Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

[Dr. Zaus]

Rofl. Better be careful to not... accidentally... threaten someone.

lawlz, you're to stupid to figure out how to respond so you rofl!

awesome bro, got any other stories?

 

[spidey07]

The thing about "threatening someone's life" is that if someone "feeling threatened" is often subjective: particularly if the subject is a racist loser that needs a gun to feel like he controles any little part of his world.

Not if there verbal and physical threats to life.

Remember reasonable person standard. Those actions pass the reasonable person test from a law perspective.

Don't threaten another's life and you won't have this problem of getting shot.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

It was interesting in boot camp how basically every single person who had to keep going back daily to retry the swimming test was black.

I passed it the first time and I am not a good swimmer at all, at least by white standards haha

There's actually some history about that. During segregation times, black people weren't allowed in public pools and many were too poor to ever even be near a pool so the vast majority never learned how to swim. In turn, they never taught their kids how to swim and it just went on generation to generation.

Used to work at a water park and the kids who needed to be saved the most were black.

 

[SheHateMe]

There's actually some history about that. During segregation times, black people weren't allowed in public pools and many were too poor to ever even be near a pool so the vast majority never learned how to swim. In turn, they never taught their kids how to swim and it just went on generation to generation.

Used to work at a water park and the kids who needed to be saved the most were black.

Im pretty sure there were "Negroes Only" pools we could use back then. As to how functional they were, who knows. We were probably allowed to swim in Rubbermaid containers.

I don't know why it seems like black people can't swim though, its really weird. I remember going to the Boys and Girls club as a child and a lot of us knew how to swim. They even offered classes. But still, you'd always have those kids who needed to be saved when we had open swim. We had to take a deep end test to be able to leave the shallow pool, one kid thought he was up to the challenge. Part of the test was retrieving a diving brick from like 6 feet. He nearly met Jesus....

I will say for a fact that Black women don't like getting their hair wet...I sure don't. If I get this shit wet, my hair (yes, my REAL hair) will be super curly.

 

[HumblePie]

Well this thread certainly has devolved into a lot of racial slurs flung in both directions.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Im pretty sure there were "Negroes Only" pools we could use back then. As to how functional they were, who knows. We were probably allowed to swim in Rubbermaid containers.

I don't know why it seems like black people can't swim though, its really weird. I remember going to the Boys and Girls club as a child and a lot of us knew how to swim. They even offered classes. But still, you'd always have those kids who needed to be saved when we had open swim. We had to take a deep end test to be able to leave the shallow pool, one kid thought he was up to the challenge. Part of the test was retrieving a diving brick from like 6 feet. He nearly met Jesus....

I will say for a fact that Black women don't like getting their hair wet...I sure don't. If I get this shit wet, my hair (yes, my REAL hair) will be super curly.

Little bit of both. I cant find the exact article I read a few years back, but it was a combination of not being able to use beaches and pools and resulting in compensating by saying things as "we dont need swimming because (insert nerdy, uncool thing here)" and in the end never learning.

The disparity is big though. Something around 75% of black children cant swim compared to 40% white children.

I wouldnt doubt that other poorer minorities are not far behind. Mexican kids were the second most rescued when I worked at the water park.

 

[SheHateMe]

Little bit of both. I cant find the exact article I read a few years back, but it was a combination of not being able to use beaches and pools and resulting in compensating by saying things as "we dont need swimming because (insert nerdy, uncool thing here)" and in the end never learning.

The disparity is big though. Something around 75% of black children cant swim compared to 40% white children.

I wouldnt doubt that other poorer minorities are not far behind. Mexican kids were the second most rescued when I worked at the water park.

I couldn't be a lifeguard. Just from my experience observing people trying to take the deep end test at pools. I would lose my mind!

About the Pools and Beaches...yea, I know I remember seeing a movie and reading about Dorthy Dandrige, she was a popular singer..and just like other blacks that were great singers back then, she was allowed to sing at white clubs but had to enter through the back. She was staying a hotel once and she got in the pool, they made her get out and closed the pool down so they could sanitize it. She was just as rich as the rest of the folks in the hotel and couldnt even swim in the same pool!



I wonder if she knew how to swim

 

[mugs]

Don't threaten another's life and you won't have this problem of getting shot.

Yeah, I'm sure the ~14,000 murder victims in this country each year all threatened someone's life, right?

