Register  
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Discussion  
Forums
Caucasian Vs. African American Health Statistics
Last Post 16 Nov 2009 04:24 AM by pakeha. 24 Replies.
AddThis - Bookmarking and Sharing Button Printer Friendly
Sort:
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 1 of 212 > >>
Author Messages
desertgalUser is Offline
V.P. of Patient Relations
Stripes Earned - Respect Me
Stripes Earned - Respect Me
Send Private Message
Posts:1031

--
21 Jun 2009 11:29 PM  

In the notes on her February 3, 2009 shopping mall survey, Anita made a notation regarding her perceptions about the health characteristics of Caucasians versus African Americans:

Claim: "I confirm that black people are harder [to read with her "ability"]. They have fewer health problems and their tissues & internal chemicals chemistry etc.is different. I'm less experienced [with African Americans]."

Note: Anita spent 3-4 seconds looking at each person she surveyed (she refused to take a longer look because that is "rude", and she found African Americans "harder to read". Yet, despite the difficulty, she was able to not only form 'perceptions' about the people she saw in the mall, but, according to her,  also 'perceptions' about the differences in health statistics between  African Americans  and Caucasians. A clear indication that Anita is not in touch with reality.



African American and Caucasian Health Statistics - CDC 2008
Category African American

High

Caucasian
Population (2006)
36.5 million
««
242.1 million
Number of Births
666,481
»»
3,310,308
Births per 1,000 women 15-44 years
72.1
««
68.0
Percent of births with low birth weight
14%
««
7.2%
Percent of persons all ages in fair or poor health
13%
««
9.5%
Percent of persons all ages with a limitation in usual activities due to one or more chronic health conditions
14%
««
12%

Percent of men 18 years and over who currently smoke (2004-2006)

26%
««
23.5%
Percent of women 18 years and over who currently smoke (2004-2006)
18%
»»
19%
Percent of men 20 years and over who are overweight (2003-2006)
72%
»»
72.5%
Percent of women 20 years and over who are overweight (2003-2006)
80%
««
59%
Percent of men 20 years and over with hypertension (2003-2006)
39%
««
32%
Percent of women 20 years and over with hypertension (2003-2006)
43%
««
33%
Percent of persons under 65 years without health insurance coverage
17%
««
16%
Percent of children under 18 years without a usual source of health care
4.5%
»»
5.7%
Percent of adults 18 years and over without a usual source of health care
15%
 
15%
Number of Deaths
289,971
»»
2,077,549
Deaths per 100,000 population
733.0
»»
858.1
Leading causes of death
Heart Disease
Cancer
Stroke
 
Heart Disease
Cancer
Stroke
Infant deaths per 1,000 live birth
13.29
««
5.56
 
 

Data Sources from the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia:
Health, United States, 2008, Table 
Births: Final Data for 2006, Tables 1, 23
Summary Health Statistics for the U.S.
Population: National Health Interview Survey, 2007, Appendix III, Table V
Summary Health Statistics for the U.S.
Population: National Health Interview Survey, 2007, Appendix III, Table VI
Health, United States, 2008, Table 65
Health, United States, 2008, Table 75
Health, United States, 2008, Table 71
Summary Health Statistics for the U.S.
Population: National Health Interview Survey, 2007, Appendix III, Table XVI
Summary Health Statistics for U.S.
Children: National Health Interview Survey, 2007, Appendix III, Table XI
Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2007, Appendix III, Table XIX
Deaths: Final Data for 2006, Table 1
Deaths: Leading Causes for 2004, Table E
Deaths: Final Data for 2006, Table 30


First Part of Claim: "They [African Americans] have fewer health problems..."

Summary:   As shown in the table above, African Americans suffer from a LARGER number of health problems than Caucasians.African Americans are more likely to suffer from: lung cancer, hypertension, stroke, coronary heart disease, prostate cancer, diabetes, AIDS, obesity, poor dental health, and malnutrition, and their infant death rate is more than twice the rate of Caucasian infant death.

Conclusion: Incorrect.  As well, when considered,  this is an asinine claim. A modicum of common sense and an awareness of current events and reported statistics in our country informs us  that African Americans, on the average, live at a lower income level, have less access to health insurance and preventive/routine health care; smoke more; have poorer diets that lead to more  dental problems, diabetes, obesity, and so forth (see table above). Since Anita does not live in a bubble, isolated from the outside world, her statement indicates  that not only does are these "perceptions" self created fantasy, like most narcissists, she is incapable (or elects not to) of  applying logic, rationality, common sense, or even her fictional 'extraordinary intelligence' to the fantasies she weaves.

Second Part of Claim: "...
and their tissues & internal chemicals chemistry etc.is different."

