, and which caused said noted skeptic to change his mind and who now supports the idea that climate change is real and is being caused by humans (see Muller/Koch brother/BEST).  And yet, knowing that UHI effects on the temp record have been shown to be negligible, and given that was your primary reason given for disbelieving AGW, does that not give you pause? I mean, here we have an hypothesis (UHI is polluting temp record) we have a test, and the hypothesis was shown to be incorrect by several different researchers...

General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 28, 2019, 03:50:45 PM »
As an aside, are you ever going to lay out your position and rationale in the other thread, or are you just going to continue taking pot shots from the sides, Fenring?

General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 28, 2019, 03:43:14 PM »
But such consensus does not occur because we seek consensus, but rather because many people are going to be prone to make use of a theory *that works*
Read what I wrote again - especially the part you literally quoted and bolded... it said nothing about seeking consensus, so why you paraphrased that section as meaning "seeking" is beyond me.
The kind of consensus you seem to be talking about, where getting everyone to agree on something gives it weight,
And again... you seem to be projecting - where did I write that the more people agreeing, the more weight a hypothesis has?  You should really be careful about putting words into other people's mouths.

General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 28, 2019, 12:27:15 PM »
Since induction is not your strong point, let me spell it out to you: the goal of science is to understand the physical world, using specific methodologies.  The goal is to understand it so well (in a particular area of knowledge) that there is no longer any significant dispute as to the truth of a particular hypothesis (see cell theory, germ theory, the kinetic theory of gases, etc).

When there is no longer any significant dispute as to the truth of a particular hypothesis, do you know what that is called?  It's called consensus.

General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 28, 2019, 04:58:41 AM »
Oh and Crunch, we all did notice that you didn't actually disagree that the question posed in the opening post was not one of science.

General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 28, 2019, 04:53:51 AM »
No, it’s not. Its the exact same logical fallacy in action.
The scientific method:

1 Make an observation.
2 Ask a question.
3 Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4 Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5 Test the prediction.
6 Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
Within 20 minutes, you managed to contradict yourself 100%.  For any other poster this might be surprising.  For you? Not at all.

Also, you completely missed my point about consensus not being part of the scientific method (hint: by listing out the basics of the scientific method and showing that "consensus" is not part of it, as I explicitly stated, you aren't actually disagreeing with my point)

General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 27, 2019, 05:50:32 AM »
The scientific consensus is that, at the very moment of conception, it’s a human being.
I don't think either of those words mean what you think they mean.

What observations led to the hypothesis?  And how - by what method of induction?  What experiments have been done to test this hypothesis?  What deductions were made based on the hypothesis, and how were they tested?

I'm guessing you know that none of these steps were actually taken, and that this was not a question of science, but was one of belief.

General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 27, 2019, 05:40:41 AM »
People tend to fixate on the Roman Catholic Church aspect of that particular encounter, but what they fail to realize is the people sitting in judgement were "well regarded scientists"
No, they were not.  At least, not what we mean today by scientists.  The scientific method was not even in its infancy at the time - there is a reason that Galileo is known as, among other things, the father of the scientific method - and one of the main reasons is because his methods were completely anathema to previous methodology, such as it was.  Trying to equate the processes by which the Catholic Church protected its hegemony with modern scientists who are trained in the scientific method is disingenuous at best.

General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 27, 2019, 04:15:07 AM »
This is how ideas like the land based instrument temperature record being corrupted by urban heat island effects take hold and refuse to die... notwithstanding that numerous analyses of the temperature records completely refute this hypothesis.

Which brings us back to the "consensus" and the scientific method; the Koch brothers (yes, those of the Heartland Institute and numerous conservative causes) funded a working group (BEST) headed by noted skeptic Richard Muller to "prove" that UHIs were responsible for the majority of observed warming in the temperature record. 

The result was two-fold: they confirmed that there was no observable UHI effect on the temperature record, and Muller came to agree that global warming was happening, and was primarily caused by human activities - he effectively became part of the consensus.  That is all that "the consensus" really means.

General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 27, 2019, 04:14:14 AM »
This all shows a basic misunderstanding of what is meant by "consensus". Yes, consensus is not part of the scientific method.  It is, however, a goal of the scientific method.

What it is not, and what critics often mistake it for, is some kind of end-state after which dissent is no longer welcomed. It's a handy strawman often used as a crutch by dissenters.

This strawman is often used to argue against taking action based on a given scientific consensus - for example, climate science - because dissenting research is no longer "allowed" due to the consensus.  However, that is not the case. Of course, findings that go against large amounts of previous research will face headwinds in changing conclusions - which is as it should be, for obvious reasons.

The primary driver of the "consensus" strawman, however, is the "democratization" brought on by the internet, where people can find support for just about any pet theory, and can simply avoid dealing with contrary views. Flat Earth theory, anyone?