Don't make stupid statements and you won't have this problem of people realizing how stupid you are.

 

[soundforbjt]

Not if there verbal and physical threats to life.

Remember reasonable person standard. Those actions pass the reasonable person test from a law perspective.

Don't threaten another's life and you won't have this problem of getting shot.

Don't forget, you can't make it up in your head, there needs to be a witness if claiming verbal threat. Take another redneck with you.

 

[blankslate]

(Damn witnesses. Mr. Dunn should've shot them too...) 0 o . <inside Spidey's head>

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

1.) How does a "marginalized place in society" (is there such a thing as being a 13% minority and not inevitably being marginalized btw? And why aren't Asians in the same boat?) lead to increased testosterone?

Unfortunately for all of our fluffy illusions, the testosterone thing is just the very tip of the ice berg.

There are real, tangible biological differences between races. When it comes to blacks as compared to whites, those differences are actually somewhat muted in the USA because almost all African Americans have some Caucasian admixture DNA dulling the gap somewhat.

1.) Black infants develop faster than white infants, east Asian infants develop even slower than whites. Motor skills develop faster in blacks, etc. Here's how natural selection works: That slower development was a tradeoff and PURCHASED SOMETHING FOR WHITES AND ASIANS. What might that be? Perhaps a little bit more of the same thing human's slower development as compared to other species purchased them? Oh and also, African women produce twins at a higher rate. And what about r/K type nurture strategies? There are many very good reasons to believe various ethnic groups have not embraced both strategies to the exact same degree.

2.) African, white, and east Asian skulls exhibit dramatic differences in form. Likewise with these groups' brains. Differences noted are in overall weight of brains, which just magically happens to correspond to space provided by each group's skull for said brains. Differences in amount of wrinkling in brains... which just happens to fall on the exact same spread pattern as IQ among these 3 groups. Wrinkling of the brain, btw, as I'm sure you know already, is directly connected with brain power. This is the reason women are able to pack as much brain power as men (roughly) into a smaller skull. More wrinkling. But I'm sure, when one GROUP has more wrinkling than another, and this just HAPPENS to correspond to extremely resilient IQ score gaps in those groups, it's just a coincidence.

3.) Related to point 2, why is it that east Asians just so happen to score higher than whites on IQ tests, on average, consistently, across cultures, even controlling for upbringing, etc. As in, white couple has one biological child, adopts east Asian child, east Asian child raised in exact same environment will typically outscore their step-sibling on IQ tests.

So, is the fact that east Asians have a higher average brain weight/size than whites, utterly disconnected with the fact that they have higher average IQ scores than whites? Just a total coincidence?

4.) Why are the top Olympic sprinters all of African descent? http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/08/12/the-dna-olympics-jamaicans-win-sprinting-genetic-lottery-and-why-we-should-all-care/

From that Forbes article:



Is this utterly unconnected from real, biologically observed differences in center of gravity, muscle distribution, etc in Africans as compared to Europeans?

Or, are blacks dominating in many sports because of their "marginalized place in society" ?

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

Face it. There is a dance between genetics and culture, certain genetic traits allow for certain cultural traits to spring up, which in turn bounce back at the genetics and impact them.

What sort of behavioral predispositions might be selected for by moving to an agricultural lifestyle from a hunter-gatherer one? A lifestyle where, everyone knows exactly where you live, and can destroy all your crops in retribution if you aren't agreeable? Could this select for said group to become more conflict-averse? What sort of impact does living in a colder climate have on genetic predisposition for future-planning, saving, thinking ahead, problem-solving, etc? Or are human beings magically insulated from the forces of natural selection because it'd hurt our feelings if we weren't?

Some racial groups have an agricultural history and a history of building and maintaining large scale civilizations, and others don't. This helps explain why, when white South-African "Boer" farmers were run off their land and had their farms taken from them in Zimbabwe and given to native Africans, those farms plummeted in productivity. Yields dropped dramatically.

Racial groups with agricultural history WERE IMPACTED GENETICALLY BY THAT HISTORY AND THEIR GENETICS AND THE CULTURE THEY WERE PURSUING WENT BACK AND FORTH ENABLING ONE ANOTHER.

