PDA

View Full Version : Scientific racism is alive and well... Unfortunately



Steve
17th October 07, 05:25 PM
Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners
Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really"
By Cahal Milmo
Published: 17 October 2007

One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.

The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks " in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of " scientific racism".

Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism.

Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.

"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."

The American scientist earned a place in the history of great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s and formed part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA. He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins.

But despite serving for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics, Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script."

In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that " stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."

The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks.

Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: " This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."

Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."

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

Link. (http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece)

I fully expect to get a debate, or at least a shit throwing contest, between the white supremacists on this board and everyone else. If that doesn't happen I'll settle for intelligent discussion or flames directed at Dr. Watson.

Dude has some ass backwards ideas.

Sun Wukong
17th October 07, 05:53 PM
Oh man, one 80 year old racist nobel laureate shoots his mouth off and suddenly the white supremacy movement has new material for recruiting brochures. god damn it.

WarPhalange
17th October 07, 05:54 PM
He hasn't found the gene for intelligence yet? So why is he making any statements on it?

If he had found it, he wouldn't get nearly as much of a negative reaction among scientists. But he's pulling shit out of his ass (literally).

AAAhmed46
17th October 07, 05:56 PM
Fyrstarters probably dancing around saying 'i told you so'



You know, we learned about Watson in my highschool biology

Watson and Crick i thik(correct me if im wrong)


Isn't Watson a big supporter of eugenics?




So i wonder what he believes in....nature or nurture that develops a human being (thats sarcasm)

NoMan
17th October 07, 06:00 PM
I fully expect to get a debate, or at least a shit throwing contest, between the white supremacists on this board and everyone else. If that doesn't happen I'll settle for intelligent discussion or flames directed at Dr. Watson.

Dude has some ass backwards ideas.

It's sad that someone who did so much could say something so stupid. (Like my alliteration of "so"?) One of my professors wasn't as fond of him and thought the dude was always a showboat and a "tell all" for the media. He likes making a splash.

Not all tests have found racial differences in intelligence, and the better ones that have only show a minor variation. By the same logic though, Jews, Asians, and Indians, (India Indians), should be our overlords, because they score higher than whites on intelligence tests. To attribute the success of various nations to their genetics is like attributing obesity to what cereal you eat.

Dagon Akujin
17th October 07, 06:04 PM
http://www.rjsax.com/gifts/phrenology_head_a.jpg

Cullion
17th October 07, 06:29 PM
It's hardly a new theory. People of african descent have been flunking IQ tests for generations. It's hardly a secret.

The reason? IQ tests are designed by honkeys, for honkeys.

WarPhalange
17th October 07, 06:32 PM
And of honkeys.

fes_fsa
17th October 07, 06:34 PM
It's hardly a new theory. People of african descent have been flunking IQ tests for generations. It's hardly a secret.

The reason? IQ tests are designed by honkeys, for honkeys.

then why do the slants score higher than the honkeys?

AAAhmed46
17th October 07, 06:34 PM
Lets drop Watson off in the middle of africa and see how long he survives compared to skinny black Abdul.

I think you need to be pretty resourceful to survive.


Do IQ tests test these aspects?

AAAhmed46
17th October 07, 06:36 PM
then why do the slants score higher than the honkeys?


Because they have schools too....good schools, a focus on education.


Africa?

A small wooden hut where a lady occasionally teaches numbers and what not.

Steve
17th October 07, 06:39 PM
Because they have schools too....good schools, a focus on education.


Africa?

A small wooden hut where a lady occasionally teaches numbers and what not.

If only their small wooden hut had evolved into a school...

WarPhalange
17th October 07, 06:42 PM
Lets drop Watson off in the middle of africa and see how long he survives compared to skinny black Abdul.

I think you need to be pretty resourceful to survive.


Do IQ tests test these aspects?

All the ones that I've taken did. They dropped me off in the middle of the Amazon and told me to find my way back. Before they kicked me off the plane, they blindfolded me and spun me around so I really had no idea where to go.

fes_fsa
17th October 07, 06:52 PM
you guys remember that guy from Harvard... who got fired for stating the fact that the highest positions in scientific careers are filled by males?

deja vu.

Sun Wukong
17th October 07, 06:53 PM
then why do the slants score higher than the honkeys?
You should know the answer to this; nobody is more white than asian people. Duh. In my wife's entire family tree, there's not one multiple felon, or violent offender (bloody coups and revolutions withstanding). Half of her high school classmates attended Ivy League schools, and most of them were on scholarships. Asians are whiter than white people, they're what you would get if you could find a way to bleach the color white. Like Uber-White or something.

Except for thailand, vietnam and any asian country that exists completely inside of a tropical zone. And except for the poor asian kids. And not the ones in North Korea.

And except for the ones that didn't finish high school. And except for the ones that sell drugs or are willing to have sex for money.

So pretty much I'm only talking about the ones that live at american middle class level or have hard working parents that could afford to make sure they went to the best schools by subjecting their children to a Nazi-esque regimen of academic discipline by virtue of the guilt over the hardships that they left in their native countries. Those are the ones I'm talking about... except for the ones that ingored their family and decided to deal drugs, or work as adult entertainers existing outside of the system where they aren't easily polled.

Zendetta
17th October 07, 07:11 PM
nobody is more white than asian people.

Except possibly the Jews.

AAAhmed46
17th October 07, 07:15 PM
Somalian immigrants, tend to be very educated i noticed, or come into the country stupid as fuck....but then become super educated in a way that puts most white folks to shame.

Their kids?

Well....they tend to get obsessed with 'black culture' and often act like wiggers.

Though they arn't wiggers, since their black.

But they come off as wiggers. Since it looks so forced.

fes_fsa
17th October 07, 07:17 PM
But they come off as wiggers. Since it looks so forced.

wiggity wiggity what?

WarPhalange
17th October 07, 08:08 PM
Somalian immigrants, tend to be very educated i noticed, or come into the country stupid as fuck....but then become super educated in a way that puts most white folks to shame.

Their kids?

Well....they tend to get obsessed with 'black culture' and often act like wiggers.

Though they arn't wiggers, since their black.

But they come off as wiggers. Since it looks so forced.

I knew a guy who was from Somalia I think. Apparently they never taught him how to read over there (or they don't have a written language? It was one or the other).

Anyway, he was in my community college. He wasn't up to speed with the rest of the class, but he was never far behind and he worked hard. By now I think he's on par with everybody else.

AAAhmed46
17th October 07, 08:12 PM
That is unscientific.

EVERYONE knows that black people are not as evolved. THey can't learn like white people!!!!

SFGOON
17th October 07, 08:35 PM
All I can add is a resounding "Best thread EVER!"

socratic
17th October 07, 08:42 PM
If only their small wooden hut had evolved into a school...

The hut's genes are inferior, it's incapable of evolving as well as an American hut.

Knave
17th October 07, 09:47 PM
Greetings.

I will never understand why it's okay for supposed "sports science" to study the physical differences of various races, even going so far in some cases as declaring some racial groups superior (Kenyans supposedly being genetically superior for running sports etc), but it's racist to look at intelligence in the same way.

NoMan
17th October 07, 10:12 PM
Greetings.

I will never understand why it's okay for supposed "sports science" to study the physical differences of various races, even going so far in some cases as declaring some racial groups superior (Kenyans supposedly being genetically superior for running sports etc), but it's racist to look at intelligence in the same way.

Some of it comes down to P.C.ness. Some of it comes from misquoting scientific research and getting people miffed. For example, men's domination of hard sciences like engineering and mathematics. From an early age, men tend to show greater interest in things dealing with complexity, (baseball and football stats, tearing things apart and figuring how they work), while women at an early age display interest in dolls, treating objects like humans, and studying other people. The interpretation from science is that men and women's absolute abilities differ somewhat, (women better at verbal; men better at math), but that this accounts for a small part of the difference between them. The major reason why women aren't represented in science is because it doesn't interest them.

What this guy is saying is in the former category. He's attributing differences in nation-state success to genetics. That would be like looking at France and the U.S. and attributing the different forms of govenrment to genetic difference. (Though ameriphiles and Francophiles would probably like that idea).

From PCness, some research is just considered wrong. There's a book called "Most Dangerous Ideas" and it features a bunch of scientists discussing what they would consider to be the most dangerous ideas out there. Most scientists think science is value-neutral and don't think any caps should be placed on what subjects are available for research. If something falls into the former category, I'm against it. The latter category, I'm for it. Science is our best means to understanding the world, even if we don't like the results of it.

JohnnyCache
17th October 07, 11:03 PM
He isn't actually discussing their past success, he's discussing how we should make our policy toward them. Hair, split.

AAAhmed46
17th October 07, 11:17 PM
I know so many black guys i could break.

And I am not hot shit, im not athletic.


P.s. No, this is not an anti-black comment.

Im just saying that you can't base athletic ability on race saying "T3H BL&CK$ are MORE ATHLETIC"

WarPhalange
17th October 07, 11:38 PM
Of course they are more athletic. They run away from the cops all the time. That shit gets you in shape.

couch13
17th October 07, 11:53 PM
IQ tests test the logic portion of the brain. The logic portion of the brain is developed by higher mathematics training. The Asian culture puts a great deal of emphasis on doing well in math, that is a reason for thier math supieriority. Then we have the american black culture. per capita, more blacks are in poverty than asians and so they put emphisis on other things in life. Thus they have lower IQ scores than asians.


Greetings.

I will never understand why it's okay for supposed "sports science" to study the physical differences of various races, even going so far in some cases as declaring some racial groups superior (Kenyans supposedly being genetically superior for running sports etc), but it's racist to look at intelligence in the same way.

Kenyans are better runners because Kenyans run everywhere. From childhood they run everywhere, it's a cultural thing. Of course they're going to run faster than everyone else.

Poverty is actually the factor in sports ability. Look at boxing, 1800-1930(?) Irish immigrants and blacks are the poor group, they dominate boxing. 1930-1960 Italians and Blacks are poor, they dominate boxing. 1960-1990 Whitey gets rich, blacks are poor they dominate boxing. 1990-Present, Blacks and Hispanics are poor, they dominate boxing.

Dagon Akujin
18th October 07, 12:56 AM
http://img9.exs.cx/img9/8729/carlton4kp.jpg

fes_fsa
18th October 07, 02:18 AM
I know so many black guys i could break.

And I am not hot shit, im not athletic.

they discovered breakdancing through stealing the hub-caps off of moving cars.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
18th October 07, 02:25 AM
Dr Watson


Dr Watson


Dr Watson

ELEMENTARY DR. WATSON

Steve
18th October 07, 02:37 AM
Yes, we all know you aren't black and that you like the word 'nigger'.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
18th October 07, 03:00 AM
nigga im blacka den da day is long

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
18th October 07, 03:00 AM
they call me "sexual chocolate"

Steve
18th October 07, 03:03 AM
I'm sure they do.

jubei33
18th October 07, 03:57 AM
Oh man, one 80 year old racist nobel laureate shoots his mouth off and suddenly the white supremacy movement has new material for recruiting brochures. god damn it.

And then we'll do what we always do and rip it apart and feed it to the fishes. This argument's long dead and buried. I guess since he is in his 80s, he doesn't have much of a career to wager. How many have fallen on this same sword?

Cullion
18th October 07, 05:54 AM
He hasn't found the gene for intelligence yet? So why is he making any statements on it?

If he had found it, he wouldn't get nearly as much of a negative reaction among scientists. But he's pulling shit out of his ass (literally).

He's probably talking about the data referenced in 'The Bell Curve'. Decades of IQ test data showed black people having lower IQs that whites. Follow arguments about educational opportunities, IQ tests not really meaning anything ...

Cullion
18th October 07, 06:03 AM
By the same logic though, Jews, Asians, and Indians, (India Indians), should be our overlords, because they score higher than whites on intelligence tests.

This could take the thread in a truly loltastic direction. Any takers?

Alright, I'm taking it and running with it.

Chinese economic growth

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/asia_pac/02/chinese_economic_history/img/graph4.gif

Gezere
18th October 07, 06:51 AM
This is rather interesting since the majority of white pple I meet are inferior to me, unless they're cops on steroids. (the natural enemy of the blackman)

I believe this is just another case of FEAR OF BIG BLACK DICKS! (Oh and white pple don't try that "its just a stereotype" because I have hours upon hours of Black on White porn that proves you wrong)

Cullion
18th October 07, 07:17 AM
This is rather interesting since the majority of white pple I meet are inferior to me, unless they're cops on steroids. (the natural enemy of the blackman)

I believe this is just another case of FEAR OF BIG BLACK DICKS! (Oh and white pple don't try that "its just a stereotype" because I have hours upon hours of Black on White porn that proves you wrong)

Well, I think he was just trying to say that he thought black people were dumb, but he could have softened it by complementing black people on their sense of rhythm or something.

Cullion
18th October 07, 07:19 AM
Whitey economic growth

http://www.tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/as-macro-economic-growth_clip_image003.gif

Lu Tze
18th October 07, 07:51 AM
Gasp, so you're saying the economy of a nation that has already largely industrialised DOES NOT GROW AS FAST as that of a nation currently undergoing massive industrialisation and economic liberalisation?

STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES!

Cullion
18th October 07, 08:03 AM
Gasp, so you're saying the economy of a nation that has already largely industrialised DOES NOT GROW AS FAST as that of a nation currently undergoing massive industrialisation and economic liberalisation?

STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES!

More than that. I'm saying that I have scientific graphs showing that chinese people are smarter than white people, and I've read a book on it.

Cullion
18th October 07, 08:04 AM
Yeah, I know that book says that white people are smarter than people from mainland china (but not Japan), but the general principle is the same. I think.

Somebody help me out here.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
18th October 07, 08:06 AM
Where do I figure into this? I got blonde hair and blue eyes.

Cullion
18th October 07, 08:11 AM
Where do I figure into this? I got blonde hair and blue eyes.

I thought you were supposed to be asian? Perhaps you are. That coupled with blonde hair and blue eyes would make you an anime character. I don't think the book included a table for anime character IQs.

Kein Haar
18th October 07, 08:30 AM
Asians have squinty eyes because when they wer riding horses on the steps of azia they ahd to squint real hard on their horses to see the enemy across the fieleds.

Couch, stfu.

WarPhalange
18th October 07, 11:39 AM
I thought it was because Asians started out up north with cold weather, and the squinty eyes helped with the cold wind.

Cullion
18th October 07, 12:19 PM
racist

ergo
18th October 07, 12:26 PM
Scientific racism is alive and well... unfortunately.
People are making the critical error of viewing the subject from an ideological perspective. The only relevant question is whether or not these findings are accurate and true. If people think these findings are scientifically untrue, then they should explain why this is so, instead of appealing to emotion and throwing ideological temper tantrums. If his views are factually correct then they simply are factually correct, regardless of how much someone is offended. The universe doesn't give a shit about how you feel.

While I am not familiar with any of the science behind his claims, they seem reasonable. Africa has produced almost nothing of value, and it seems that Africans and people of African descent cause chaos and destruction no matter where they go to. South Africa was doing pretty good before they ended the apartheid, and now it's a mess (this factual statement does not mean I endorse apartheid). Detroit is over 80% African American, and the place is a complete shithole from what I've heard. African immigrants are causing tons of problems in Europe, and the US has plenty of black ghettoes. What kind of conclusions am I supposed to draw from these observations? When I ignore all the ideological programming that's been instilled into me during my life, it's a rational conclusion that Africans are less intelligent than most other people, or there's some other genetic factor that's causing their behavior. This doesn't mean that I regard them as subhuman or something. It's the self-proclaimed "anti-racists" who always measure a person's value by their intelligence. That's why they always become so hysterical when someone suggests that non-white race/people X are less intelligent than everyone else.

What pisses me off is that PC "anti-racists" have hijacked this subject and turned it into an ideological question, when in reality it's purely a scientific one. Why couldn't different races have different levels of average intelligence? We already differ in appearance, height and body structure. People are ready to accept racial differences that are neutral or positive towards non-whites, but not ready to accept racial differences that are negative towards non-whites.

It's all about ideology. The very first thing Jared Diamond writes in his Pulitzer-winning book Guns, Germs and Steel was that his book won't be offering any racist explanations for the different levels of success between the peoples of Earth. In other words, he immediately eliminates one possible explanation due to ideological reasons. But, a few pages later he casually mentions that the people of Papua New Guinea are genetically more intelligent than Europeans (racial differences are acceptable as long as they're positive towards non-whites). Can you imagine what would have happened if he would have said that Europeans are genetically more intelligent than Africans?


Lets drop Watson off in the middle of africa and see how long he survives compared to skinny black Abdul.

I think you need to be pretty resourceful to survive.

Do IQ tests test these aspects?
IQ tests are not meant to determine how well you can survive in the wilderness.

AAAhmed46
18th October 07, 12:35 PM
Thats not my point.


It's that, africa is a COMPLETELY different culture, with different things are stressed.


India/pakistan is a pretty shitty place.

yet tons of docters and engineers are of INdo-pakistani origin.

Did anyone truly foresee the level of success india would have?



Read some of the writings of philosophes.

Some of them were racist, saying that scientifically, there was no evidence of blacks of any race excelling in any aspect of science.

Kant(I THINK) once said that indians(as in brown people) are naturally great poets and philosophers or something like that but are not good at the sciences and are naturally lazy.


But....it is in the SCIENCES that we see lots of progress within them.


I forgot what he wrote on AZNS but i know it isn't even close to what asians are achieving today(in terms of academic achievement)

TM
18th October 07, 12:36 PM
Everyone would benefit from reading about the Human Genome Project.

Dagon Akujin
18th October 07, 01:17 PM
While I am not familiar with any of the science behind his claims, they seem reasonable. Africa has produced almost nothing of value, and it seems that Africans and people of African descent cause chaos and destruction no matter where they go to. South Africa was doing pretty good before they ended the apartheid, and now it's a mess (this factual statement does not mean I endorse apartheid). Detroit is over 80% African American, and the place is a complete shithole from what I've heard. African immigrants are causing tons of problems in Europe, and the US has plenty of black ghettoes. What kind of conclusions am I supposed to draw from these observations? When I ignore all the ideological programming that's been instilled into me during my life, it's a rational conclusion that Africans are less intelligent than most other people, or there's some other genetic factor that's causing their behavior. This doesn't mean that I regard them as subhuman or something. It's the self-proclaimed "anti-racists" who always measure a person's value by their intelligence. That's why they always become so hysterical when someone suggests that non-white race/people X are less intelligent than everyone else.

What pisses me off is that PC "anti-racists" have hijacked this subject and turned it into an ideological question, when in reality it's purely a scientific one. Why couldn't different races have different levels of average intelligence? We already differ in appearance, height and body structure. People are ready to accept racial differences that are neutral or positive towards non-whites, but not ready to accept racial differences that are negative towards non-whites.


http://media.damnfunnypictures.com/dfp/stupid_wigger_5.jpg

Shawarma
18th October 07, 01:19 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, it's the ergo show, back on the air!

ergo
18th October 07, 01:36 PM
Are rational counter-arguments too much to ask for?

Dagon Akujin
18th October 07, 01:38 PM
Are rational counter-arguments too much to ask for?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1383/539393593_01d311a83a.jpg

ergo
18th October 07, 01:44 PM
I don't really understand what you're trying to communicate.

AAAhmed46
18th October 07, 01:44 PM
I have some questions then:

1) are you white?




On counter arguements:

Watson doesn't present any genetic evidence of his claims.

Just that they do bad on test scores. So what? Africans don't have decent schools. much less learn the stuff we do.

He presented an opinion without any new evidence, the IQ scores are low he assumes because of genetics.

Well sir, just because your an expert of genetics does not mean all human behavior is affected by them. Yes, our genes direct us.

But the question is: How much?


Have you heard Watson's views on Woman?

Do you agree with them?

AAAhmed46
18th October 07, 01:52 PM
Basically, my problem is his line of logic, not that he's bringing this question up.


If he said "I HAVE FOUND A GENE THAT SHOWS A DIFFERENCE IN INTELLEGENCE BETWEEN {INSERT RACE} and {INSERT RACE}

but no, he didn't. He used logic thats very faulty instead.

It's the same line of reasoning used in saying black people are more athletic, which is untrue(using that logic, we can say the same about thai people and muay thai saying they are naturally fighters. When really, they just want to eat)

AAAhmed46
18th October 07, 02:00 PM
Besides, if africans are so genetically inferior, what about entire empires and city states, very advanced civilizations and culture in the past.

Not all african history is tribal.

WarPhalange
18th October 07, 02:00 PM
I don't really understand what you're trying to communicate.

Ironically, it's you who is less intelligent than other people. It's called "culture" and "upbringing".

Africa is a shithole. If you grow up in a shithole, you're much worse off than someone who hasn't.

MOST COUNTRIES IN AFRICA DON'T HAVE GOOD SCHOOLS.

It's the culture that's ruining and has ruined blacks in the US. From slavery, to racist laws and culture, and now they are destroying themselves with gangsta culture.

But look at any job. Any career. You'll find blacks there. Scientists, doctors, politicians, laywers, etc.

It's also very stupid to put forth a claim that the genes that determing how you look on the outside (skin color and some facial characteristics?) determine your intellect.

What about Aryans vs. Nords vs. Slavs? Who is T3H R34L WH1T3???

Most awesome scientists have been from Eastern Europe => Slavs are supreme.

Lu Tze
18th October 07, 02:02 PM
IQ tests don't measure intelligence, they were never meant for that, they measure EDUCATION.

Now have a think about that for a bit, and you'll realise why it's bullshit to use them as a metric for determining which 'race' (another piece of crap right there) is more intelligent.

Edit: Beaten by Poop Loops.

ergo
18th October 07, 02:11 PM
I have some questions then:

1) are you white?
Yes.


On counter arguements:
I can't comment on his science since I'm not familiar with it, but his views make sense. Genetics would explain the consistently poor performance of Africans, even when they've lived outside Africa for generations. The other explanation is culture. But what's the cause of their failed culture? Genetics?


Yes, our genes direct us.

But the question is: How much?
I don't know.


Have you heard Watson's views on Woman?

Do you agree with them?
Haven't heard of them.


Ironically, it's you who is less intelligent than other people. It's called "culture" and "upbringing".

Africa is a shithole. If you grow up in a shithole, you're much worse off than someone who hasn't.

MOST COUNTRIES IN AFRICA DON'T HAVE GOOD SCHOOLS.

It's the culture that's ruining and has ruined blacks in the US. From slavery, to racist laws and culture, and now they are destroying themselves with gangsta culture.
It's not unreasonable to think that this all results from genetics. Their culture is a catastrophic failure. Why? There has to be a reason.


But look at any job. Any career. You'll find blacks there. Scientists, doctors, politicians, laywers, etc.
Yes, obviously. Even if blacks are on average less intelligent than whites or asians, it doesn't mean there aren't above average people.


It's also very stupid to put forth a claim that the genes that determing how you look on the outside (skin color and some facial characteristics?) determine your intellect.
I didn't say that. I said that if we have such differences between us, why is it impossible for us to have differences in intelligence? What makes intelligence such a special feature that everyone must somehow have an equal amount of it?

WarPhalange
18th October 07, 02:16 PM
It's not unreasonable to think that this all results from genetics. Their culture is a catastrophic failure. Why? There has to be a reason.

It's unreasonable if you have no proof. Like it's been stated, Africa wasn't always a shithole. It's called "exploitation". Brits did a lot of messing around in Africa. So did the US. Liberia? "Sure, we'll help you all when you get to Africa... heh..."


Yes, obviously. Even if blacks are on average less intelligent than whites or asians, it doesn't mean there aren't above average people.

No, you completely misunderstood what I said. Those jobs require intelligence. Since there are plenty of blacks in those jobs, there's no reason to think there is a limit to their intelligence over other races.

Being an average "person" would mean how much of a humanitarian you are. A below average person is your standard office asshole who never gets shit done and complains.



I didn't say that. I said that if we have such differences between us, why is it impossible for us to have differences in intelligence? What makes intelligence such a special feature that everyone must somehow have an equal amount of it?

What differences? Facial characteristics and skin color?

Look at dogs. The races of dogs are INCREDIBLY different. Different looks and physical attributes. Yet the intelligence doesn't vary that much. They can still learn tricks and know that fire = bad.

So if dogs can vary that much and still have very similar intelligence, why would you think that different races of people -- who have nearly identical sizes, shapes, weights, etc. -- would have different intellect?

AAAhmed46
18th October 07, 02:19 PM
Haven't heard of them.


Basically he believes that woman are wired to be stupider then men.


It's not unreasonable to think that this all results from genetics. Their culture is a catastrophic failure. Why? There has to be a reason.


Hate to beat a dead horse but...colonialism. Europe ass fucked africa really really bad. Like i said before, there are some sophisticated african cultures in the past, in terms of development, they rivaled that of Europian/Tang Dynasty china(in terms of development, not empires)

Now their bringing themselves down with Gangsta culture.



Yes, obviously. Even if blacks are on average less intelligent than whites or asians, it doesn't mean there aren't above average people.

Their very existence shows they are as a race capable of being equals. The average is down for different reasons.



I didn't say that. I said that if we have such differences between us, why is it impossible for us to have differences in intelligence? What makes intelligence such a special feature that everyone must somehow have an equal amount of it?[

Because sometimes there is more variation between two different african tribes then there is between different races(in some cases, a general statement overall)

ergo
18th October 07, 02:23 PM
It's unreasonable if you have no proof. Like it's been stated, Africa wasn't always a shithole. It's called "exploitation". Brits did a lot of messing around in Africa. So did the US. Liberia? "Sure, we'll help you all when you get to Africa... heh..."
I'm not pretending to offer any proof. It's just something that makes sense to me, especially when I can't come up with a better explanation.


No, you completely misunderstood what I said. Those jobs require intelligence. Since there are plenty of blacks in those jobs, there's no reason to think there is a limit to their intelligence over other races.
As I understand it black people are not involved in law or science nearly as much as whites or asians. And again, even if blacks are on average less intelligent than others, it doesn't mean there aren't plenty of intelligent people among them.