Or you could have highlighted the pertinent point of that statement.  Here:
I'm curious which points are highly contentious, and which points we all basically agree on
It's hard to identify contentious points if you avoid them.  That being said, that's the last of my responses.  State your position and supporting information, as requested, or don't.  The choice is up to you.

Or didn't your post imply avoiding controversial statements (in which case, why make it that point at all?)

If the goal of the thread is to find uncontroversial statements,
I'm pretty sure the goal of the thread was spelled out in the opening post, and it didn't have anything to do with avoiding controversial statements.

Why not use the thread for what is was opened for, at least initially?

1. The analysis and conclusions published by the IPCC are generally correct ( Articles and blogs that disagree with the overall findings are generally poorly sourced, if at all, or are for more limited in scope than they are claimed to be. Also, most memes skeptical of the IPCC findings tend to live on well after they have been debunked (see earth surface temperature studies from a decade ago (,

2. I don't know about "narrative" but the conclusions of the IPCC are clear - the vast majority of recent heating is a result of increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

3. Reduce the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.  This can be done by magically removing CO2 from the atmosphere, or reducing the amount of CO2 that we are pumping into it. If one ascribes to market forces, putting a price on emitted carbon dioxide will reduce the use of technologies that do so. That's only one path, of course; actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere still needs to be part of the solution, so we need to invest in this area of research as well.

5. OF course, on a personal level, people should be making lower carbon choices - eating primarily vegetable diets, absolutely avoiding CO2 intensive foods (meat in general, especially red meat) buying local, living locally and of course, championing low CO2 lifestyles.

General Comments / Re: Deplatforming
« on: July 23, 2019, 09:57:10 AM »
Waxing the exceedingly loose skin of that particular area would seem to be a bit more challenging than an otherwise standard brazillian... not saying it's impossible, but waxing requires ripping the hair out of a relatively taught patch of skin... if the skin tends to stretch towards the direction of the ripping motion... significant discomfort and even trauma could occur.

I do not know that this has anything to do with this situation and this refusal, but it would certainly factor into my decision on the matter...

General Comments / Re: Our Racist President
« on: July 19, 2019, 09:02:11 AM »
Why do you assume Seriati and his acquaintances are white, Crunch?

I know it is easier to ignore the arguments people make and build straw men to make yourself feel better about not being able to defend your own positions...

General Comments / Re: Our Racist President
« on: July 19, 2019, 06:50:01 AM »
I don't actually hang with racists though so maybe this is more common than I think.
There's an argument to be made that, if this thread is anything to go by, you might not realize that you were hanging with racists.

General Comments / Re: Our Racist President
« on: July 18, 2019, 04:41:23 PM »
That was irony...  ;)

General Comments / Re: Our Racist President
« on: July 18, 2019, 01:03:22 PM »
It's direct corrallary to "David Duke supports X, therefore if you support X you're a racist."  David Duke is always going to pick a candidate, that doesn't say a damn thing about that candidate or anyone else that supports them.

The correllation is never made the otherway.  Felons overwhelming vote for Democrats therefore anyone who supports a Democrat is a felon in waiting.  Is that legit?
You're conflating so many things that it's hard to know where to begin.  What we have here are groups of avowed racists lauding the president for making a racist statement.  Are you suggesting that groups of felons routinely laud Democrats specifically for their felonious activities?  No?  Then the analogy fails. Or are you suggesting that the self-identifying racists are lying when they characterize Trump's statement as being racist?

General Comments / Re: Our Racist President
« on: July 17, 2019, 04:48:51 PM »
No, I was pointing out that "nobody" had yet done so - I cannot control what silly things other people might say in the future (as an example, see your preceding post, ScottF)

General Comments / Re: Our Racist President
« on: July 17, 2019, 04:39:20 PM »
When Richard Spencer characterizes your tweet as racist...

General Comments / Re: Our Racist President
« on: July 17, 2019, 03:39:08 PM »
Nobody is calling you a racist because your partisan blinders don't allow you to evaluate Trump's statements, Seriati. Morally corrupt, foolish, yes.  Racist - not yet.

As for his actions, they go back decades. Discrimination in housing.  The Central Park 5.  Birtherism.  And it's not like this is Trump's first foray into racist wording: Mexican rapists. S**thole countries.  "Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places (read: s**thole countries) from which they came"

General Comments / Re: Our Racist President
« on: July 16, 2019, 04:26:47 PM »
Tell anyone who hates America which they demonstrate by wanting to change the fundamental principles on which it is based
Once again, a perfect illustration of a huge failure in parts of the US psyche today.

General Comments / Re: Our Racist President
« on: July 16, 2019, 04:21:42 PM »
Except then you need to learn the meaning of the word discrimination, which you also glossed over cherrypoptart.

Here is where your language skills fail you most recently:
And discrimination is clear enough when you allow one race but not others.
No - it is not clear.  And by "clear enough" I expect you mean "proven" or "demonstrated". Can you figure out why not?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13