This also helps explain why very little in the way of agriculture or architecture ever happened in sub-Saharan Africa prior to any sort of colonialism. My understanding is that no two story structure or even a wheel ever saw the light of day there prior to outside forces. Or at least, that this was the case through the vast majority of sub-Saharan Africa.

Perhaps this also helps explain the difficulty certain cities in the US have once the power structure shifts to be comprised primarily of people without a genetic lineage of building and maintaining advanced civilization?

Just some food for thought.

I know, I know, I'm the bad guy.

But I'd encourage anyone who is interested in western civilization maintaining it's characteristics to consider and research these facts and think about whether they have any implications for immigration policy, and preferential hiring practices for instance.

Remember: I fully believe ALL GROUPS PRODUCE ALL TYPES OF PEOPLE. Thugs, criminals, geniuses, people predisposed to be great or horrible at every conceivable thing... music, engineering, whatever, you name it. I JUST DON'T THINK THEY ALL PRODUCE ALL TYPES OF PEOPLE AT THE SAME RATE. I also believe that when you have the luxury to judge people on a case by case basis, that is absolutely the right, moral, and more effective path. I just don't think it's practical to do on a civilizational level like, when determining immigration policy.

So you gave up the skull measurements that prove you are in fact a perverted person?

And you brought ONE college study that didn't account for steroid abuse into your equation. Note that it's not a peer reviewed study and the results were never again seen in further study.

Even IF a 15-19% difference was had, that is less than the difference between a vegetarian and a meat eater, it's less than if it was measured while being in the same room with a woman you found attractive or not and it's so insignificant that a supplement that increases testosterone with 15% would not be useful and never marketed for men.

You need something like 5000% to actually see a difference in behaviour (low dose of steroids) but you don't get this either because your neo nazist sources didn't explain it to you.

You have absolutely nothing but false claims of that which doesn't follow to go by and you believe it as if it was a statement of fact.

THAT is why your a racist fuck, you use a small set of facts that does fit your viewpoint (black people are as a race bad people) while rejecting everything contrary to that viewpoint OR the fact that your "evidence" is useless as it stands.

NOTHING you have ever stated is related to science of today, it is related to the science of the 1920's and the few remnants that was left behind, none of it peer reviewed and ALL of it discounted in THOUSANDS of other studies.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Don't forget, you can't make it up in your head, there needs to be a witness if claiming verbal threat. Take another redneck with you.

Whatchatalkinbout... he can and will make it up in his head and hold is as a fact no matter what...

He's done that for many years.

 

[HumblePie]

JoS,

I will point out an incorrect statement you made. You do not need a 5000% boost of a hormone to see behavior changes in anyone. That is the purpose of hormones. Very small amounts make huge differences. Just drinking alcohol produces a spike of testosterone in everyone, men and women alike. That spike in testosterone does many things such as make people both more aggressive and more horny for example. That's why it's easier to score with a drunk chick, and why too many bar brawls start over shit that is inconsequential. So basically you have alcohol causing testosterone to spike which alters the mood of everyone when that goes up. Then you have the other effect of alcohol blocks the inhibition center of the brain and causes the cognitive judgement center to not work so well either. What you get is a triple whammy to a person's behavior while under the influence of alcohol. Mood alternation, loss of judgement, and loss of inhibition control = people do stupid shit when they get alcohol in them.

But it's proven it doesn't take much to make those behavior changes start happening in people.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Agreed, it only requires very small hormone changes to drastically change ones' mood or aggression level.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

JoS,

I will point out an incorrect statement you made. You do not need a 5000% boost of a hormone to see behavior changes in anyone. That is the purpose of hormones. Very small amounts make huge differences. Just drinking alcohol produces a spike of testosterone in everyone, men and women alike. That spike in testosterone does many things such as make people both more aggressive and more horny for example. That's why it's easier to score with a drunk chick, and why too many bar brawls start over shit that is inconsequential. So basically you have alcohol causing testosterone to spike which alters the mood of everyone when that goes up. Then you have the other effect of alcohol blocks the inhibition center of the brain and causes the cognitive judgement center to not work so well either. What you get is a triple whammy to a person's behavior while under the influence of alcohol. Mood alternation, loss of judgement, and loss of inhibition control = people do stupid shit when they get alcohol in them.

But it's proven it doesn't take much to make those behavior changes start happening in people.

Wrong, all completely and EXCRUCIATINGLY wrong, a 15% increase isn't significant when it comes to testosterone.