Being an average "person" would mean how much of a humanitarian you are. A below average person is your standard office asshole who never gets shit done and complains.
?


What differences? Facial characteristics and skin color?

Look at dogs. The races of dogs are INCREDIBLY different. Different looks and physical attributes. Yet the intelligence doesn't vary that much. They can still learn tricks and know that fire = bad.

So if dogs can vary that much and still have very similar intelligence, why would you think that different races of people -- who have nearly identical sizes, shapes, weights, etc. -- would have different intellect?
Dogs != humans. Also, the difference in intelligence you're describing is more like the difference between a mentally retarded person and a person of normal intelligence, which is not what I'm talking about.

WarPhalange
18th October 07, 04:54 PM
I'm not pretending to offer any proof. It's just something that makes sense to me, especially when I can't come up with a better explanation.

It makes sense to me that you're moron. I can't come up with a better explanation, therefore it must be true.



As I understand it black people are not involved in law or science nearly as much as whites or asians. And again, even if blacks are on average less intelligent than others, it doesn't mean there aren't plenty of intelligent people among them.

Yeah, that's where the whole "bad environment" comes into play.



Dogs != humans.

Very good.


Also, the difference in intelligence you're describing is more like the difference between a mentally retarded person and a person of normal intelligence, which is not what I'm talking about.

For a dog?

Zendetta
18th October 07, 05:35 PM
People are making the critical error of viewing the subject from an ideological perspective. The only relevant question is whether or not these findings are accurate and true. If people think these findings are scientifically untrue, then they should explain why this is so, instead of appealing to emotion and throwing ideological temper tantrums. If his views are factually correct then they simply are factually correct, regardless of how much someone is offended. The universe doesn't give a shit about how you feel.

A GREAT point utilizing the superior logic that could only result from a high civilization like Europa. Bravo on boldly thinking the unthinkable!


While I am not familiar with any of the science behind his claims, they seem reasonable... it's a rational conclusion... etc etc

D'oh! Cracker, you just lynched yourself with the short rope of anecdotal *snicker* "evidence" *snicker*.


What pisses me off is that PC "anti-racists" have hijacked this subject and turned it into an ideological question

Honkey, Please. "Scientific racism" has always been about ideology, long before their was a buzzword like "PC".

Its official: you are a shitheaded idiot. The white race doesn't want you anymore. You are hearby voted out of the Gated Community.


It's all about ideology.

Mostly, yep. Do your ideology a favor and find some educated african immigrants to talk with. Your prejudices regarding "intelligence" will not endure the conversation.

Dagon Akujin
18th October 07, 05:35 PM
I don't really understand what you're trying to communicate.



Stupid Black Man
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/211/455332379_8805cb00e2.jpg

Stupid White Man
http://www.explosm.net/art/void/wigger.jpg

Stupid Black Men
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1277/594945041_d89fefebb8.jpg

Stupid White Men
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/192/522699424_20b6b5ab2d.jpg

Blacks
http://www.fmft.net/archives/gangsta%2013/gangsta%2010.JPG

Whites
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/145828004_c819f2a666.jpg



Any Questions?

Gezere
18th October 07, 05:38 PM
What do all these things have in common?*

- Jenny Coupler
- Mechanical Seed Planter
- Mechanical Corn Harvester
- Microcomputer system with bus control means for peripheral processing devices
- Establishing Blood Banks all over the world
- Egg Beater
- Refrigeration for transport trucks
- Refrigeration for railroad cars
- Portable Pencil Sharpener
- Automatic Lubrication System for railroads and heavy machinery
- Automatic Shoe Making Machine that revolutionized the making of shoes
- Improved the Elevator
- Gas Mask that saved many lives during WWI
- Automatic Traffic Signal
- Sugar Refining System that revolutionized the making of sugar
- First Open Heart Surgery
- Multiplex Telegraph system, allowing messages to be sent/received from moving trains
- Railway Air Brakes that provided the first safe method of stopping trains
- Steam-boiler/radiator
- Third Rail [subway]
- Lemon Squeezer


*List not exhaustive

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
18th October 07, 05:42 PM
they were all made possible by the white gentlemen who gave blacks a free trip to America in return for their labor.

Dagon Akujin
18th October 07, 05:44 PM
- Lemon Squeezer


A total paradigm shift in squeezing technologies.

DAYoung
18th October 07, 06:00 PM
What do all these things have in common?*

- Jenny Coupler
- Mechanical Seed Planter
- Mechanical Corn Harvester
- Microcomputer system with bus control means for peripheral processing devices
- Establishing Blood Banks all over the world
- Egg Beater
- Refrigeration for transport trucks
- Refrigeration for railroad cars
- Portable Pencil Sharpener
- Automatic Lubrication System for railroads and heavy machinery
- Automatic Shoe Making Machine that revolutionized the making of shoes
- Improved the Elevator
- Gas Mask that saved many lives during WWI
- Automatic Traffic Signal
- Sugar Refining System that revolutionized the making of sugar
- First Open Heart Surgery
- Multiplex Telegraph system, allowing messages to be sent/received from moving trains
- Railway Air Brakes that provided the first safe method of stopping trains
- Steam-boiler/radiator
- Third Rail [subway]
- Lemon Squeezer


*List not exhaustive

All stolen from White men by Black carjackers?

Gezere
18th October 07, 06:18 PM
Close but not quite right.

DAYoung
18th October 07, 06:25 PM
Thank God we have you to keep truth alive.

Gezere
18th October 07, 06:28 PM
Thank God we have you to keep truth alive.
Yep. You [email protected] are so lucky.

Zendetta
18th October 07, 06:38 PM
THis thread just went from "Dope" to "Superfly".

Asia, is that Toots in your Av?

ergo
18th October 07, 06:49 PM
It makes sense to me that you're moron.
This is part of the problem. People react emotionally, not rationally. This is no different from a religious nutjob objecting to science because it contradicts his religious convictions.


For a dog?
What do you mean?


D'oh! Cracker, you just lynched yourself with the short rope of anecdotal *snicker* "evidence" *snicker*.
I'm not trying to present any evidence.


Honkey, Please. "Scientific racism" has always been about ideology, long before their was a buzzword like "PC".
Kind of hard to tell. Does the scientist have an ideological agenda, or do people with an ideological agenda want to convince everyone that the scientist has an ideological agenda?


Its official: you are a shitheaded idiot. The white race doesn't want you anymore. You are hearby voted out of the Gated Community.
Yet another emotional kneejerk response.


Mostly, yep. Do your ideology a favor and find some educated african immigrants to talk with. Your prejudices regarding "intelligence" will not endure the conversation.
I don't have an ideology, and I have said on several occasions that there are intelligent Africans.

AAAhmed46
18th October 07, 06:55 PM
Stupid Black Man
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/211/455332379_8805cb00e2.jpg

Stupid White Man
http://www.explosm.net/art/void/wigger.jpg

Stupid Black Men
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1277/594945041_d89fefebb8.jpg

Stupid White Men
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/192/522699424_20b6b5ab2d.jpg

Blacks
http://www.fmft.net/archives/gangsta%2013/gangsta%2010.JPG

Whites
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/145828004_c819f2a666.jpg



Any Questions?


Thread won.

Truculent Sheep
18th October 07, 07:20 PM
Any Questions?

Stupidity is truly a state of mind.

And besides, the real Elephant in the room here is class and ideology:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article326937.ece


Black people are breaking through the class barrier and entering the middle classes at a faster rate than their white counterparts, according to a new study.

Children of Caribbean immigrants who arrived in Britain in the 1960s, along with black Africans, Indians and Chinese are more likely to be have entered the middle class by getting jobs as professionals or managers than working-class whites born here, the study commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found.

But while children from black and Indian families, as well as white migrants, are riding up the social ladder, the predominantly Muslim children of Pakistani and Bangladeshi parents are bucking the trend, according to the study's author, Lucinda Platt, a lecturer from Essex University, with two thirds maintaining the same working class as their parents.

Zendetta
18th October 07, 07:23 PM
Dude, I'd have respect for your promethean blaspemies if you had stopped at your critique of Watson's critics; that was logically viable.

But you followed it up with the naked fallacy of "makes sense to me!". That logic-baby was stillborn.

ergo
18th October 07, 07:29 PM
Dude, I'd have respect for your promethean blaspemies if you had stopped at your critique of Watson's critics; that was logically viable.

But you followed it up with the naked fallacy of "makes sense to me!". That logic-baby was stillborn.
Is this addressed to me? I'm not trying to "prove" anything. It just makes sense to me, and that's it.

Zendetta
18th October 07, 07:37 PM
Yes, it was directed at you. If you are just stating an opinion, then you shouldn't be suprised if you get opinionated replies.

PS - it makes sense to you due to belief, not evidence, as you've clearly admitted. Thats dangerously close to "idealogy" you know.

socratic
18th October 07, 07:43 PM
Is this addressed to me? I'm not trying to "prove" anything. It just makes sense to me, and that's it.

Too bad you're wrong.

Race is a false construct based on culture rather than genetics. As it has been said, Africans and 'blacks' have been placed in a cultural and social environment that is not condusive to overall high performance in academic measures. This of course is a generalisation, there are always exceptions.

End of discussion, back to the lulz.

WarPhalange
18th October 07, 08:00 PM
This is part of the problem. People react emotionally, not rationally. This is no different from a religious nutjob objecting to science because it contradicts his religious convictions.

Except that you really are showing your stupidity by admitting your own ignorance of a subject yet still arguing your position. That's the reason for calling you a moron.



What do you mean?

Forget it.

Someone who can't keep up in a discussion has no right to call someone else stupid.

ergo
18th October 07, 08:32 PM
Yes, it was directed at you. If you are just stating an opinion, then you shouldn't be suprised if you get opinionated replies.

PS - it makes sense to you due to belief, not evidence, as you've clearly admitted. Thats dangerously close to "idealogy" you know.
It's not about belief or ideology, it just makes sense.


Except that you really are showing your stupidity by admitting your own ignorance of a subject yet still arguing your position. That's the reason for calling you a moron.
Where have I admitted my ignorance of the subject?


Forget it.

Someone who can't keep up in a discussion has no right to call someone else stupid.
Someone who can't clearly express himself in a discussion has no right to call someone else stupid (and who have I called stupid, anyway?).

WarPhalange
18th October 07, 09:02 PM
Where have I admitted my ignorance of the subject?


While I am not familiar with any of the science behind his claims, they seem reasonable. Africa has produced almost nothing of value, and it seems that Africans and people of African descent cause chaos and destruction no matter where they go to.


I'm not pretending to offer any proof. It's just something that makes sense to me, especially when I can't come up with a better explanation.


I'm not trying to present any evidence.

I'm not going to be nice to you as long as you keep putting forth claims and not providing any evidence other than "der it makes sense to me!"


Someone who can't clearly express himself in a discussion has no right to call someone else stupid (and who have I called stupid, anyway?).

I am being clear. Everybody else is saying the things I am saying. Yet you keep going "huh?".

ergo
18th October 07, 09:15 PM
I'm not going to be nice to you as long as you keep putting forth claims and not providing any evidence other than "der it makes sense to me!"
I said that I'm not familiar with the claims presented by Watson, which is why I'm not commenting on them. In other words, I am admitting my ignorance of a subject and not talking about it.

And as I have said many times now, I'm not trying to prove anything or provide evidence for anything.


I am being clear. Everybody else is saying the things I am saying. Yet you keep going "huh?".
You weren't being clear at all.

WarPhalange
18th October 07, 09:17 PM
I said that I'm not familiar with the claims presented by Watson, which is why I'm not commenting on them. In other words, I am admitting my ignorance of a subject and not talking about it.

And as I have said many times now, I'm not trying to prove anything or provide evidence for anything.

Yes, but you are still pushing your claims for some retarted reason. You have no proof and you have no fucking clue what the man is talking about. Shut the fuck up.


You weren't being clear at all. I was, actually.

ergo
18th October 07, 09:38 PM
Yes, but you are still pushing your claims for some retarted reason.
Uh, why wouldn't I be?


You have no proof and you have no fucking clue what the man is talking about.
I already told you that a) I'm not attempting to prove anything, and b) I'm not familiar with his work. How many times do I have to repeat these points before you understand them?


Shut the fuck up.
Grow up and stop being such an oversensitive crybaby.


I was, actually.
Then why are you unable to explain what you were talking about?

socratic
18th October 07, 10:17 PM
I already told you that a) I'm not attempting to prove anything, and b) I'm not familiar with his work. How many times do I have to repeat these points before you understand them?

Then stop talking, because by giving your viewpoint that's exactly what you're doing.

Zendetta
18th October 07, 10:21 PM
It's not about belief or ideology, it just makes sense.

Hence the name, huh "ergo"?

WarPhalange
18th October 07, 10:25 PM
Uh, why wouldn't I be?
Because you have no fucking proof.

Opinions require proof. Ask any historian, writer, or philosopher. You can't just say "HAY GUYS, I THINK BLACKS ARE STUPID PROOF ME RONG"

And the best part? When they bombard you with proof, you reply with:

"OKAY BUT WHAT IF HTEY WERE REALLY STUPID???"



