An Italian court has cut the sentence given to a convicted murderer by a year because he has genes linked to violent behaviour — the first time that behavioural genetics has affected a sentence passed by a European court. But researchers contacted by Nature have questioned whether the decision was based on sound science. . . .
For the new report, Pietro Pietrini, a molecular neuroscientist at Italy’s University of Pisa, and Giuseppe Sartori, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Padova, conducted a series of tests and found abnormalities in brain-imaging scans and in five genes that have been linked to violent behaviour — including the gene encoding the neurotransmitter-metabolizing enzyme monoamine oxidase A (MAOA). A 2002 study led by Terrie Moffitt, a geneticist at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College, London, had found low levels of MAOA expression to be associated with aggressiveness and criminal conduct of young boys raised in abusive environments.
In the report, Pietrini and Sartori concluded that Bayout’s genes would make him more prone to behaving violently if provoked. “There’s increasing evidence that some genes together with a particular environmental insult may predispose people to certain behaviour,” says Pietrini.
On the basis of the genetic tests, Judge Reinotti docked a further year off the defendant’s sentence, arguing that the defendant’s genes “would make him particularly aggressive in stressful situations”. Giving his verdict, Reinotti said he had found the MAOA evidence particularly compelling.
#Metoo has been a trending topic for a while now and alarmingly, it doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon.
The media has been using this as a breeding ground to further their own personal agendas, claiming that #metoo victims are a very diverse group of people, which doesn’t seem to be the case. Though the founder of the #metoo movement is a woman of color, white women are more likely than any other ethnicity to find themselves a victim of sexual assault. Studies have shown that 98% of #metoo women are white, this includes people like Taylor Swift.
Taylor Swift was actually one of the first to speak out in the major domino effect. Taking David Mueller to court and suing him for only a dollar, she made good use of her time by exposing him entirely, leaving nothing out.
“I had already been in court all week and had to watch this man’s attorney bully, badger and harass my team including my mother over inane details and ridiculous minutiae, accusing them, and me, of lying. I was angry. In that moment, I decided to forego any courtroom formalities and just answer the questions the way it happened. This man hadn’t considered any formalities when he assaulted me, and his lawyer didn’t hold back on my mom — why should I be polite? I’m told it was the most amount of times the word ‘ass’ has ever been said in Colorado Federal Court.”
But Bryan Singer is not white, he is Jewish.
It seems that the anger may be misplaced, most of the perpetrators are Jewish men, and most of the victims are non-Semitic white women. When races other than the white race come into play, the media are quick to feed us incorrect facts. James Levine is another example of this. Not only is this story sort of being swept under the rug, we are all being led to believe that Levine is a white male using his white male privilege to once again gain the upper hand and return to life as normal. So are they telling us that it’s okay to hate white people, but it’s not okay to hate anyone else? What happened not being discriminated of because of race?
🎀 Retweeted Tommy Robinson
So @thetimes can have a headline saying ‘Muslim Migrants Behind Rise In Antisemitism’ but if we suggest they are behind the rise in any other crime, it’s hate speech and illegal to say in places like France?
(Facebook is blocking it as spam.)
—“For the postmodernist, language cannot be cognitive because it does not connect to reality, whether to an external nature or an underlying self. Language is not about being aware of the world, or about distinguishing the true from the false, or even about argument in the traditional sense of validity, soundness, and probability. Accordingly, postmodernism recasts the nature of rhetoric: Rhetoric is persuasion in the absence of cognition. . . .
To the modernist, the “mask” metaphor is a recognition of the fact that words are not always to be taken literally or as directly stating a fact—that people can use language elliptically, metaphorically, or to state falsehoods, that language can be textured with layers of meaning, and that it can be used to cover hypocrisies or to rationalize. Accordingly, unmasking means interpreting or investigating to get to a literal meaning or fact of the matter. The process of unmasking is cognitive, guided by objective standards, with the purpose of coming to an awareness of reality.
For the postmodernist, by contrast, interpretation and investigation never terminate with reality. Language connects only with more language, never with a non-linguistic reality. In Jacques Derrida’s words, “[t]he fact of language is probably the only fact ultimately to resist all parenthization.” That is to say, we cannot get outside of language. Language is an “internal,” self-referential system, and there is no way to get “external” to it—although even to speak of “internal” and “external” is also meaningless on postmodern grounds. There is no non-linguistic standard to which to relate language, so there can be no standard by which to distinguish between the literal and the metaphorical, the true and the false. Deconstruction is therefore in principle an unending process. Unmasking does not even terminate in “subjective” beliefs and interests, for “subjective” contrasts to “objective,” and that too is a distinction that postmodernism denies. A “subject’s beliefs and interests” are themselves socio-linguistic constructions, so unmasking one piece of language to reveal an underlying subjective interest is only to reveal more language. And that language in turn can be unmasked to reveal more language, and so on. Language is masks all the way down.”—
I’m a Pediatrician. Here’s What I Did When a Little Boy Patient Said He Was a Girl.