Individual production may vary as much as 800% and you'd see no difference in behaviour.

Women using birth control have a 900-1800% difference compared to not using birth control when it comes to testosterone rates and NO ONE is arguing that the behavioural differences is because of that, it's because of the 20K+% of other hormones.

You don't have any fucking clue what so ever. Alcohol PLUMMETS testosterone (in men, increases progesterone production in women (which is in fact an androgen)) production in men by almost 80% which is why long time alcoholics are never prone to prostate cancer OR child rearing.

Did you know that if you had 20% of the testosterone production that someone else has you'd both be considered in the normal range and he might be more agressive than you are?

Did you know that toxoplasmosis, the cat parasite is a proven marker in humans that will make you more prone to take risks? Testosterone within the human limits doesn't change any of it what so ever though.

Now take 250mg of Sustanon and a some Deca along with something harsher like Halo and Dianabol and you are set to be agressive, especially if you do it as the boxers do and pop a few sublingual methyls before a fight. You'd be up around 100 000% of the normal values.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Agreed, it only requires very small hormone changes to drastically change ones' mood or aggression level.

WRONG, not when it comes to testosterone.

THIS is fucking stupid as a discussion because the information is readily available to you.

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/89/6/2837.long

This is about a 5000% change, no psychological change.

There are thousands of these studies if you search for them.

Also note that there is no conclusive evidence between even extreme levels (100 000+%) levels of testosterone and aggressiveness.

What you believe was brought to you by politicians in the 80/90's who wanted to tell you about the harmful use of steroids, its not true at all.

NO scientific research backs it.

 

[Geosurface]

Agreed, it only requires very small hormone changes to drastically change ones' mood or aggression level.

Right, so if one group of people has 15% more testosterone on average than another group, and that group with the higher level is also observed on a societal level to have more problems with unchecked aggression, impulse control, violent crime, if 1 in 15 of that group are in prison and 1 in 3 can expect to see prison at some point in their life... if levels of promiscuity and children by multiple partners, etc are all observed to be higher in that group... I don't think it's crazy to suggest there may be a connection.

Nor do I think it's "racist" anymore than it's sexist to say women may end up in prison a lot less than men due in part to lower testosterone levels.

Never once have I said there aren't black people who are every bit as fit as any white person for any role in life. There absolutely are.

Biology and the history of selection pressures on various groups, however, do not lend much hope that we should ever expect the PERCENTAGES of such people coming from each group to be the same. My only point is, we should inform our social policy and immigration policy with this information, not make it taboo to research and verify... and also let it act as a check upon our sympathy levels and levels of suspicion of a racist white privilege system as an explanation for incarceration rates, etc.

I don't dislike or hate blacks for being what nature made them any more than I dislike or hate women for being what nature and evolution shaped them to be, we are all different. Only children believe in fairy tales like a perfect blank slate.

I just resent the fact that so much social policy is based on the false notion that this is not the case.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Right, so if one group of people has 15% more testosterone on average than another group, and that group with the higher level is also observed on a societal level to have more problems with unchecked aggression, impulse control, violent crime, if 1 in 15 of that group are in prison and 1 in 3 can expect to see prison at some point in their life... if levels of promiscuity and children by multiple partners, etc are all observed to be higher in that group... I don't think it's crazy to suggest there may be a connection.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with that.

99.75% of prisoners are Christians.

Christianity is clearly a better marker than an insignificant testosterone marker, wouldn't you say?

You just WANT there to be evidence of your preconcieved racism so you can use that as justification, you abandoned skull measurements and went to testosterone production, i've shown you that you're wrong.

What is next, the colour black is evil?

Fuck you and all rasist scum like you.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Testosterone levels can change up to 3000% IN THE SAME MALE over a months course.

He will not notice it.

15%? If you eat a raw onion you'll reach over 100% more testosterone production.

This entire discussion is based on people being stupid on this matter and not understanding how testosterone works or how small changes (basically anything under 1000%) doesn't matter at all when it comes to muscle building or aggressiveness.

The entire argument is based on people being stupid enough to draw assertions from something that is ingrained into their brains, testosterone is a drug that makes people aggressive. It's not true, it never was.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Testosterone levels can change up to 3000% IN THE SAME MALE over a months course.

He will not notice it.