I already told you that a) I'm not attempting to prove anything, and b) I'm not familiar with his work. How many times do I have to repeat these points before you understand them?
Shut the fuck up. Your brain is fundamentally broken and you cannot comprehend that what you are doing is completely retarded. You even admit it, and keep doing it thinking you are somehow right for questioning the status quo, COMPLETELY ignoring all the facts and history as to why it became the status quo in the first place. You are a fucking piece of shit.




Then why are you unable to explain what you were talking about?
Because try as I might, I can't explain how a car works to a retard. This is a similar case.

Olorin
18th October 07, 10:37 PM
it's a rational conclusion that Africans are less intelligent than most other people

George Washington Carver says STFU!

http://www.bullshido.net/gallery/data/500/image1.jpg

More African American scientist and inventors...

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmscientists1.html

.

Zendetta
18th October 07, 10:40 PM
LOL. Ergo sets out to not prove that Negroes is Dumber, and winds up getting shut down by a Pollack MetalHead!!!!

Time to call it a day. Marry a Jewish Chick and get some of them danged smart genes into yer algae-caked genepool.

ergo
18th October 07, 10:55 PM
Because you have no fucking proof.
Once again: I have never claimed to have proof, and I'm not here to offer any proof. How hard is this to grasp? How many times must it be repeated?


Opinions require proof. Ask any historian, writer, or philosopher. You can't just say "HAY GUYS, I THINK BLACKS ARE STUPID PROOF ME RONG"
I haven't demanded anyone to prove me wrong.


And the best part? When they bombard you with proof, you reply with:

"OKAY BUT WHAT IF HTEY WERE REALLY STUPID???"
What?


You are a fucking piece of shit.
And you're an emotional, irrational fanatic driven by a madcap ideology of political correctness.


George Washington Carver says STFU!
I have already said on numerous occasions that there are intelligent black people. Why do I constantly have to keep repeating myself?

The bottomline is that a genetic factor explains everything, and I'm not aware of a better explanation (except culture, but that has its own problems). And no, "whitey did it" is not a good explanation, because it's been done to death and it just stems from cultural self-hatred. When everything that's wrong with the universe is always attributed to The Man, the explanation starts to lose some of its credibility.

Zendetta
18th October 07, 11:18 PM
I have already said on numerous occasions that there are intelligent black people. Why do I constantly have to keep repeating myself?

LOL. Bear in mind that I'm only explaining for my amusement; I don't think you are bright enough to get it.

The reason might have something to do with garbage like this:


While I am not familiar with any of the science behind his claims, they seem reasonable. Africa has produced almost nothing of value, and it seems that Africans and people of African descent cause chaos and destruction no matter where they go to.

Contrast what I bolded with:


The bottomline is that a genetic factor explains everything, and I'm not aware of a better explanation (except culture, but that has its own problems).

Its not without irony that your name derives from a celebrated flourish in western intellectual history, but you are apparently dumber than dogshit.

ergo
18th October 07, 11:28 PM
LOL. Bear in mind that I'm only explaining for my amusement; I don't think you are bright enough to get it.

The reason might have something to do with garbage like this:

Contrast what I bolded with:
Do I really have to explain this again? I was referring specifically to his work, not the subject in general. Apparently you guys can't talk about this without constantly making shit up and ignoring what I post.


Its not without irony that your name derives from a celebrated flourish in western intellectual history, but you are apparently dumber than dogshit.
And you, like Poop Loops, are an emotional, irrational fanatic driven by a madcap ideology of political correctness. You're unable to deal with the subject in a calm and rational manner.

AAAhmed46
18th October 07, 11:38 PM
Here is a rational arguement:

You claim that you know little of the role genetics has in if black people are less intellegent then whites.

Yet you state an opinion saying genetics is the only logical conclusion.

But at the same time, you don't understand it.



yet when others bring up different arguements, you don't even address them, you just keep saying that blacks are genetically inferior to whites.

But we supply counter arguements, while you do not. You just repeat your opinion. Thats why people are getting pissed off.



how old are you?

ergo
18th October 07, 11:41 PM
Here is a rational arguement:

You claim that you know little of the role genetics has in if black people are less intellegent then whites.
You're intentionally misrepresenting my position and ignoring what I say. I guess that's the only thing you guys are capable of doing.


yet when others bring up different arguements, you don't even address them, you just keep saying that blacks are genetically inferior to whites.
What different arguments?


But we supply counter arguements, while you do not. You just repeat your opinion. Thats why people are getting pissed off.
Yeah, because calling someone an asshole is a really great counter-argument.


how old are you?
How is this even remotely relevant?

Zendetta
18th October 07, 11:44 PM
We are oppressing you with our PC-ness because you are white, dumbass.


You're intentionally misrepresenting my position and ignoring what I say.

Fine, you oppressed victim you. WHAT the fuck are you trying to say then?

AAAhmed46
18th October 07, 11:47 PM
You're intentionally misrepresenting my position and ignoring what I say. I guess that's the only thing you guys are capable of doing.

Then represent your position. Explain WHY you believe this. All your saying is that you don't have any evidence of lesser intellegence but you just believe it.



What different arguments?
That colonialism destroyed and crapified Africa and African culture, that they barely have schools to learn, much less even know what an IQ test is. that in the united states, they were freed from slavery yes, but walked into freedom in which they were improvished, living in crappy conditions.




Yeah, because calling someone an asshole is a really great counter-argument.

Now your misrepresenting me. I presented arguements that were NOT insults to you. Others insulted you, but mixed up arguments in them.



How is this even remotely relevant?


If your over 50, then i can understand your views, their the views of your generation.

But if you our age, then HUH!?!?

ergo
18th October 07, 11:53 PM
Then represent your position. Explain WHY you believe this. All your saying is that you don't have any evidence of lesser intellegence but you just believe it.
It's the only explanation that really makes sense.


That colonialism destroyed and crapified Africa and African culture, that they barely have schools to learn, much less even know what an IQ test is. that in the united states, they were freed from slavery yes, but walked into freedom in which they were improvished, living in crappy conditions.
I have already stated that "whitey did it" is not a plausible explanation.

AAAhmed46
18th October 07, 11:54 PM
It's the only explanation that really makes sense.

So the fact that many of them go to schools of far lower quality(both american blacks and africans) is NOT logical? That it doesn't make sense? It makes sense to me.

NoMan
19th October 07, 12:02 AM
Stupidity is truly a state of mind.

And besides, the real Elephant in the room here is class and ideology:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article326937.ece

That reminds me to point out that black people from the West Carribean score higher on IQ tests than native whites, and also rise up the corporate ladder faster than whites or blacks here.

That finding has controversial implications. While racism is still alive and well, (Watson apologized for his remarks today after generating a huge outcry, even his publishers didn't defend him), the question is about the difference between racism and discrimination. You might not like black people, you may hate them, but if you run a NBA team, you won't get far without hiring blacks.

So the question is whether there are high rates of racism, or if there are high rates of discrimination. The West Indes example shows that discrimination may fortunately be lower than actual racism.

ergo
19th October 07, 12:12 AM
So the fact that many of them go to schools of far lower quality(both american blacks and africans) is NOT logical? That it doesn't make sense? It makes sense to me.
Genetic factors are the root cause of that.

WarPhalange
19th October 07, 12:24 AM
I hope everybody remembered to neg-rep this guy.

It's not that he's stupid. He admits his ignorance.

It's not that he's racist. He's "trying to get to the bottom of things", which I think should be undertaken no matter what anyone says.

It's that his claims have been disproved repeatedly, he provides no counterproof of his own, but keeps spouting his claim like it would change someone's mind.

A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

ergo
19th October 07, 12:37 AM
I hope everybody remembered to neg-rep this guy.
Are you really this sad and pathetic? You can't do anything except flame and neg rep someone?


It's that his claims have been disproved repeatedly
Uh... where?


he provides no counterproof of his own, but keeps spouting his claim like it would change someone's mind.
No, you simply keep insisting that I'm here to provide proof and change somebody's mind, despite the fact that I have repeatedly said otherwise.


A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Then I guess this thread is full of crazies, seeing as how people constantly repeat falsehoods that I've refuted several times.

That definition is bullshit anyway, since it's entirely possible to repeat an action and get different results. For instance the DVD drive of my 360 will randomly start to make "grinding" noises, even though I always do the same thing (turn on power, insert disc). A piece of software on my laptop will also behave randomly even though the system always boots the same way.

AAAhmed46
19th October 07, 12:38 AM
Genetic factors are the root cause of that.

Not true. Like i said before, there were city states, some more advanced culturally then europian states in Africa.

Blacks don't get the opportunity to go study in better schools most of the time. They were pushed down.

Are you going to say arabs are genetically inferior?

Because there was a time they were (culturally) leading the world. What english and french are today, arabic was during the time of the ummayad dynasty(I SO MISSPELLED THAT) and others.

But today they suck because they got screwed over by the same way the africans were.

But in the past, they were a leading civilization that was the envy of the world.





Africa was just like that, entire cultures, wonderious cultures that existed with them.

WarPhalange
19th October 07, 12:44 AM
Are you really this sad and pathetic? You can't do anything except flame and neg rep someone?

I've done plenty. Your response has always been "nuh uh!!!"


Uh... where?

Read the fucking thread. People tell you that you are WRONG all the time.

WRONG that blacks haven't contributed anything.

WRONG that blacks fuck up everything

WRONG that there is nothing besides genes that can explain their current state in the US and in Africa.



No, you simply keep insisting that I'm here to provide proof and change somebody's mind, despite the fact that I have repeatedly said otherwise.

Then what the fuck do you want? You are making claims. There has to be a reason for that. If you're just trolling, then the neg rep is well deserved.



Then I guess this thread is full of crazies, seeing as how people constantly repeat falsehoods that I've refuted several times.

Uh huh...


That definition is bullshit anyway, since it's entirely possible to repeat an action and get different results. For instance the DVD drive of my 360 will randomly start to make "grinding" noises, even though I always do the same thing (turn on power, insert disc). A piece of software on my laptop will also behave randomly even though the system always boots the same way.

You pressing a button =/= the device starting the same way. It can start on a different gear or simply malfunction if the electronics are faulty. There is plenty that is different every time you turn it on.

ergo
19th October 07, 12:51 AM
Not true. Like i said before, there were city states, some more advanced culturally then europian states in Africa.
Ages ago.


Are you going to say arabs are genetically inferior?
No, their affliction is Islamic in nature.


Read the fucking thread. People tell you that you are WRONG all the time.

WRONG that blacks haven't contributed anything.

WRONG that blacks fuck up everything

WRONG that there is nothing besides genes that can explain their current state in the US and in Africa.
Just because people tell me I'm wrong doesn't actually mean I'm wrong.


Then what the fuck do you want? You are making claims. There has to be a reason for that. If you're just trolling, then the neg rep is well deserved.
And now the inevitable trolling accusations start. Pathetic.


You pressing a button =/= the device starting the same way. It can start on a different gear or simply malfunction if the electronics are faulty. There is plenty that is different every time you turn it on.
I'm performing the same action with different results.

Dagon Akujin
19th October 07, 12:52 AM
Is this addressed to me? I'm not trying to "prove" anything. It just makes sense to me, and that's it.
http://www.jest.com/images/wigger2big.gif

It's not about belief or ideology, it just makes sense.


Where have I admitted my ignorance of the subject?


Someone who can't clearly express himself in a discussion has no right to call someone else stupid (and who have I called stupid, anyway?).
http://media.damnfunnypictures.com/dfp/wigger_ville_17.jpg

I said that I'm not familiar with the claims presented by Watson, which is why I'm not commenting on them. In other words, I am admitting my ignorance of a subject and not talking about it.

And as I have said many times now, I'm not trying to prove anything or provide evidence for anything.


You weren't being clear at all.
http://abekamal.files.wordpress.com/2006/03/stupid_wigger_19.jpg

Once again: I have never claimed to have proof, and I'm not here to offer any proof. How hard is this to grasp? How many times must it be repeated?


I haven't demanded anyone to prove me wrong.


What?


And you're an emotional, irrational fanatic driven by a madcap ideology of political correctness.


I have already said on numerous occasions that there are intelligent black people. Why do I constantly have to keep repeating myself?

The bottomline is that a genetic factor explains everything, and I'm not aware of a better explanation (except culture, but that has its own problems). And no, "whitey did it" is not a good explanation, because it's been done to death and it just stems from cultural self-hatred. When everything that's wrong with the universe is always attributed to The Man, the explanation starts to lose some of its credibility.
http://www.luclin.org/files/cdarz/wigger.jpg

Do I really have to explain this again? I was referring specifically to his work, not the subject in general. Apparently you guys can't talk about this without constantly making shit up and ignoring what I post.


And you, like Poop Loops, are an emotional, irrational fanatic driven by a madcap ideology of political correctness. You're unable to deal with the subject in a calm and rational manner.
http://www.motleycrow.com/ImageHost/gangsta1.jpeg

It's the only explanation that really makes sense.