Jesus wasn’t a Christian – that word exists for his followers and came later. He was Jewish. His mother was Jewish. He was circumcised as a Jew. He pretty much followed the Jewish law, departing from it only in the name of what he saw as its deeper meaning. “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished,” he insisted at the end of the Sermon on the Mount. Sure, he debated furiously with the Pharisees and Sadducees, especially about the significance of the temple. And, in time, this argument came to be restyled by Jesus’ gentile followers as an attack upon Jews per se. But originally it was an internal debate within Judaism, not an attack upon Jews from the outside. In was an internal debate in the same way that the prophets of the Hebrew scriptures, such as Jeremiah, often attacked the priests of the temple for missing the point.
It is a horrible irony, then, that Christianity bears primary responsibility for historic antisemitism. Few ideas can have been as poisonous as, and inspired more murderousness than, the idea that Jews were the Christ-killers.
The insufferable hypocrisy and cowardice of the cathedral.
Muslim rape gangs?
Female genital mutilation?
Rampant Hollywood pedophilia?
Ignoring murders at the hands of illegal immigrants?
The measurable misery of modern women?
Increasing legal, social, cultural disincentives to marriage?
Demonization of healthy family life?
Nope. Nevermind all that. Conservative white men. Make any and every argument you can scrape together. Alinsky’s playbook. Truth doesn’t matter. Just attack. Presume to speak for a group. Be 1000% ungrateful.
My advice to friends is to be good at three things:
Family. Your profession. Guns.
Remember when white supremacist Craig Cobb found out that he was 14% black? Well as it turns out, there’s a possibility that those numbers could have been fudged with.
Morgan and his colleagues were caught between a rock and a really-want-to-mess-with-racists place. It would’ve been fun to throw a “10 percent West African” in there, but then they might have a pissed-off, dangerous person at their office, waving a gun. “Since we couldn’t do anything to the results (and we wanted to), what we did was add ‘< 1 percent’ to each African category of ethnicity. That way we weren’t lying, and they would both be wondering how much under a percentage point was. We always try to round to the nearest number because we sometimes hear about percentage points, but for them, we leave it open to whether it’s a one or a zero.” It’s a compromise that’s elegant in its passive-aggressive simplicity. And it got a result. “The near-N-bomber wrote to us asking what that meant, and we wrote back that it meant it was under 1 percent. And we were not saying zero. Unless they got another test, that was going to bother them. Maybe they weren’t 100 percent Caucasian. I mean, they were, according to the results, but this way it leaves it open, and they’ll always be wondering.” This is beyond shady and deceptive, people pay more than they can really afford sometimes, just to find out the truth about their heritage. What about this is acceptable? How does this turn a racist into a “non racist”? It doesn’t. There’s nothing but high levels of dishonesty in these companies. Unfortunately, this doesn’t even fully cover the other things they do behind closed doors. With a massive database of genetic information, the company can turn around and sell that data to other companies. Plenty of those companies are doing scientific research that can only be done with access to large amounts of genetic information. Even government agencies like the National Institutes of Health use the data to better understand the hereditary causes of diseases. Popular Science reports. Also, AncestryDNA has a partnership with the Google-owned biotech Calico, and shares the DNA of unsuspecting victims in the name of science and helpful research. https://squawker.org/culture-wars/dna-testing-companies-like-23andme-admit-adding-fake-african-ancestry-to-white-profiles-in-order-to-screw-with-racists/
“Fat studies” scholars find that children in obesity treatment should adopt feminist poststructural theories to identity themselves as healthy.
The former ’80s child star tried to explain to host Barbara Walters that he, along with his best friend Corey Haim, had been sexually abused by older, powerful men in Hollywood. Feldman added that he believed the abuse led Haim to drug addiction and ultimately his sudden death in 2010.
“Are you saying they are pedophiles and that they are still in this business?” Walters asks incredulously, to which Feldman replies, “Yes.”
“They don’t want me here right now. They want me dead,” he added.
After Feldman advised parents who want their kids to enter show business not to go into it blindly, Walters cuts him off, saying, “You’re damaging an entire industry!”
“I’m sorry,” Feldman replied.
Social media users immediately chimed in after Feldman tweeted the 2013 clip on Thursday, acknowledging a problem that Walters ignored.