15%? If you eat a raw onion you'll reach over 100% more testosterone production.

This entire discussion is based on people being stupid on this matter and not understanding how testosterone works or how small changes (basically anything under 1000%) doesn't matter at all when it comes to muscle building or aggressiveness.

The entire argument is based on people being stupid enough to draw assertions from something that is ingrained into their brains, testosterone is a drug that makes people aggressive. It's not true, it never was.

I dunno, it seems like most people in here understand exactly what's going on.

Maybe you need to rethink your position?

 

[Geosurface]

Yeah, it has nothing to do with that.

99.75% of prisoners are Christians.

Christianity is clearly a better marker than an insignificant testosterone marker, wouldn't you say?

You just WANT there to be evidence of your preconcieved racism so you can use that as justification, you abandoned skull measurements and went to testosterone production, i've shown you that you're wrong.

What is next, the colour black is evil?

Fuck you and all rasist scum like you.

John, first I want to ask you to have a seat and take a few deep breaths.

I have no "preconceived" racism that I'm looking for shit to reinforce.

For my entire life until about a year ago, maybe less, I was a rabid egalitarian. White guilt pumped through my veins.

I grew up taught, like most, to idolize Martin Luther King Jr, Sidney Poitier, Morgan Freeman, to be particularly and especially enamored of black luminaries (itself a kind of racism actually). I was raised by a liberal feminist woman of the 60's, and I was taught that racism was the ultimate evil.

I grew up around blacks, some of my childhood friends were black kids, I walked at graduation with a black girl I'd known since we were very young... I had a black neighbor who was a mentor to me and an important part of my life. I wept when he died of cancer in 2002, and I still remember him fondly. He was a lower class guy too, with a history of criminality he'd left behind. He was married to a white woman, not a single thing about his past or his present ever bothered me. I cared deeply about him.

I voted for Obama in '08, not only voted for him but caucused for him and donated to him. Around this same time I was part of a rabidly liberal humanist group with whom I protested the Iraq war and endured people yelling at us and threatening us for doing so. I attended death penalty protests with them also.

In my service as a submariner in the US Navy which just ended recently, I made about 6 close friends. 3 of them were black.

The Trayvon Martin case and the incredibly disingenuous race-baiting double standards applied to how it was covered by the mainstream media, coupled with a heightened awareness of the fact that conservatives weren't all as braindead as I'd assumed (which I learned in the Navy while surrounded by them) - lead to me questioning a lot of deeply held assumptions.

I did not go seeking pseudoscience to reinforce previously held, bigoted, racist ideas. I opened my mind up to considering things I had previously dismissed, and found that there is merit to some of it.

This isn't about hatred, as I've said before... acknowledging the differences between men and women and the lower or higher levels of suitability to certain roles in life that accompany those differences, or the behavioral tendencies that accompany those differences... in no way implies hatred of the other gender. It is no different with race.

It's about an honest attempt to embrace the truth even when the truth is uncomfortable, unpopular, and taboo.

That is all.

 

[HumblePie]

Wrong, all completely and EXCRUCIATINGLY wrong, a 15% increase isn't significant when it comes to testosterone.

Individual production may vary as much as 800% and you'd see no difference in behaviour.

Women using birth control have a 900-1800% difference compared to not using birth control when it comes to testosterone rates and NO ONE is arguing that the behavioural differences is because of that, it's because of the 20K+% of other hormones.

You don't have any fucking clue what so ever. Alcohol PLUMMETS testosterone (in men, increases progesterone production in women (which is in fact an androgen)) production in men by almost 80% which is why long time alcoholics are never prone to prostate cancer OR child rearing.

Did you know that if you had 20% of the testosterone production that someone else has you'd both be considered in the normal range and he might be more agressive than you are?

Did you know that toxoplasmosis, the cat parasite is a proven marker in humans that will make you more prone to take risks? Testosterone within the human limits doesn't change any of it what so ever though.

Now take 250mg of Sustanon and a some Deca along with something harsher like Halo and Dianabol and you are set to be agressive, especially if you do it as the boxers do and pop a few sublingual methyls before a fight. You'd be up around 100 000% of the normal values.

LOL WHAT???

First off, you don't know what you are talking about here. I don't even really know where to start, but I guess I got to start somewhere with correcting this post.

1) You claim alcohol does not increase testosterone.