I have already stated that "whitey did it" is not a plausible explanation.
Neg-repped for making this statement again. That's like saying "History is completely not important and we can learn nothing from it."
http://spazm.org/misc/retard.jpg

Genetic factors are the root cause of that.
http://www.movv.com/prvupload/uploads/super_retard_stfu.jpg

ergo
19th October 07, 01:02 AM
Neg-repped for making this statement again. That's like saying "History is completely not important and we can learn nothing from it."
No, it's more like saying that "whitey did it" is not a plausible explanation because apparently whitey is now responsible for every single thing that's wrong with the world, and non-whites are never ever responsible for anything that happens to them. It's kind of similiar to how self-proclaimed anti-racists have abused the word "racism" to the point where it no longer means anything.

As for your childish image spamming, I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. I'm assuming you simply can't come up with any real responses.

WarPhalange
19th October 07, 01:12 AM
No, it's more like saying that "whitey did it" is not a plausible explanation because apparently whitey is now responsible for every single thing that's wrong with the world, and non-whites are never ever responsible for anything that happens to them. It's kind of similiar to how self-proclaimed anti-racists have abused the word "racism" to the point where it no longer means anything.

Umm.... do you know anything about history?

Tell me what exactly are blacks responsible for in their own downfall in any region.

Will you find one? Of course. Just like there are shitty predominantly white and Asian countries, there are prodominantly black countries that are shit by themselves.

The majority of it, though, stems from colonialism, exploitation, slavery, and racist laws. Now it's moving towards gangsta culture, which is their own downfall, but you can hardly say the past is meaningless.

ergo
19th October 07, 01:15 AM
As I already stated, "whitey did it" is not a plausible explanation, in much the same way that "racism" doesn't mean anything.

WarPhalange
19th October 07, 01:20 AM
As I already stated, "whitey did it" is not a plausible explanation, in much the same way that "racism" doesn't mean anything.
This is why you are repeatedly called a moron. You are ignoring a huge chunk of history on a whim.

"HAY GUYZ I WANT TO BEKOM A GOOD MAIST BUT ID ON'T WAN T TO WORK HARD. HOW CAN I BECOME DEADLY/"

This is what you are doing. You are barring the true answer for NO good reason, despite proof that it's true.

You are saying you don't know anything about genes, but it can't be someone else's fault, so it must be genes. How fucked up is that?

ironlurker
19th October 07, 01:20 AM
quote=AAAhmed46]
Africa was just like that, entire cultures, wonderious cultures that existed with them.[/quote]

It's interesting to read the history of how Egypt became part of "Western civilization" and its african-ness was truncated. A kid reads about Egypt in Ancient History class as a "western" country then doesn't hear about blacks again until the civil war. Egyptian, the original language, is Hamitic, and probably originated in the western Sahara.

To say all Egyptians were "black" in the sense of a sub-saharan African might not be true, but they weren't "white" in the sense of modern Americans/Europeans. The Nubian empire (constantly at war with Egypt) had incredible architecture and other forms of civilization. Let's not forget Ethiopia, the only African country never colonised (although occupied prior/during WWII), with dynasties of incredible length, its own church, etc. Muhammad's followers fled to Ethiopia in comparison to which even Mecca was somewhat of a backwater.

A couple of reasons for "Africa's backwardness" (once you cut out Egypt, other North African countries, etc.)

1- Geography/Transportation a) in the form of the Sahara as a barrier to the Mediterranean (to speak of "European civilization" before a certain point is totally misleading- it was mediterranean civilization) and b) few large ports, historically and even today (big issue with international development). Even at the height of the slave trade, there were only a few ports used by Europeans.

2- Slavery- Between tribes, between Arabs and Blacks, and between Europeans and Blacks. It basically sinks the hostage population.

With the Sahara as (an albeit not impenetrable) barrier, access to other civilizations after the rise of Islam mainly happened along the Eastern coast, where trading/fighting the Muslims usually eventually meant absorption with them. So if you say Islam /= African, you cut out a whole swath of activity and trade.

and yes, 3-Colonialism which exaggerated the impact of 1 and 2. A traveller to Mozambique once told me that all of the main roads, built by the portuguese, run east-west with no connections between them, existing only to basically suck out resources. Read about Cecil Rhodes, for example, and it's some fucked up stuff.

In modern times, you have the effect of a huge "brain drain"; in many countries those with education and/or money leave. The Nigerian guy driving your taxi might have an MD or PhD. This doesn't help either.

AAAhmed46
19th October 07, 01:25 AM
Ergo, read what lurker wrote.

ergo
19th October 07, 01:29 AM
I'm done with this thread, since it's apparently impossible for people to say anything without flaming and intentionally misrepresenting me even though I've corrected them a million times.

AAAhmed46
19th October 07, 01:29 AM
In modern times, you have the effect of a huge "brain drain"; in many countries those with education and/or money leave. The Nigerian guy driving your taxi might have an MD or PhD. This doesn't help either.

Ive met tons of guys like that in my mosque.

AAAhmed46
19th October 07, 01:30 AM
I'm done with this thread, since it's apparently impossible for people to say anything without flaming and intentionally misrepresenting me even though I've corrected them a million times.


Iron lurker just gave you a VERY detailed response.

Adakar
19th October 07, 01:49 AM
I'm fairly certain that mankind as a whole does not know nearly enough about the human mind that that it can claims to know the genetic cause of intellegence. We barely know how the mind functions let alone the genetic basis for it. Even considering that intellegence is a continuous trait like height or weight, not a discrete one like eye colour or blood type. Like other traits it can and will be affected by an individual's environment. It follows a bell type curve. Around the time of the Egyptians who was more advanced then them? The Chinese were the most advanced and powerful civilization on the planet until the renisence(sp*). During the middle ages Arabic thinkers provided many new mathamatical and astrological concepts/advances. Europeans have had both early intellectual success and recent success as well. It should be clear that intellegence becomes widespread in a society that allows it to fluorish or one that has use for it. Once a society becomes stifling to its development it eventually disappears.

It is very possible that there is a genetic basis for intellegence. It is also possible that those of African origin are pre dispossed to have lower intellegence but it is equally as possible that they are predisossed to have higher intellegence. It may also be possible that we only have the genetic ability to learn and that we gain our intellegence through our experience. Having a society with smarter people doesn't guarantee a more successful society. Seemingly smart people allowed Hitler to rise to power, the dark ages were a period of intellectual stagnation in Europe. A people's growth can easily be held back by their society.

So not only do we not know enough about genetics, intellegence, or its genetic basis, the genetic distinction seems to be irrelevent as an individual of any race can be shown to have varying levels of intellegence with the corresponding environment.

ironlurker
19th October 07, 01:51 AM
And you, like Poop Loops, are an emotional, irrational fanatic driven by a madcap ideology of political correctness. You're unable to deal with the subject in a calm and rational manner.

I don't think most people here are motivated in their postings by political correctness, even if they're leftists.

The knee-jerk reaction is to the fact that someone can make a statement about an abstracted, selectively defined, quality concerning literally tens of millions of people.

But just so you don't think I'm politically correct, I'll play along, because the subject was discussed with me once in a very interesting manner.

When the Bell Curve came out, I was taking a political philosophy course with an African-American professor. Before the class began, everyone was talking about how horrible it was, racist, etc.

The professor said "So what?" No one knew what he meant. He said "So what if it was true? What would be different, how would it matter?" He was deliberately trying to be provocative. His point was, he explained, that even if there was somehow some small difference in "intelligence" (making the huge assumption that it can be easily defined and measured) it would still be a massive generalization and obvious examples show that many individuals (thanks for all the lectures on the peanut-Ice Cube in The Predator liner notes) are as smart or smarter than anyone else.

So, even in magical theory land/hard-nosed politically incorrect land, saying this means much would be like saying "look, studies have proven women aren't as strong as men, it's a waste of time to train them to fight"

Dagon Akujin
19th October 07, 02:29 AM
Some further reading, ergo, so that you can be more informed:


Improving IQ
The black/white IQ gap is largely genetically caused. (http://www.members.cox.net/dagershaw/lol/IQImprove.html)
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_test)

Also, does anyone know where to get that story of the black kid whose IQ jumped significantly after being taken out of the ghetto and raised in an upper-middle class white neighborhood? I can't seem to find it and I remember reading it in the past year.

Dagon

Cullion
19th October 07, 03:03 AM
Oh we're taking this seriously now?

Alright, some thoughts;-

1) IQ-test results go up with practice.

2) I don't believe that the broad range of human cognitive aptitudes is welll described by a single number.

3) However, there's no reason to assume that 'intelligence' doesn't have some genetic component, and no reason to assume that it can't correlate with ethnic group.

4) 'Black Africans' are more genetically diverse than europeans and asians. There's a much wider range of phenotypes in sub-saharan Africa, they just all happen to have black skin because it's good protection against the sun.

5) IQ test scores by nation show the scottish having higher average IQ than the Irish, but they're essentially the same genetic stock seperated by a couple of thousand years and a small sea crossing.

6) None of this crap would matter if the govt. and people in general concerned themselves with individuals instead of group-think. The IQ variance between individuals is far more significant than the difference between ethnic groups.

That professor had it right on the nail when he said 'so what?'.

bob
19th October 07, 07:09 AM
I believe that ergo is not the user name of a rather sheltered, shy, essentially fearful boy in his parent's basement. It is in fact the real name of an evolved species of parasitic hallucinogenic fungus that has learned to post on the internet via a complicated electrical/mechanical interaction with the keyboard.

We are being trolled by a psychadelic mushroom.

I have no proof of this, nor do I understand it. However it seems to be the simplest explanation for the available data.

Gezere
19th October 07, 09:01 AM
THis thread just went from "Dope" to "Superfly".

Asia, is that Toots in your Av?
No. What you think all black pple look alike!?!?!?!?!?!?

Cullion
19th October 07, 09:30 AM
No. What you think all black pple look alike!?!?!?!?!?!?

No. Beyonce doesn't have a moustache.

Commodore Pipes
19th October 07, 09:59 AM
As I already stated, "whitey did it" is not a plausible explanation, in much the same way that "racism" doesn't mean anything.

Sure, you 'stated' it, but did you give evidence for it?Are you the only one who can make a claim and not need evidence?

Oh, wait, is this your explanation?


No, it's more like saying that "whitey did it" is not a plausible explanation because apparently whitey is now responsible for every single thing that's wrong with the world, and non-whites are never ever responsible for anything that happens to them. It's kind of similiar to how self-proclaimed anti-racists have abused the word "racism" to the point where it no longer means anything.



Gosh, that really cleared things up! What else do the Turner Diaries have to say?

Gezere
19th October 07, 10:54 AM
No. Beyonce doesn't have a moustache.
Stop pretending that you were looking at her face.

Cullion
19th October 07, 11:27 AM
Stop pretending that you were looking at her face.

That's a fair point. My feelings are still a bit hurt about the small dick comment to be honest.

ironlurker
19th October 07, 11:49 AM
Well, he just got suspended from his job:


LONDON, England (CNN) -- Nobel laureate biologist James Watson was suspended Friday from his longtime post at a research laboratory and canceled his planned British book tour after controversial comments that black people are not as intelligent as white people.
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/TECH/science/10/19/uk.race/art.watson.jpgJames Watson won the 1962 Nobel prize for discovering the structure of DNA.

Watson has apologized for the controversial remarks.
He failed to appear to a book signing at a London bookshop Friday afternoon, and organizers of his planned Sunday evening talk at Newcastle's Center for Life said they had been informed Watson would not appear because he was already on a flight home to the States.
The board of trustees at New York's Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, which Watson has led for nearly four decades, said they had suspended his administrative responsibilities pending a review of his comments.
Watson, 79, an American who won the 1962 Nobel prize for his role in discovering the double-helix structure of DNA, apologized Thursday for his remarks -- but not before London's Science Museum canceled his talk there, planned for Friday evening.
The museum said Watson's words had "gone beyond the point of acceptable debate."
The controvery began with an October 14 interview Watson gave to the Sunday Times, which quoted him saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really."
Watson also asserted there was no reason to believe different races separated by geography should have evolved identically, and he said that while he hoped everyone was equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true."
The biologist apologized "unreservedly" Thursday for his comments and said he was "mortified" by the words attributed to him.
"I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said," [lol, "I never said all of those things I said" Yogi Berra] Watson said during an appearance at the Royal Society in London. "I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways that they have."
"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."
Watson was expected to sign copies of his new book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science, at Blackwell bookshop in central London Friday afternoon but failed to appear. Soon afterward, a spokeswoman for the Center for Life in Newcastle, where Watson was expected to speak Sunday night, said they had been told Watson was canceling all speaking engagements and was already flying home.
Center spokeswoman Julia Hankin said they were disappointed.
"We welcomed the opportunity to discuss his controversial comments," Hankin said. "We had hoped for a rigorous and lively debate."
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the institute on New York's Long Island which Watson has headed since 1968, confirmed it had suspended his responsibilities as chancellor "pending further deliberation by the board."
It said the board publicly disagreed with the comments attributed to Watson in the Sunday Times.
Late Thursday, The 1990 Trust, a British civil rights group, called for a boycott of Watson's books and pressure to be put on venues to cancel his planned appearances.
Watson's remarks to the Sunday Times were but the latest controversial comments from the eminent biologist.
In 1997, Britain's Sunday Telegraph quoted Watson as saying that if a gene for homosexuality were isolated, women who find that their unborn child has the gene should be allowed to have an abortion.
During a lecture tour in 2000, he suggested there might be links between skin color and sexual prowess and between a person's weight and their level of ambition.
And in a British TV documentary that aired in 2003, Watson suggested that stupidity was a genetic disease that should be treated.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/19/uk.race/

The whole evolution thing is retarded. Homo sapiens sapiens went through a genetic bottleneck about only 50,000 years ago and all humans alive today are the descendants of a relatively small group (likely the survivors of a massive volcanic explosion that caused a nuclear-winter type effect for several years). When I studied physical anthropology, they told us that there are so many commonalities you could basically "reconstruct" every "race" or "ethnicity" on Earth from a few hundred people at most, even from within the same isolated population.