Conclusion:  Inconclusive...so far.

Stay tuned...

"The only time you can read the future from cards is when you are holding four aces in a poker game." - Pernell Roberts
Tags: survey, perceptions, African American, Caucasian, health statistics
ChristaUser is Offline
One of the Gang
One of the Gang
Send Private Message
Posts:55

--
25 Jun 2009 02:46 PM  
I am very glad this topic has come up. Here's a PM I sent to UncaYimmy on JREF a couple weeks ago.

I am a new member of this forum and of your VisionfromFreedom forum.

I've looked over a lot of threads about her, but I haven't found any mention of something that jumped right out at me.

She has a whole subsection on her website about the racial differences she perceives in her visions. Why does she bother with this in 2009? Is it because she's a Southerner? Everything she writes is nonsense (IMHO), but even so, what's the point of putting crap about race in?

Anyone who's studying science in college (with a 4.0 average, yet) must know that race is not a biological reality. So including that info just gives the lie to all of her claims.

Since her threads are kind of quiet right now I didn't want to post this, but I am curious, and you seem to have done a lot of work on her. Do you have any thoughts on this?

For the record, I think she's preparing for a career in woo. She might be crazy, but she's crazy like a fox.



UncaYimmy pointed out in his reply to my PM that since all of her visions are made up, what she says about race probably reflects her own beliefs, and also that much of what she says in general seems to come from common myths and media portrayals.

That certainly appears to be the case, but for some mysterious reason I find her fantasies of racial difference even more offensive than her other ignorant comments.

Maybe it's because her ramblings on race strike me as just a little too reminiscent of 19thC racism-- 'oh, the coloreds, you know, they're so childlike yet so difficult to read and relate to. Us poor whitefolk just have to put up with our pinker, denser cells and run everything. Sigh. ' 

Haven't we all had enough of invented racial differences?  Does she have no understanding of how much people have suffered because of views very similar to what she's spouting? And if she's that lacking in empathy, what's all the blather about wanting to help suffering people?

I'm growing more and more offended that someone who's studying science can hold beliefs like this. On a purely practical level, does she really want her profs and future employers to know she can't even read a basic CDC (or whatever) chart? 'Cause that's what her opinions reveal.

And there are many people of all races who would hesitate to hire someone with racial views like hers. I certainly would. Who needs to invite a discrimination lawsuit?

What do others think?

desertgalUser is Offline
V.P. of Patient Relations
Stripes Earned - Respect Me
Stripes Earned - Respect Me
Send Private Message
Posts:1031

--
25 Jun 2009 07:57 PM  
Posted By Christa on 25 Jun 2009 06:46 AM

UncaYimmy pointed out in his reply to my PM that since all of her visions are made up, what she says about race probably reflects her own beliefs, and also that much of what she says in general seems to come from common myths and media portrayals.

That certainly appears to be the case, but for some mysterious reason I find her fantasies of racial difference even more offensive than her other ignorant comments.

Maybe it's because her ramblings on race strike me as just a little too reminiscent of 19thC racism-- 'oh, the coloreds, you know, they're so childlike yet so difficult to read and relate to. Us poor whitefolk just have to put up with our pinker, denser cells and run everything. Sigh. ' 

Haven't we all had enough of invented racial differences?  Does she have no understanding of how much people have suffered because of views very similar to what she's spouting? And if she's that lacking in empathy, what's all the blather about wanting to help suffering people?

I'm growing more and more offended that someone who's studying science can hold beliefs like this. On a purely practical level, does she really want her profs and future employers to know she can't even read a basic CDC (or whatever) chart? 'Cause that's what her opinions reveal.

And there are many people of all races who would hesitate to hire someone with racial views like hers. I certainly would. Who needs to invite a discrimination lawsuit?

What do others think?

I think you're right. When I first read her claims, I was just "WTH?", because, as you say, race is not a biological reality, and she should know that, as a science student. I had the impression of, not so much 19th century racism, but the modern day conception of 19th century racism-the "massah" talking about "'dem darkies down in the cotton fields" caricature. That's not meant to say that the modern day conception is inaccurate, but, you know, there has been some creative license taken with it in films and books of the 20th century.

But, I couldn't figure out where Anita might have gotten this attitude from, if not, as UY pointed out, modern literature and film. If she was from the South, maybe...but even for a Southerner, her attitude is still closer to the modern caricature than the reality. And three years in Charlotte is not the same as three years in, say, rural Mississippi or Louisiana, which is where you are more likely to run into the old school Southern racism.And it isn't likely that, growing up in Sweden, they would have read Uncle Tom's Cabin in school.

When it comes to Anita forming her conceptions fromcommon myths and media portrayals, you might be more accurate than you realize. I haven't dissected the other parts of the claim, but I did note something when I first read her "perceptions".