That is an incorrect and correct statement.

Testosterone is increased beyond the normal receptors in the body to handle. Men have a method of dealing with extra free floating testosterone called aromatase. This converts the extra testosterone to estrogen. Also, when too much testosterone is present in the male body, the testicles stop producing more. So when a guy gets good and drunk, their nuts turn off and it takes a bit for them to turn back on. When men do this for for a long period of time through alcohol abuse over years, the testicles just stop producing what they used to. Other side effects include bitch tits and a beer gut when men drink too much all the time and get drunk too often. The converted estrogen causes the mammary tissues to grow and they never go back.

So you are correct that long term effect of alcohol reduces testosterone. However, the SHORT TERM effect is that upon immediately drinking alcohol, testosterone levels will spike. This is where you are wrong.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/abuse/l/blacer030117.htm

Here is a link talking about the short term effect of alcohol and spiking of testosterone levels.

2) Women on birth control have increased hormones. That they do, but of estrogen, not testosterone. Estrogen does have behavioral changes associated with it, but not to the degree testosterone does. And women who first start the pill go through an emotional adjustment. TRUST ME. Same thing when they first get pregnant. Their hormones go out of whack from levels they are used to.

3) Who cares about the deflection about a cat born parasite and how it affects human behavior. Knowing about toxoplasmosis is all well and good, but really that has no bearing about the topic I was discussing which is the effect of hormone changes and human behavior changes.

4) Riod rage is not a proven thing either. Studies show that some individuals respond badly with increased aggressive to high dosages of testosterone entering their system and some people don't. There is a genetic predisposition to it. Some are and some aren't. However, prolong exposure to higher levels of testosterone being given to a person shows a very strong coloration with mental illnesses and problems over time.



So, you are wrong and I am right when it comes to this discussion topic for the points I am making. Those points are that a rapid change in hormones can cause behavioral changes in people, depending upon the type of hormone change. And that prolong exposures to various hormone levels of any type of hormone will have a lasting effect on the body.

 

[HumblePie]

as for your claim now that a person's testosterone level can fluctuate up to 3000% daily...

WOW you are way off.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/222182-what-is-the-range-of-testosterone-levels/

Usually levels fluctuate around 10% - 15% through the day.

Within an individual, testosterone levels in the blood can vary 10 percent to 15 percent from one moment to the next. Levels are typically higher in the morning. Levels can also fluctuate during the day because of periodic testosterone secretions that occur about every seven hours. The increased levels of secretion are modest and so the rise and fall of blood hormone levels as a result of this are also minor.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

John, first I want to ask you to have a seat and take a few deep breaths.

I have no "preconceived" racism that I'm looking for shit to reinforce.

I'm sorry but a nazi boy who clings to eugenics first and then leaves it once he's disproven to proclaim that some not so well thought out study that isn't peer reiviewed and never duplicated to proclaim that races are different IS a racist who is ATTEMPTING to use science to say he's right to be racially biased (a racist).

Now every single thing you brought up is wrong, you draw conclusions which do not follow from studies that are incomplete and non scientific (not peer reviewed and not duplicated) and you state it as fact that because one badly made study found 15% higher testosterone rate in black males that is evidence that black males are as a group more violent.

Don't fucking try to say this wasn't your intention, it's clear to EVERYONE that in the context of what you have written in this thread that is exactly what you are saying.

Now, i've disproven the skull measurements AND that 15% should do ANYTHING WHAT SO EVER (when 85% is lower than the actual fluctuate in any male over a day, you could have made the readings different if you measured then later or earlier during the day) with behaviour...

I dislike your kind the most because if not for your kind there would be 6 Million more of my kind.

You really cannot say you're not a racist when you dig up sheit to use for justification of your racism, can you? There is no justification, you are wrong.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

as for your claim now that a person's testosterone level can fluctuate up to 3000% daily...

WOW you are way off.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/222182-what-is-the-range-of-testosterone-levels/

Usually levels fluctuate around 10% - 15% through the day.

It can, and livestrong isn't a good source for information.

The point isn't that this happens in EVERYONE, the point is that it CAN, in adolescent males it can vary more than that even.

And yet your source actually confirms that depending on the time of day it's measured you can get up to 15% different reading.

Not that you should EVER use that source again, please don't, it's a horrible paper full of misinformation.