If I remember correctly, there are at least eight totally different genes that determine skin color, so I wonder which particular one (or combination of those 10 to the whatever possibilities) is the stupid one.

BTW, IMHO a large part of seemingly enduring phenotypes (such as the "races") are actually caused by selective breeding/self-selection on cultural bases. If you live in an agragrian society with strong family ties, you're going to marry a member of the same tribe/clan. If you are a trader/warrior/slaver, you're likely to mix more through captives or the people you live with to trade. But add in an ideology "we are the members of the X nation/tribe, you are subhuman/barbarian", and you're dealing with segregation and self-segregation. Not natural selection.

How does everyone feel about him getting suspended?

edit- ironically enough, the Cold Springs research institute was founded by Charles Bendedict Davenport, one of the biggest leaders of eugenics in the early 20th century and an inspiration for the Nazis. He was famous for advocating/planning sterilization and his book Race Crossing in Jamaica, which scientifically explained how "mixing" caused biological and mental degeneration

Cullion
19th October 07, 12:25 PM
Perhaps he really doesn't remember saying it, but the disembodied soul of Heinrich Himmler is trying to possess his body. Imagine how embarrassing that could be.

fes_fsa
19th October 07, 12:31 PM
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/TECH/science/10/19/uk.race/art.watson.jpg

I R TEH ARYUN!!!

fes_fsa
19th October 07, 01:04 PM
In 1997, Britain's Sunday Telegraph quoted Watson as saying that if a gene for homosexuality were isolated, women who find that their unborn child has the gene should be allowed to have an abortion.

ooh... i remember that. it sparked quite a debate.

the original quote >>>Dr. James Watson, 68, who helped discover DNA, reportedly told the London Sunday Telegraph: "If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn't want a homosexual child, well, let her (abort the fetus)."
Catholic World News, News Brief 02/17/1997<<<<<


During a lecture tour in 2000, he suggested there might be links between skin color and sexual prowess and between a person's weight and their level of ambition.

what's the problem with blacks? they die too easily, whether it's from crime, poverty, disease, etc.,

who has the most sexual prowess? blacks. they HAVE to in order for their genes to survive.

and weight and ambition? it doesn't take a scientist to call someone a lazy FAT bastard.

Shawarma
19th October 07, 01:07 PM
How do you measure "Sexual Prowess" scientifically? Do you have a fuckometer or something?

fes_fsa
19th October 07, 01:10 PM
How do you measure "Sexual Prowess" scientifically? Do you have a fuckometer or something?

duh. word of mouth.

ironlurker
19th October 07, 02:13 PM
How do you measure "Sexual Prowess" scientifically? Do you have a fuckometer or something?

must make for an interesting grant application

Cullion
19th October 07, 02:32 PM
I can see where he's goiing with this.

Slim vs fat, fecund vs low sexual appetite, fair complexion vs. Dark

Relax everybody, he was talking about Orcs vs. Elves, not people.

As a Tolkien fan, I agree.

P.S. I still want Asia to take back that small dick comment.

DAYoung
19th October 07, 02:41 PM
^ Calls his penis 'little Britain'.

Cullion
19th October 07, 02:51 PM
Actually you measure sexual prowess by the number of different mothers by which you've sired children. Wealthy arabian muslims and old-skool mormons are clearly winning on this score.

It's because of the giant dicks you see.

DAYoung
19th October 07, 02:53 PM
Is 'Cullion' Elvish for 'thimble'?

Cullion
19th October 07, 03:19 PM
If you could see my face right now you wouldn't have typed that.

Zendetta
19th October 07, 03:20 PM
What you think all black pple look alike!?!?!?!?!?!?

They do look alike (especially in that jacket)!

Us White Devils have to categorize by hairdo to know who to oppress most.

Afro - dangerous Nubian Warrior. Oppress Immediately!
Dredlocks - potential militant, ganja smoker - pull him over and check his car.
Bald - probably a Black muslem, check for bowtie before oppressing.
Jerry Curl - spirit already broken, no need for further oppression.

fes_fsa
19th October 07, 03:35 PM
what about corn rows?

or... the Turbo?
http://www.geocities.com/breakin2boogaloo/turbo.JPG

Zendetta
19th October 07, 03:36 PM
Cornrows go straight to the Detention Center.

The Turbo goes straight to the Minstrel Show.

Or was that the other way around?

fes_fsa
19th October 07, 03:40 PM
what about the dred scott?

or the aunt jemimas (do rags)?

DAYoung
19th October 07, 03:50 PM
If you could see my face right now you wouldn't have typed that.

Do tell.

Cullion
19th October 07, 04:26 PM
Do tell.

It's not pretty watching a grown man cry.

DAYoung
19th October 07, 04:52 PM
It's not pretty watching a grown man cry.

I'm very sorry. I'm sure it's a good size.

In fact, with your control of chi, I'm sure size doesn't matter anyway.

NoMan
19th October 07, 05:32 PM
must make for an interesting grant application

Physical anthropologists have indeed studied the penis, and the balls. And studied them in various insects too. To quote myself on a different thread:

Dick size certainly has quite a bit to do with the advantage of being closer to the ovum. Testicle size is well correlated wtih multiple-partner animals and sperm production. Small list includes herons, sparrows, most seabirds, bank swallows and cliff swallows. They live in large colonies which allows females to seduce other males within, thus leading to sperm competition. For males of the human
species, the female vagina is another link to human penis size, (correlating with the size of the baby coming out), but even people with baby dicks can still impregnate. If you want another source, try the article in Science Now, "The Race for Solid Semen":


"It's not unusual for female primates to mate with more than one male
in rapid succession. In response, males have evolved large testes that
make voluminous ejaculates of sperm and cocktails of proteins. One of
those proteins, called semenogelin, coagulates into a kind of vaginal
plug (gelatinous in humans, solid in chimps) that keeps out sperm from
the female's subsequent suitors. But another ingredient, an enzyme that
rides in the front part of the ejaculate, can breach the plug."

Another group, the Reproductive Biology Unit of the U.K.'s Medical Research Council found that estrogen mimicking chemicals cause a loss of testicle size and sperm count. They seem to go fairly well together, but since working with human testes is a sticky issue, (I'm punny), the work done there is minimal. Rushton's results (Editor's note: Phillipe Rushton proposed that gametes and I.Q. were at a biological arms race, he's one of the more famous racist scientists), were banned by his college whenever he gave I.Q. tests to different students of racial background and examined their penis/ball size to correlate I.Q. with cock size.

On the Editor's Choice for Science magazine, 02/16/2001:


" Strength in numbers is key: males that produce more sperm tend to achieve more fertilizations in these contests. Theory predicts that larger testis size should evolve where the risk of sperm competition is greatest. Hosken and Ward test this prediction in the yellow dung fly Scathophaga stercoraria, a
species which is to sperm competition what Drosophila is to genetics.
Flies were bred for ten generations in either polygamous (polyandrous)
or monogamous conditions. Under polyandrous conditions, where sperm
competition was greater, there was, independent of body size, an
increase in testis size"

So yes, there are studies of the penis being done by scientists.

AAAhmed46
19th October 07, 05:40 PM
So now were talking about penises.

TM
20th October 07, 11:15 AM
If this doesn't make perfect sense, www.genographic.com (http://www.genographic.com) then folks should just give up on logic.

Gezere
20th October 07, 11:56 AM
How do you measure "Sexual Prowess" scientifically? Do you have a fuckometer or something?
Only white pple ask such a thing.

Lets also remember. White pple try to learn to speak KLINGON and they are looked at as basement dwelling pussyless dweebs

Black pple will speak slang and get a multi million dollar record deal.

Cullion
20th October 07, 06:52 PM
The biggest record deals have all been swung by white men, like Led Zeppelin. It's because black people don't have the same instinct for wailing on a guitar. Except for Jimi Hendrix, but he doesn't really count because he was part native american, and because the black community still owes us for what you did to that poor Vanilla Ice guy.

I mean seriously, that was fucking cruel.

jubei33
20th October 07, 06:59 PM
Dick size certainly has quite a bit to do with the advantage of being closer to the ovum. Testicle size is well correlated wtih multiple-partner animals and sperm production. Small list includes herons, sparrows, most seabirds, bank swallows and cliff swallows. They live in large colonies which allows females to seduce other males within, thus leading to sperm competition. For males of the human
species, the female vagina is another link to human penis size, (correlating with the size of the baby coming out), but even people with baby dicks can still impregnate. If you want another source, try the article in Science Now, "The Race for Solid Semen":


This sounds like D.P. Barash's work on mountain bluebirds. It is a plausible, lovely story...


Vanilla Ice? Cullion, you need to take a toothbrush and floss to those ears, sir.

twKoxinga
20th October 07, 08:41 PM
In Guns Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond actually never says that Native New Guineans are genetically smarter, but that their intelligence is used in different ways, and he perceived them as being very intelligent. Learn to read, its the same point that half of the posters here are making.

I'm going to use ergo reasoning for a second here and say that, White people are less intelligent than Asian's because we're so fucking smart that we have affirmative action work against us to help the White people, and that we are a more reasonable people because there are many people like ergo who use a pot calling the kettle black attitude when it comes to presenting evidence about how their racism is justified.

bob
20th October 07, 08:47 PM
I'm betting ergo didn't get past the first chapter of Guns, Germs and Steel.

TM
21st October 07, 11:00 AM
The biggest record deals have all been swung by white men, like Led Zeppelin. It's because black people don't have the same instinct for wailing on a guitar. Except for Jimi Hendrix, but he doesn't really count because he was part native american, and because the black community still owes us for what you did to that poor Vanilla Ice guy.

I mean seriously, that was fucking cruel.

What? You mean letting him live?

Cullion
21st October 07, 06:08 PM
Letting him think he was on the right path just by appearing in his videos. I know he had money to throw around from his dad, but come on people, this isn't right:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxN_pbMOFk0

DAYoung
21st October 07, 06:21 PM
"Jay with a gauge and Vanilla with a nine."

Now that's funny.

Arhetton
22nd October 07, 04:27 PM
If you have I-tunes

Go to

I-Tunes Store> I-TunesU (I-Tunes universities)>MIT>BIOLOGY>Introduction to Biology, Fall 2004 - video > then download Lecture 35 - the future of biology.

The professor running the course discusses this subject in particular (re-emergence of something like eugenics), he also highlights the history of the Nazi's and fills in a little more of the background

Free download from I-Tunes (90 megs or so - Video) You can get audio feeds too.

jubei33
22nd October 07, 06:14 PM
you can also get just a ton of their other courses on their online courses website. you can find more info here:
http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1252722#post1252722

and a direct link to the course pages:
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/course....htm#Chemistry

that ones set for chemistry, but you can search for whatever.

SpringHeeledJack
11th December 07, 11:23 PM
The story takes an interesting turn:




News that geneticist James Watson inherited 16 percent of his DNA from an African ancestor may provide the Nobel Prize winner with a new perspective on his ancestry.

But experts Monday said the percentage of Watson's DNA possibly contributed by someone of African descent illustrates that race is a counterfeit concept, having more to do with social notions than biological ones. Many people are unaware of their DNA links to cultures worldwide.

Watson disparaged the intelligence of Africans in a series of remarks two months ago, and as a result lost book-promotion engagements and resigned under a cloud as Chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Scientists at deCode Genetics, the highly respected enterprise of gene-trackers in Reykjavik, Iceland, used Watson's genome, which he had posted online, to plumb his ancestral roots. Tucked in his DNA was a story never told -- at least not in his biographies.


Watson did not return Newsday's telephone calls Monday. DNA-trackers say African genes are not rare among Caucasians. "I am Caucasian but I have about 8 percent sub-Saharan African heritage and my family originates from Alsace-Lorraine," said Richard Gabriel, chief operating officer of DNAPrint Genomics in Sarasota, Fla. Alsace-Lorraine is the region in France that borders the Rhine River and the Vosges Mountains. Gabriel's company scans DNA to illuminate virtually anyone's genetic dowry.


"I don't know what deCode's methodology is but we want to look at his DNA to see if we can replicate the finding," Gabriel said. He thinks a 16 percent contribution of African genes is somewhat higher than would be found among most Caucasians in the United States.