Anita said:
"I perceive that the bodies of black people would react very differently to having an open flesh-wound than would white people. That they have a much stronger system that produces the sticky yellow liquid that washes, seals, dries, and protects a wound."

"Roots" by Alex Haley, 1976, page 269:
"One day, after Kunta had been thre for nearly three weeks, the toubob motioned for him to sit up as he began to unwrap the bandaging. As it came nearer to the foot, Kunta saw the cloth stickily discolored with a thick, yellowish matter..."

Coincidence? Sure, it might very well be. But, then...when I saw "sticky yellow liquid" in Anita's claim, that particular sentence from the book leapt to mind...and I haven't read Roots in 15 years. Granted, it's not verbatim, but it's worth noting. Roots was one of the most significant books of the latter half of the 20th century, certainly one of the most widely read...and it was published globally, in more than one edition. So, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that, of modern day African American literature. Roots is one book that Anita would have been more likely to read and unconsciously draw from - after all, that sentence made enough of an impression on me to spot the similarity 15 years after I read the book. The only other book, that I know of, that received the same global exposure was Gone With The Wind, but that wasn't an in depth portrayal of African Americans-although it certainly portrayed the Civil War South, so she could have drawn from it as well.

As well, it's an unusual thing. If most of us were to make up this kind of story, we might note that African Americans have a shorter natural lifespan or are more prone to sickle cell anemia-but how many of us are going to think of this sticky yellow substance? Coincidence, maybe...but that's pretty damn coincidental.

There may be other similarities, but I haven't checked yet. And, no, Haley did not create a caricature in Kunta Kinte-but, combined with other influences, such as GWTW, etc, the characters in Roots could easily have been a basis for Anita's attitude and the data she is using to relate her "perceptions".

Like you, it pisses me off. My husband and I are both minorities, so to run across someone perpetuating this  "Uncle Tom" attitude nearly 50 years into the civil rights movement, is grotesque. It doesn't matter who it comes from. In the 21st century, no one has a valid excuse for being that  ignorant.

Here's a tip, Anita: Emmett Till. Rosa Parks. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Harriet Taubman. These aren't just names you heard somewhere. If you don't understand what these people stood up for, don't talk about African Americans until you actually know what you are talking about. And, if I were you, I'd hope mightily that no fellow African American student or future coworker stumbles across these claims. Especially here in the South, they don't cotton well to the massah attitude. Youi can't explain this away with "synesthesia".


"The only time you can read the future from cards is when you are holding four aces in a poker game." - Pernell Roberts
Audible ClickUser is Offline
Merit Badge for Meanies
Merit Badge for Meanies
Send Private Message
Posts:502

--
25 Jun 2009 10:11 PM  
I wonder what the attitude is in Sweden? Could she have picked up her basic prejudice there? I do think she took a line from Roots word for word and, in her fantasy world, it became a fact.
It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames. -- Harry Hill
UncaYimmyUser is Offline
Your Brilliancy
Leader of the Pack
Leader of the Pack
Send Private Message
Posts:1156

--
26 Jun 2009 08:04 AM  
Apparently Anita is very upset about this thread. She has contacted me privately about it, but I am going to address it publicly. First off, let's remember that Anita has not provided any evidence whatsoever that she has any type of special ability. As far as I am concerned, it's all in her imagination. Therefore, when I look at the things she claims, I wonder how she comes up with this stuff. Educated guesses? Research? TV? A good example is her Ben Franklin story, which is filled with stereotypes from fiction rather than accurate information from history books.

With that said, why would Anita publicly bring up the issue of race in the first place? Perhaps she is just naive. But the reality is that if you bring up race, expect people to comment on it. Biologically there are genetic differences among groups of humans, but not enough to really justify the term race. When you say that the internal chemistry and tissues of black people are "different" and that they have fewer health problems, educated people are going to call you on it. Humans are humans. A liver is a liver. Blood is blood. The "races" are superficially different. Eskimos and Pygmies are both well adapted to their environment, but they are essentially human.

Anita has no evidence that black people and white people would "react very differently" to a flesh wound. There's no science behind it. Are there special medicines for black people rather than white people? Do hospitals have different protocols for knife wounds based on skin color? What about flesh wounds for people of mixed race?

The big question is why did she make up stuff about race, either consciously or subsconsciously? She shared this information publicly, so people have the right to discuss it publicly. It's a legitimate question. If you believe that "race" is real in humans and that they have significant biological differences, her "observations" would make sense to you. But to those of who know better, it's further evidence that there is no ability at all. Her statements on this subject show profound ignorance of "racial" differences.
UncaYimmy
Web Design and Virtual Marketing
desertgalUser is Offline
V.P. of Patient Relations
Stripes Earned - Respect Me
Stripes Earned - Respect Me
Send Private Message
Posts:1031

--
26 Jun 2009 06:37 PM  
Anita. First of all, please do not pretend that you are not prejudiced. I've been on the receiving end of your prejudice towards people with mental illness, so that won't wash. You have continually painted yourself as the most extraordinary being to ever exist on this planet, in the history of mankind, far superior to others, and your claims support that. You made them, you own them.

Many, many people on the JREF have practically pleaded with you to understand that your ability and your perceptions are NOT REAL. You do not have a paranormal ability, and you do not have synesthesia. You are not a star person. You did not live without food or water. You did not have encounters with ghosts. You are NOT extraordinary. It is ALL delusional. This has been shown to you over and over and over again.

There are other critics, who believe you are just knowingly perpetuating a fraud. They call you an outright liar.

What you do have is overwhelming narcissism, limitless arrogance, and a need for self aggrandizement. You do not want to seek help. Fine. But, you have blithely continued on your way, putting these claims out there, and, in response, we can show that they are not backed up by science. You are asking people to buy into them, and we are showing that, to do so, is to buy into nothing more than a delusion.

I warned you from almost the beginning, as did several others, that if you did not stop and seek help, it wouldn't go well. People do not deserve to be continually played for fools, and that is what you are doing. You may believe your delusions, but that doesn't make that any less true. You refuse to take responsibility for that, and that's your choice, but UY built this website so that we can show the truth, supported by science, that your ability is not real. If we can prevent one vulnerable person from being played for a fool, and possibly damaged by your medical perceptions, then that is a worthy goal.

We are not talking about diversity here, and we are not talking about discrimination. We are talking about racial prejudice. The very fact that you-a third year science student who should damn well know better-would make claims that you perceived significant biological differences between races is absolutely indicative of an inherent prejudice. The very fact that you would use mental illness as an insult indicates an inherent prejudice. The very fact that you consider yourself to be so extraordinary indicates an inherent prejudice. As long as you keep doing all those things, we will call you prejudiced...bigoted....racist.

Dr. King, among others, did not fight for civil rights so that people would outwardly embrace diversity, and inwardly continue to see blacks and whites as biologically different. Worse still, you are promoting that prejudice. You posted it on a public forum, and, in doing so, you are putting forth the "reality" that, despite what science tells us,  you "perceive", with your "extrordinary ability", that these differences exist, and you are asking people to buy into that. That is extremely offensive to me, as a Native American, and as a human being, and to others here.

The backbone of the civil rights movement is that all men are created equal-in ALL ways. Not all men are created equal, but with certain biological differences.

Face facts, face logic, face reality and get some help. If you won't, you have no right to complain or get upset when we present the truth.

ETA: Don't ever call me a liar again. I have been honest with you from the beginning, and I am have been honest when it comes to dissecting your claims. I don't fudge my data.
"The only time you can read the future from cards is when you are holding four aces in a poker game." - Pernell Roberts
Audible ClickUser is Offline
Merit Badge for Meanies
Merit Badge for Meanies
Send Private Message
Posts:502

--
26 Jun 2009 11:44 PM  
Anita you should take a really good look at the things you post. You claim that black people have different tissue then white people and that they heal differently. This is racism on a very basic level. You've touched a nerve and opened Pandora's box and you can't unsay what you said. You posted this latest bit of nonsense on a public forum, letting us see just how your murky mind works. You should be ashamed but you're not. If you thought you could post that "black people are different" drivel and not get a harsh response, then you have not learned anything about America. ALL people are created equal. You need to understand that what you posted was hurtful on so many levels. If you cannot see that then you are way beyond help.
It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames. -- Harry Hill
ChristaUser is Offline
One of the Gang
One of the Gang
Send Private Message
Posts:55

--
27 Jun 2009 02:05 AM  
Posted By UncaYimmy on 26 Jun 2009 12:04 AM
Apparently Anita is very upset about this thread. She has contacted me privately about it, but I am going to address it publicly. First off, let's remember that Anita has not provided any evidence whatsoever that she has any type of special ability. As far as I am concerned, it's all in her imagination. Therefore, when I look at the things she claims, I wonder how she comes up with this stuff. Educated guesses? Research? TV? A good example is her Ben Franklin story, which is filled with stereotypes from fiction rather than accurate information from history books.

With that said, why would Anita publicly bring up the issue of race in the first place? Perhaps she is just naive. But the reality is that if you bring up race, expect people to comment on it. Biologically there are genetic differences among groups of humans, but not enough to really justify the term race. When you say that the internal chemistry and tissues of black people are "different" and that they have fewer health problems, educated people are going to call you on it. Humans are humans. A liver is a liver. Blood is blood. The "races" are superficially different. Eskimos and Pygmies are both well adapted to their environment, but they are essentially human.