However, Dr. Rick Kittles, a medical geneticist at the University of Chicago and one of the pioneers in ancestral gene searches, said a 16 percent inheritance of African genes does not strike him as high. Kittles, a Central Islip native who, ethnically is African American, has scanned his own genes and found he is 16 percent European.

"Genes flow through populations, and they reflect who we truly are," said Kittles, who is co-founder of African Ancestry, a Washington, D.C.-based company that helps African Americans find where their ancestors originated.

Race, Kittles said, is a social concept not a biological one, and that the genes of many ethnicities flow through individuals who identify with one or another race.

Watson has a Midwestern background, Kittles said, and the social flux of earlier centuries brought people of many backgrounds together as that region was settled. Stories about the ancestor may have left family lore, he said, but traces of that person still can be revealed in the DNA.

Kittles finds humor in Watson's genes. "I laughed. It was funny because it brings back this whole issue of the African experience in America. This guy, who's considered a genius and discovered the structure of DNA, can make very sad statements about genetics and IQ. And the funny thing is that a significant portion of his genome is from the people he insulted."


Link (http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hswats1211,0,3398555.story)

__________________________________________________ ______

Well, that explains it. Clearly, his black genes are responsible for the part of him that's so stupid.

FriendlyFire
28th December 07, 01:38 AM
The thing is, he based everything he said from actual test results. And pretty much everyone else just raved back "Your racist".

I am not saying this means blacks are actually less intelligant, it could be culture, education ext. Even if they were, the gap still leaves very large overlaps, so you could never define an individual by it. Finally as races mix more it becomes almost a non-issue.

Regardless, let's throw out facts because they seem racist rather then solving why they are that way. It is a god damn shame in a supposedly civilized society a top scientist is ruined for saying the most obvious conclusion from results of hundreds of the same surveys and test.

Steve
28th December 07, 03:37 AM
The thing is, he based everything he said from actual test results. And pretty much everyone else just raved back "Your racist".

That should be "you're", not "your".


I am not saying this means blacks are actually less intelligant, it could be culture, education ext. Even if they were, the gap still leaves very large overlaps, so you could never define an individual by it. Finally as races mix more it becomes almost a non-issue.

You do know that intelligant is not a word? I can agree with you in the fact that "blacks" (as you put it) can't be defined by that word. Intelligent was the word you were looking for?


Regardless, let's throw out facts because they seem racist rather then solving why they are that way. It is a god damn shame in a supposedly civilized society a top scientist is ruined for saying the most obvious conclusion from results of hundreds of the same surveys and test.

Nice to meet you, you racist fuck.

WarPhalange
28th December 07, 03:50 AM
The thing is, he based everything he said from actual test results. And pretty much everyone else just raved back "Your racist".

Test results don't determine why they are that way.

He had no GENETIC EVIDENCE to say that blacks are stupid. Test scores are a result of a lot of things, including upbringing. I would say that the average black person's upbringing in the US is worse off than the average white person's.


I am not saying this means blacks are actually less intelligant, it could be culture, education ext. Even if they were, the gap still leaves very large overlaps, so you could never define an individual by it. Finally as races mix more it becomes almost a non-issue.

You just said it could be from a variety of reasons. This is why saying "it's becuase of race" is bogus. Especially coming from him. If he had found the gene that determines intelligence is based on race, then he would be right. He didn't. He didn't have ANYTHING.


Regardless, let's throw out facts because they seem racist rather then solving why they are that way. It is a god damn shame in a supposedly civilized society a top scientist is ruined for saying the most obvious conclusion from results of hundreds of the same surveys and test.

Facts are a dime a dozen. They're just observations. What's important is the theory, the reason why we see these facts.

His reasoning for seeing these facts was baseless.

Cullion
28th December 07, 04:35 AM
Africans are more genetically diverse than Europeans, it's just that many Africans happen to share the same adaptation to protect them from sunburn.

Look how different a Masai is from a Xhosa.

It doesn't make sense to talk about 'african' or 'black' traits.

Besides, it doesn't matter whether books like 'The Bell Curve' are telling the truth or not if you treat people as individuals.

jubei33
28th December 07, 08:00 AM
what happened to our resident white supremists? you'd think they'd be all creaming their jeans with this thread, pulling out all the ontogeny and phylogenies...it'd be like a bullshit waterfall.

Toby Christensen
28th December 07, 12:19 PM
The whole notion of a white "race" makes me snigger. I know Celtic people (especially Irish) who would take your head off for calling them English and not apologising.

Cullion
28th December 07, 02:11 PM
You're confusing the concept of nation with the concept of race.

Greyfox
28th December 07, 02:17 PM
'Race' is one of the most ridiculous and irrelevant concepts to plague everyday life. The idea that black people are stupider because on average they score lower on IQ tests - so ridiculous, I don't know where to begin.

Things like this make the baby Hitler laugh.

WarPhalange
28th December 07, 02:26 PM
The whole notion of a white "race" makes me snigger.

You racist piece of sh... oh.... Oh. Nevermind.


I know Celtic people (especially Irish) who would take your head off for calling them English and not apologising.

Nationalism is even dumber than racism. At least with racism you can say "they look different, therefore they are bad." With nationalism you can't tell unless you talk to them or even look at their passport.

It's bad no matter what country you are from, but being an Irish nationalist? Are you fucking serious? You're "proud" of that tiny island? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Cullion
28th December 07, 02:29 PM
I've got a little bit of advice for you when you come to Europe. If you stop over in Dublin to enjoy a few beers, you'll have a great time as long as you don't say stuff like that.

Greyfox
28th December 07, 02:30 PM
Nationalism is even dumber than racism. At least with racism you can say "they look different, therefore they are bad." With nationalism you can't tell unless you talk to them or even look at their passport.
Quoted
For
Truth

WarPhalange
28th December 07, 02:38 PM
If you stop over in Dublin to enjoy a few beers, you'll have a great time as long as you don't say stuff like that.

I'll take that advise if I ever start enjoying beer.

But I guess it wouldn't help any that I have an American accent, either, huh?

Greyfox
28th December 07, 02:41 PM
I'll take that advise if I ever start enjoying beer.

But I guess it wouldn't help any that I have an American accent, either, huh?
As long as you don't harp on about how your great-great-grandmother once spoke to someone from Ireland (thus making you Irish), then you'll be fine.

WarPhalange
28th December 07, 03:25 PM
I hate those people even more.

"LOL I have a joke: All Poles are shitheads. No, dude, it's okay, my great great great half-brother was a quarter Polish, so it's okay."

It seems that everybody you talk to is part Polish or part Cherokee.

Cullion
28th December 07, 03:57 PM
An american accent is no problem in Ireland. Being American is unlikely to get more than a friendly joke about America/George Bush/McDonalds n most of Europe. You might get the occasional person trying to overcharge because they assume American=Rich

downinit
28th December 07, 06:12 PM
I'd hate to disappoint everyone by not chiming in on this thread (I certainly won't bother to read all of the preceding posts though), so here it goes...

While I recognize that the most parsimonious explanation for racial differences in IQ is that there are indeed genetically-based intellectual differences between racial groupings (few correlations have been tested more thoroughly--neither upbringing nor stereotype threat can fully account such differences), I also recognize that there is a potential adaptive value in denying this fact for the sake of maintaining societal order and amicable group relations. So while I think you guys are steering clear of a logical inference by denying the genetic basis for such differences, I also think you're making the socially adaptive choice. On this I congratulate you, and although I'm far too dedicated to the pursuit of truth to deny such differences privately, I will happily proclaim such correlations inconclusive in public for the sake of maintaining both my own livelihood (unlike poor Watson) and the order of society as a whole.

What we have to keep in mind is that no matter what we announce publicly, these differences will mostly continue to exist. Black people will--on average--gravitate towards the lower stratum of society regardless of whether we pretend they're geniuses or treat them as retards. The key difference between these situations is that the former would allow us to get along peaceably, while the latter may lead to needless violence and unrest. Our only duty is to remove barriers and treat all groups equally, so that we can let natural selection effectively take care of things.

Of course, this means explictly maladaptive social policies like affirmative action will have to be removed in order to ensure that these processes can function properly. Fortunately, such programs appear to be on the decline. In order to eliminate these programs without resistance, it will be essential to frame their removal positively (equality for all), rather than negatively (these groups aren't intelligent enough to hold an equal position in society). This is where poor Watson went wrong.

Some here mocked the concept of race as a whole and extolled the fact that such differences will be eliminated with increased racial mixing. Ultimately, what will happen though is that these differences will become within-group differences rather than between group differences. That is, the people who are 75% Black will be less intelligent, on average, than those who are 25% Black, and so on. The fact is, though--assuming increased intelligence is favourable for survival--the amount of African ancestry in the population should decrease over a large timespan. Ultimately--given a long enough period of time--this problem should take care of itself. Meanwhile, if the large majority of the population continues to deny that any racial differences in intellect exist, society can advance without intergroup tensions boiling over.

It's a win-win situation for all of us. :)

FriendlyFire
28th December 07, 06:28 PM
Good post downinit

First off, increased intelligence is no longer favourable. Typically, intelligent people have responsible jobs, get married, have 1 or two kids at most. The people who live off welfare (Dumbasses) are far more likely to have multiple illegitimate children. So actually, in society right now the less intelligent genes are reproducing more. The only way to change that, without maniuplating genes or a eugenics program, would be to let natural selection to function again. (Poor people would die)

Secondly, ignoring the facts is not a socially adaptable choice. Here is the thing, this doesn't really affect racism. Disproving it will not make the skin heads go "Sorry our bad" and grow back there mullets. Proving it is genetic will not make me call the black people I know inferior and stop interacting with them. This will not change wether people are racist or not. Anyone who is not racist will know that an average over a population is not enough to judge and individual by.

Finally, I feel bad for ergo. He was actually right and was just bsed by multiple people.

Greyfox
28th December 07, 08:43 PM
FriendlyFire - you really think that proof of such a fact would have no effect? The hardcore skinheads wouldn't admit mistake if they were 'disproven', true, and a number of people wouldn't treat black people differently if a link to genetics were proven. But do you really think that's all that would happen? Even as you said:


Anyone who is not racist will know that an average over a population is not enough to judge and individual by.
"Anyone who is not racist..." - meaning that anyone who is racist will judge individuals by "an average over a population". Isn't that what racism is? Judging individuals by their membership of a certain population?

As for you, downinit -

You know some long words. Congratulations. You should feel proud of your education. That does not make your post any more well-informed than had you just posted 'LOL BALCKS R DUM'. Your post contains nothing more than opinions, no matter how big the words you use to describe them. Had you bothered to read the rest of the thread, you would have found references to back the assertion that the difference in intellect between races has between little and nothing to do with genetics.

For those who haven't read through the thread (downinit, I'm looking at you), here are a couple of links, courtesy of Dagon Akujin:

Improving IQ (http://www.members.cox.net/dagershaw/lol/IQImprove.html)
The black/white IQ gap is genetically caused (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-IQgapgenetic.htm)

Now read this: Evidence is not proof (http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=60595). That thread contains posts on hypothesis formation, testing, and burden of proof.

Final thought for you all - according to research cited in a book named The Optimum Nutrition Bible (Patrick Holford, 1997), diet alone can influence IQ scores by 20 points or more (pp. 146-152). IQ and other cognitive skills are also affected by the presence of "anti-nutrients" such as petrochemicals, heavy metals and pesticides (pp. 23, 147).

Dagon Akujin
28th December 07, 09:28 PM
For those who haven't read through the thread (downinit, I'm looking at you), here are a couple of links, courtesy of Dagon Akujin:

Improving IQ (http://www.members.cox.net/dagershaw/lol/IQImprove.html)
The black/white IQ gap is genetically caused (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-IQgapgenetic.htm)

Now read this: Evidence is not proof (http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=60595). That thread contains posts on hypothesis formation, testing, and burden of proof.


HEY! How dare you bring up my awesomeness in this post without also posting what it was that actually made me have the awesome:




http://img9.exs.cx/img9/8729/carlton4kp.jpg

VS.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1383/539393593_01d311a83a.jpg


BLACK RETARD
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/211/455332379_8805cb00e2.jpg

WHACK RETARDhttp://www.explosm.net/art/void/wigger.jpg


We valued or eddumacaschion!
http://www.westcoast2k.net/images/wscg_tiffany_BET_loon_interview.jpg

Whao! These might just be my Baltimore students.
http://uplink.space.com/attachments/343112-wiggers.jpg



POW POW!
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/438779897_f5fc814878.jpg

BANG BANG!
http://www.dw-world.de/image/0,,501454_4,00.jpg


Dagon Wins.... FATALITY.

Greyfox
28th December 07, 09:36 PM
I do believe you missed a spot, my good sir.


Stupid Black Man
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/211/455332379_8805cb00e2.jpg

Stupid White Man
http://www.explosm.net/art/void/wigger.jpg

Stupid Black Men
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1277/594945041_d89fefebb8.jpg

Stupid White Men
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/192/522699424_20b6b5ab2d.jpg

Blacks
http://www.fmft.net/archives/gangsta%2013/gangsta%2010.JPG

Whites
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/145828004_c819f2a666.jpg



Any Questions?