Anita has no evidence that black people and white people would "react very differently" to a flesh wound. There's no science behind it. Are there special medicines for black people rather than white people? Do hospitals have different protocols for knife wounds based on skin color? What about flesh wounds for people of mixed race?

The big question is why did she make up stuff about race, either consciously or subsconsciously? She shared this information publicly, so people have the right to discuss it publicly. It's a legitimate question. If you believe that "race" is real in humans and that they have significant biological differences, her "observations" would make sense to you. But to those of who know better, it's further evidence that there is no ability at all. Her statements on this subject show profound ignorance of "racial" differences.


Well, frauds like Anita upset me.

It's fascinating. This thread upsets Anita, but her antiquated racialist ideas-- they don't perturb her in the slightest.

What precisely upsets her about this thread?
  • That we're publicly discussing her 19thC racial views?
  • That her views reveal her to be hidebound, ignorant, and racist?
  • That someone's suggested a book that might be the origin of some of those views?
  • That we've revealed she's either too lazy to Google recent health statistics on blacks and whites, or too incompetent to read simple charts accurately?
  • That our discussion demonstrates it's impossible to be a modern scientists and hold the views she holds?

So many things to be upset about!

All the threads on both sites that prove she has no special medical intuition skills of any sort-- they didn't upset her? I guess she was always able to explain those away to her own satisfaction, while this might turn out differently.

I'm new  and still working through the threads, so I'm curious, UncaYimmy, why she contacts you in private? She can come on this board like anyone else and talk to all of us.

Audible Click, I've spent time around Swedes professionally, and I thought their racial attitudes were often more enlightened than those of many Americans.

The Swedes I knew were interested in, and often quite knowledgeable about, the history of Americans of all colors. They didn't seem to have a lot of the preconceived (and usually incorrect) notions about people of African descent that white Americans sometimes do.

When I initially wrote to UncaYimmy, I assumed, because of her college, that Anita was a Southerner. I was shocked when he told me she was Swedish. No Swede I've ever known (or known about) has had racial views that made me thinkof a 19thc plantation owner.

UncaYimmyUser is Offline
Your Brilliancy
Leader of the Pack
Leader of the Pack
Send Private Message
Posts:1156

--
27 Jun 2009 02:16 AM  
Anita seems very upset by this. That's a good thing. It's a learning opportunity. Some people are prejudiced, know it, justify, and are even proud of it. Some people deny it. Some people don't ever realize it. Now that it has been pointed out, what will she do?

My mother is a sweet and kind lady who grew up rural Virginia during the '30s and '40s where racism was the norm. She doesn't consider herself prejudiced, but it took a lot of effort to overcome her upbringing. A few years ago she was telling me a story about how a black woman almost hit her car in the grocery store parking lot. I asked her why pointed out that the woman was black. My mother furrowed her brow and said, "I don't know. It doesn't really matter what color she was, does it? I guess old habits are hard to break."

So, Anita, what will you learn from this?

First, you claim that your perceptions have never been shown to be wrong. Your comments about black people are clearly wrong. They don't have different internal chemistry, and they don't recover from flesh wounds differently than any other "race" of people. Your perceptions were wrong. Period.

Second, ask yourself why your mind invented these differences. Don't blame it on synesthesia - no form of synesthesia would explain your perceptions of different body chemistries for black people. Your mind invented this difference because of your mistaken belief in racial differences. It doesn't matter if the differences are good or bad. They simply don't exist.

If you want to earn back some of the enormous amount of respect you have lost, admit you were wrong. Learn from this experience. Take responsibility for what you said and make amends.
UncaYimmy
Web Design and Virtual Marketing
UncaYimmyUser is Offline
Your Brilliancy
Leader of the Pack
Leader of the Pack
Send Private Message
Posts:1156

--
27 Jun 2009 02:19 AM  
I don't know why Anita contacts me privately to complain about the site. It's not like I've ever changed anything because of what she said.
UncaYimmy
Web Design and Virtual Marketing
desertgalUser is Offline
V.P. of Patient Relations
Stripes Earned - Respect Me
Stripes Earned - Respect Me
Send Private Message
Posts:1031

--
27 Jun 2009 07:41 PM  
Anita, the opinions posted above are backed up by both scientific fact, statistical data, and cited literary reference-and they are just that, opinions, protected by the First Amendment. You have heard of the Bill of Rights, haven't you? It's a little document that protects the rights of Americans from unlawful prosecution and gives them freedom of speech, among other things. It's part of a bigger document called the United States Constitution. It's easy to find on the Internet. Look it up sometime.

Personally, I'll willingly meet you in a court of law. Bring it on. What is posted here does not qualify as defamation, and I would have no difficulty proving that. I've worked in literary research for over 25 years and I'm fully familiar with publishing laws concerning defamation. I've got a full file of everything you've published on the Internet, and an attorney at my disposal who specializes in publication and copyright law. Do you really want to take me on?

 I don't like threats from people who are too stupid to actually determine what they are threatening. Put up or shut up. And, please, look up the legal definition of harassment before you threaten it again. You clearly have no idea what it means, either.

Calling UY on the phone, however, IS harassment, since he has asked you not to. This has been explained to you before. It's called 'stalking', Anita, and it IS against a clearly defined law. It's UY's call, of course, but given that you are here on a visa, you really shouldn't push that any further.
"The only time you can read the future from cards is when you are holding four aces in a poker game." - Pernell Roberts
desertgalUser is Offline
V.P. of Patient Relations
Stripes Earned - Respect Me
Stripes Earned - Respect Me
Send Private Message
Posts:1031

--
01 Jul 2009 07:51 PM  
What happened? Anita, I thought you were "so upset"? Where are points to disprove your racism?

Or was that little stunt just another attempt to manipulate UY? Never does work, does it?
"The only time you can read the future from cards is when you are holding four aces in a poker game." - Pernell Roberts
ChristaUser is Offline
One of the Gang
One of the Gang
Send Private Message
Posts:55

--
04 Jul 2009 05:08 PM  
Yesterday she called me again after sending me unanswered instant messages on Skype for about an hour. This time she left a voicemail that is over two minutes long. In effect she says that she believes this website has crossed the line because she believes people have called her a racist in the discussion forums. She says that she wants to discuss this with me personally rather than pursue other avenues (legal ones, I presume).


This is really a response to UncaYimmy's blog post, but I thought I'd put it in this thread.

I am commenting because I find threats against free speech offensive, and threats against people I have come to respect downright disgusting.

Anita, I have pasted some links below that you might wish to carefully review. You actually would have been well advised to review them before you started casting dark hints about taking legal action, because you would look like less of an idiot.

American jurisprudence does not exist to protect you from hurt feelings, and in fact the law is entirely silent on this issue.

IOW, it's not illegal for someone to say something that upsets you, and you can't win a lawsuit because someone does so. You can possibly file such a lawsuit, but any lawyer who takes your case would, in my opinion, have ipso facto proved him/herself unscrupulous, because there is no legal basis for a lawsuit based on your injured feelings.

But lawyers do have mortgages, car notes, alimony payments, etc. That would be the only reason to take you as a client. Unfortunately for you, almost all lawyers also have morals that prevent them from exploiting people who seek legal remedies for narcicisstic injury.

I think I read on a JREF thread that UncaYimmy suffers from back pain. If he does, I suspect it's from bending over backwards to be fair to you. If this were my site you would not be the beneficiary of the undeserved gentle treatment he extends to you.

To call you a racist, Anita, which you might very well be, crosses no legal line. Even though abundant evidence for such a claim exists (unlike the dearth of evidence you've presented for your paranormal claim, I might add) the legal fact is that we do not need any evidence at all. As you will see from the links below, claims do not always have to be true to be legally protected.

You should really be happy about that, because if untrue claims could get people into legal hot water, you'd be boiling in a cauldron right now.

The answer to speech you don't like is speech you do like. You disagree with us? Fine, post about it. Present your reasons and arguments.

The fact the you want to shudder us into silence rather than say something speaks volumes.


Legal Links:
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

http://www.eff.org/issues/free-speech

http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

Especially in honor of Independence Day:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_zoom_1.html

In honor of those Iranians who seek their own Independence Day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbdEf0QRsLM&feature=related
desertgalUser is Offline
V.P. of Patient Relations
Stripes Earned - Respect Me
Stripes Earned - Respect Me
Send Private Message
Posts:1031

--
08 Jul 2009 09:16 PM  
In this post, Anita elaborated:
"Well, according to my perceptions I perceive that in general and among what I have been exposed to, black people would have better health than white people. I don't make conclusions based on that, this is simply what I perceive. Alright, here it is:

I perceive that the bodies of black people would react very differently to having an open flesh-wound than would white people. That they have a much stronger system that produces the sticky yellow liquid that washes, seals, dries, and protects a wound."

(This has already been covered)

"I perceive that black people have much fewer different types of chemicals in the body than do white people. Enzymes, perhaps. The variety of chemicals in white people's blood and tissues is much more diverse. According to my perception."

Incorrect. And how is it that she can
spot lactobacillus in a cereal box, but she's iffy on enzymes in the human body? Does her sooper power work better with cardboard?

"I hate to say it but I perceive that black people in general would have a shorter lifespan.
"

Correct. As noted above, though,
a modicum of common sense and an awareness of current events and reported statistics in our country informs us  that African Americans, on the average, live at a lower income level, have less access to health insurance and preventive/routine health care; smoke more; have poorer diets that lead to more  dental problems, diabetes, obesity, and so forth (see table above). Not to mention that the national average for violent death and homicide is higher for young African American males than their Caucasian couinterparts. (That isn't intended as a slam against African Americans.)

I take it back-obviously, Anita IS capable of applying common sense, logic, and an awareness of current events-she just chooses to do it sporadically, and only when it suits her craving for attention.


"I hate to say it but I perceive a much larger variety of health problems and also of genetic problems and structural abnormalities in white people than I do in black people. Thus black people being healthier with this regard."

Incorrect. And it certainly doesn't jibe with her claim that she 'perceives' that African Americans have a shorter lifespan. Is that racist? Yes. Would it be less racist if she had been right? No.

"I perceive that black people would be more prone to ankle arthritis or ankle problems, whereas white people would be more prone to wrist arthritis or wrist problems
."

Incorrect. The American Arthritis Foundation and the CDC offer no corresponding statistics. It's worth noting, though, that this does hint at the knowledge that African Americans dominate some college and professional sports that would lead to arthritis in the ankles, while Caucasians dominate white collar desk jobs that would contribute to arthritis in the wrists. Is that racist? Yes. Would it be less racist if she had been correct? No.

Anita, do stop pretending that you 'perceive' any of these statistics. You are making it up as you go along, and it is blatantly obvious.
"The only time you can read the future from cards is when you are holding four aces in a poker game." - Pernell Roberts
desertgalUser is Offline
V.P. of Patient Relations
Stripes Earned - Respect Me
Stripes Earned - Respect Me
Send Private Message
Posts:1031

--
10 Jul 2009 08:26 AM  
Posted By desertgal on 01 Jul 2009 11:51 AM
What happened? Anita, I thought you were "so upset"? Where are points to disprove your racism?

Or was that little stunt just another attempt to manipulate UY? Never does work, does it?

Still no response? Your cowardice is noted, Anita.
"The only time you can read the future from cards is when you are holding four aces in a poker game." - Pernell Roberts
UncaYimmyUser is Offline
Your Brilliancy
Leader of the Pack
Leader of the Pack
Send Private Message
Posts:1156

--
10 Jul 2009 09:10 AM  
She says if she posts here it will become a "mess" just like the JREF Forums. You know, the website where as of today she has made over 600 posts. Here's the thing, Anita is clueless about the real world. She started with the IIG. That went on for a while and got nowhere because she could never actually give a claim that could be falsified.

Next she same to the JREF Forums saying, "I thought I would discuss this here since it would probably attract a lot of attention anyway as I have the [IIG] test later on." She had no problems with the JREF folks until it actually came down to real testing. She didn't like being backed into a corner.

Next she hooked up with the F-A-C-T, a local skeptics group. They didn't buy into her bullshit either and refused to formally participate in any of her tests or so-called studies. They did some informal tests, which were reported differently by them than by her. She failed those tests. But she didn't really because even though she had never been wrong before, she was "too scared" to say that she thought Dr. Carslon was missing a kidney until after he told her was missing a kidney. I guess writing it down on a piece of paper and putting in her purse only to be shown if she was right required too much intelligence for this former 4.0 student.

They also evaluated her data from the study and concluded she came in third place out of four people when guessing what ailments people had in her study. She still refuses to publish this data as promised, but we all know the conclusions: she failed. Once again, she didn't like that, so she's not talking about F-A-C-T anymore.

She's retreated to using just her website to keep posting wild and outrageous claims. Nobody can post comments on her website, so she feels "safe" there I guess. She won't come here because she knows she cannot defend her fantasies/lies. She has an account, but she won't use it.

The pattern is obvious. She wants to make claims, but she doesn't want them prove them or have them questioned.
UncaYimmy
Web Design and Virtual Marketing
desertgalUser is Offline
V.P. of Patient Relations
Stripes Earned - Respect Me
Stripes Earned - Respect Me
Send Private Message
Posts:1031

--
10 Jul 2009 09:51 AM  
Posted By UncaYimmy on 10 Jul 2009 01:10 AM
Once again, she didn't like that, so she's not talking about F-A-C-T anymore.


Agreed.

I noticed that, too. Not a peep about their last meeting. I imagine she will pop up on another skeptics board sooner or later, but that may not be as comfortable as she might think. Seems most of them also have JREF members. It's a small world.

She was back on the JREF today, babbling about the existence of aliens and, of course, herself. Blah.

I was relieved to see that Dr. Carlson took the time to post his assessment of that last 'study' here. That was thoughtful of him, and certainly left little room for doubt. Otherwise, we'd have been stuck with Anita's usual 100% accuracy nonsense.

"The only time you can read the future from cards is when you are holding four aces in a poker game." - Pernell Roberts
ChristaUser is Offline
One of the Gang
One of the Gang
Send Private Message
Posts:55

--
11 Jul 2009 12:34 PM  
Don't know how I missed this little gem:

[QUOTE]Confirmation that I being from Northern Europe do not have much experience with perceiving black people's tissue and that I would prefer all Caucasian on my paranormal test.[/QUOTE]
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.ph..._Forum_top

Are there any rules about racial preferences in paranormal tests? Does anyone think the NAACP will demand Affirmative Action when they picket Anita's test? I can't wait to hear Rev. Al Sharpton's speech about this!

Anita, while race is not a genetic reality, people from different continents often have a unique genotype that tests (real tests done by real scientists, not your BS)  can identify.

You obviously do not understand that a person can have a Caucasian phenotype and an African genotype, or vice versa. If you ever do a test (you won't) I'm betting at least one participant will really mess with your mind around that.

I don't know what to say about the fact that your pathogical need to possess special powers allows you  exhibit such shocking racial bias. Until I came across your posts about your racial preferences, I thought you were just some psycho attention whore.

Now I'm seriously considering that you might not have a conscience, and I'm not exaggerating. Your comments about race are stunningly offensive.

You seem unable to empathize with others, so let me explain how your racism might affect you. If, while evaluating you for a high-paying job in the medical field, I came across your comments about race, I would not hire you.

Now, the tens of thousands words you've left on the Net provide tens of thousands of reasons not to hire you, but I'm saying I would not hire you based solely on your comments about race. And I doubt you'd have a legal claim if you found out that was the reason you weren't called back for any more intereviews. Employers cannot risk hiring workers with your level of racial bias; it exposes them to too much liability. I'd be protecting my company by not hiring you.

I know you claim that if someone wouldn't hire you because you're basically nuts, then that's not the right job for you. What I'm saying is I wouldn't hire you because you're a racist. It's an altogether different statement.

PROTIP: No one cares about the reasons for someone's racism. Northern European origin isn't a viable excuse.

desertgalUser is Offline
V.P. of Patient Relations
Stripes Earned - Respect Me
Stripes Earned - Respect Me
Send Private Message
Posts:1031

--
11 Jul 2009 08:36 PM  
Posted By Christa on 11 Jul 2009 04:34 AM
Don't know how I missed this little gem:

[QUOTE]Confirmation that I being from Northern Europe do not have much experience with perceiving black people's tissue and that I would prefer all Caucasian on my paranormal test.[/QUOTE]
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.ph..._Forum_top



PROTIP: No one cares about the reasons for someone's racism. Northern European origin isn't a viable excuse.


Especially considering that, since the collapse of Communism, Sweden has one of the largest black populations in Europe. .
"The only time you can read the future from cards is when you are holding four aces in a poker game." - Pernell Roberts
desertgalUser is Offline
V.P. of Patient Relations
Stripes Earned - Respect Me
Stripes Earned - Respect Me
Send Private Message
Posts:1031

--
14 Nov 2009 03:49 PM  

Anita's latest statement in regards to this topic:



Some medication are given in different types and doses for different races. So perhaps my perception of demographic differences in tissues is not that strange after all. So you think that human populations that have formerly been quite isolated from one another would have no differences? Skin color is a typical example, darker in sunny climates and lighter in the north to better absorb the vital ultraviolet rays. And me, being of Finnish heritage, sweat much less than most people and it is actually an adaptation for cold climates. Many populations in hot climates are tall, and in cold climates are shorter to preserve heat. Sickle-cell anemia as a defense against malaria. And other regional adaptations that translate into variation among different genetically isolated groups. If you just look at how different we all look on the outside, just imagine all the minute differences on the inside. *By no means is this expressing racial intolerance. I think human diversity is wonderful.

Does this "new explanation" make any of her original 'obsevations' less racist? No. They still speak for themselves.

Anita. you made a statement that is racist. It wasn't the first one you have made.  It's right here in black and white. You can spew any nonsense you want to to protect your delusional reality, but it won't change the truth.

 *You also, apparently, need to learn the difference between "racism" and "racial intolerance".

"The only time you can read the future from cards is when you are holding four aces in a poker game." - Pernell Roberts
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 1 of 212 > >>



Powered by Active Forums
 Print   
Private Messages
You must be logged in to use this module.
  
Copyright 2009-2012 by Jim Carr   |  Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use