Should we even bother keeping track of your score? I left my log tables elsewhere.

FriendlyFire
28th December 07, 09:45 PM
"Anyone who is not racist..." - meaning that anyone who is racist will judge individuals by "an average over a population". Isn't that what racism is? Judging individuals by their membership of a certain population?


So what? Your telling me it would make people who are racist, racist? Like I was trying to point out originally, it would not have an effect precisley because of that. It is kind of like denial. No one admits something is true, so it goes unchanged. What if it is not genetic? We don't know if it is, but no one even approaches the subject, because no one can study "Why blacks have lower IQ's" without being crucified.

Greyfox
28th December 07, 10:18 PM
You seem to be suggesting that there have been no studies comparing IQ between races. Later on in that same post, I reference two sources that prove that upbringing has a sizeable effect on IQ. From the second reference:


As in many other studies, the black children in the study had IQ scores a full 15 points lower than their white counterparts. Poverty alone, the researchers found, accounted for 52 percent of that difference, cutting it to 7 points. Controlling for the children's home environment reduced the difference by another 28 percent, to a statistically insignificant 3 points -- in essence, eliminating the gap altogether.

(http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-IQgapgenetic.htm)

3 points. 3 points. Read my earlier post, and you'll see that greater differences in IQ can occur as a result of dietary intake alone.

You may think that, because we're dealing with discrete numbers, that it is cut-and-dry. It is not. The validity of IQ tests is called into question now, as it has been since they first came out (William Siddis' father did not trust them. And it was not soreness that gave that opinion - William Siddis was said to have an IQ between 250 and 300 [as mentioned in the book Lila by Robert Pirsig]).

Returning to what you said - I am saying that it may make people who aren't racist, racist. And it may make people who are already racist, more racist. It even gives 'scientific backing' to their irrational and unjustified beliefs. If science proves that blacks are stupider, then they must all be stupider, right? Not everyone understands the concept of "averaged across a population".

Beyond that, people are not known for giving measured and appropriate reactions to the evidence. A difference of 5 points! Why, that makes them positively inhuman! Big whoop. I gained 5 points on an IQ test by learning a couple of maths tricks.

If people did give measured, appropriate and rational reactions, we would not be having this discussion.

By the way, they wouldn't study 'Why blacks have lower IQs'? Again, if you'd read my post and followed up on the links, you should know that a proper hypothesis would not be so biased. 'An investigation in the differences in mean IQ between racial populations', perhaps. And, oh, look! Such studies exist, and were linked in the post. The links are there for more than just the pretty lines. If I wanted that, I'd do this. For the good of yourself, and of humanity, please use the links.



tl;dr?

Here's the Cliff Notes version:

- The argument is between nature and nurture. Nurture can account for at least most of the difference, if not all.

- People don't react as they should, so even something like this can get blown up out of proportion.

- The links are there for a reason. Please use them.

downinit
28th December 07, 10:29 PM
FriendlyFire - you really think that proof of such a fact would have no effect? The hardcore skinheads wouldn't admit mistake if they were 'disproven', true, and a number of people wouldn't treat black people differently if a link to genetics were proven. But do you really think that's all that would happen? Even as you said:


"Anyone who is not racist..." - meaning that anyone who is racist will judge individuals by "an average over a population". Isn't that what racism is? Judging individuals by their membership of a certain population?

As for you, downinit -

You know some long words. Congratulations. You should feel proud of your education. That does not make your post any more well-informed than had you just posted 'LOL BALCKS R DUM'. Your post contains nothing more than opinions, no matter how big the words you use to describe them. Had you bothered to read the rest of the thread, you would have found references to back the assertion that the difference in intellect between races has between little and nothing to do with genetics.

For those who haven't read through the thread (downinit, I'm looking at you), here are a couple of links, courtesy of Dagon Akujin:

Improving IQ (http://www.members.cox.net/dagershaw/lol/IQImprove.html)
The black/white IQ gap is genetically caused (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-IQgapgenetic.htm)

Now read this: Evidence is not proof (http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=60595). That thread contains posts on hypothesis formation, testing, and burden of proof.

Final thought for you all - according to research cited in a book named The Optimum Nutrition Bible (Patrick Holford, 1997), diet alone can influence IQ scores by 20 points or more (pp. 146-152). IQ and other cognitive skills are also affected by the presence of "anti-nutrients" such as petrochemicals, heavy metals and pesticides (pp. 23, 147).


I understand that there are conflicting findings in the race-intelligence research literature, and I'd rather not be encumbered with the task of sorting through it all right here. My opinion--which you obviously disagree with--is that the most reliable findings come from Rushton & Jensen, Herrnstein & Murray and others who have taken a pragmatic approach of using g-loaded tests, and correlating them with phenomena such as transracial adoption, racial admixture, geographic location, brain size, regression to the mean etc. and finding consistent patterns.

The opposing research tends to be less consistent and more piecemeal. This includes using unsound projection methods to suggest that IQ gaps have narrowed, using measures like the SAT as an intelligence diagnostic, showing that stereotype threat can lower scores (a credible finding, but a dubious cause of all racial IQ differences) etc.

My perception is that the opposition to studies which support the effect of race in intelligence (and most researchers who are interested in keeping their jobs are part of this opposition) is bound together by moralistic fallacy. And as I already mentioned, this is probably adaptive. God knows what hell might break loose if the totality of the psychological community--and subsequently the public as a whole--just said "Alright, we give up! Blacks just aren't as intelligent!" It would be Rodney King all over again every damn weak.

Greyfox
28th December 07, 11:39 PM
Thank you very much for bringing some references to the table, downinit. I've had a glance over one of Rushton and Jensen's papers, and it certainly makes for an interesting read. I will, however, have to come back to you with a fair critique of your post and the papers.

For those who are interested, you can find two of Rushton and Jensen's more recent papers here:
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=author%3ARushton+author%3AJensen&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search

downinit - the article at the second link I posted contains a short critique of the sources used by Hernstein and Murray in The Bell Curve. One last time - http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-IQgapgenetic.htm.

Riddeck
29th December 07, 02:11 AM
Final thought for you all - according to research cited in a book named The Optimum Nutrition Bible (Patrick Holford, 1997), diet alone can influence IQ scores by 20 points or more (pp. 146-152). IQ and other cognitive skills are also affected by the presence of "anti-nutrients" such as petrochemicals, heavy metals and pesticides (pp. 23, 147).


Heavy Metals? Like Mercury? It can lower your intelligence? So mercury in the vaccines may not cause autism, but will in fact lower your child's IQ?

WarPhalange
29th December 07, 02:14 AM
Heavy Metals? Like Mercury? It can lower your intelligence? So mercury in the vaccines may not cause autism, but will in fact lower your child's IQ?

Riddick, did you know oxygen is lethal? Injected into your veins it can kill you. So you should stop drinking any sort of water, because it contains oxygen.

Riddeck
29th December 07, 02:20 AM
Riddick, did you know oxygen is lethal? Injected into your veins it can kill you. So you should stop drinking any sort of water, because it contains oxygen.

Be real. Oxygen in is gaseous form can kill you. And actually drinking too much water can kill you as well.

Mercury is mercury no matter how it enters your body.

Dagon Akujin
29th December 07, 02:59 AM
http://images.somethingawful.com/mjolnir/images/cg07152003/NC-173.jpg

NoMan
29th December 07, 07:41 AM
Heavy Metals? Like Mercury? It can lower your intelligence? So mercury in the vaccines may not cause autism, but will in fact lower your child's IQ?

Generally lead. It's also talked about in a book from some of Paul McLean's, (neurobiologist), students. Lead is found in older homes, particularly in projects or ghetto homes. Lead paint, water, and other heavy metals tend to cause both behavioral violence problems and lowered I.Q.

The amount of mercury in any given vaccine is negligible. Our bodies can and routinely do get rid of metals, (e.g. copper, iron, zinc, chromium, lead, aluminum, steel), but once they accumulate too far, they start causing severe problems.

On the great I.Q. debate, you have people like Jensen, Michael Levin, (Why Race Matters), Rushton, Harpending, Lynn, Hernstein prior to his death, and more recently Jon Entine and Earl Smith. You also have Miele and Sarich in "Race" discussing it:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=EuAdZXAA9AgC&dq=miele+and+sarich+race&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=m3jxVdiImm&sig=SsP3yd1dA5nlr414J1AKuw-hs6Y#PPR1,M1

Not a closed debate by any stretch, but the genetic basis seems to assume too much from way too little evidence. E.g. if you looked at West African immigrants in the U.S. who are more likely to go into engineering and high tech fields, you would have a different opinion about blacks than looking at native born ones.

Cullion
29th December 07, 07:54 AM
I should point out to Riddeck that if there was sufficient mercury in those vaccines to cause problems with brain development, it would be very unlikely that it was a deliberate plot by the elite to make us all stupid. Why ? Because the elite have their children vaccinated with those same vaccines.

Greyfox
29th December 07, 11:23 AM
Heavy Metals? Like Mercury? It can lower your intelligence? So mercury in the vaccines may not cause autism, but will in fact lower your child's IQ?
"Heavy metals such as lead, cadmium and aluminium accumulate in the brain and have been clearly demonstrated to reduce intelligence, concentration, memory and impulse control." (Patrick Holford, 1997, The Optimum Nutrition Bible, p. 152).

"... toxic elements like lead, cadmium or mercury." (ibid, p. 199).

"Brain function depends on adequate magnesium, manganese, zinc and other essential minerals." (ibid, p. 32).

I believe I remember a passage about mercury specifically, but I cannot find it at the moment. But mercury is certainly toxic to the body. According to Wikipedia:

"Case control studies have shown effects such as tremors, impaired cognitive skills, and sleep disturbance in workers with chronic exposure to mercury vapour even at low concentrations in the range 0.742 μg/m3." (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_%28element%29#Safety).

"Acute exposure to mercury vapor has been shown to result in profound central nervous system effects, including psychotic reactions characterized by delirium, hallucinations, and suicidal tendency. Occupational exposure has resulted in broad-ranging functional disturbance, including erethism (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erethism&action=edit), irritability, excitability, excessive shyness, and insomnia. With continuing exposure, a fine tremor develops and may escalate to violent muscular spasms. Tremor initially involves the hands and later spreads to the eyelids, lips, and tongue. Long-term, low-level exposure has been associated with more subtle symptoms of erethism, including fatigue, irritability, loss of memory, vivid dreams, and depression." (ibid.)

"Mercury exposure in young children can have severe neurological consequences, preventing nerve sheaths from forming properly. Mercury inhibits the formation of myelin the building block protein that forms these sheaths." (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning).

Dagon Akujin
29th December 07, 12:35 PM
Does that mean I probably shouldn't have kicked around that puddle of mercury that was sitting in an old abandoned car factory in Detroit that was also on fire?

I mean... they used to let kids play with that stuff in science class. Right?

Greyfox
29th December 07, 12:36 PM
I should point out to Riddeck that if there was sufficient mercury in those vaccines to cause problems with brain development, it would be very unlikely that it was a deliberate plot by the elite to make us all stupid. Why ? Because the elite have their children vaccinated with those same vaccines.
Or maybe that's what they want you to think.

Riddeck
29th December 07, 01:13 PM
I should point out to Riddeck that if there was sufficient mercury in those vaccines to cause problems with brain development, it would be very unlikely that it was a deliberate plot by the elite to make us all stupid. Why ? Because the elite have their children vaccinated with those same vaccines.


Aye, again, you do not know this. I would not let my children or myself get a vaccine, why would someone else, especially someone who may know the truth?

*edit*

Also, where do you get a negligible amount of Mercury in vaccines? I have heard that right now, it is over 5 times the 'safe' limit allowed by the CDC. I remember my mother (who swears 'all kids should have their shots') telling me to back the fuck up when I broke the thermometer cause mercury could make me retarded.

An old wive's tale?

Greyfox
29th December 07, 01:39 PM
Aye, again, you do not know this. I would not let my children or myself get a vaccine, why would someone else, especially someone who may know the truth?

*edit*

Also, where do you get a negligible amount of Mercury in vaccines? I have heard that right now, it is over 5 times the 'safe' limit allowed by the CDC. I remember my mother (who swears 'all kids should have their shots') telling me to back the fuck up when I broke the thermometer cause mercury could make me retarded.

An old wive's tale?
Is what an old wive's tale? That the presence of mercury in the body impairs congitive functioning? Or that mercury is present in vaccines?

The former; yes, proven, see above. The latter; do not know. Quick Google search turned up this: Vaccine Safety - Concerns - Mercury and Vaccines (Thimerosal) (http://www.cdc.gov/od/science/iso/concerns/thimerosal.htm) (CDC statement).

NoMan
29th December 07, 02:07 PM
Mostly because mercury is excreted in the body. When mercury is in high levels, it looks like this:

http://adc.bmj.com/content/vol86/issue6/images/large/90015199.f1.jpeg

Child's hand poisoned by mercury, note the tint. It takes roughly 36 days to clear from the blood via poop, and about 14 days to clear from the brain. The question is whether irreperable damage gets done in that time, and in low doses it is usually phased out unless prolonged exposure, (living near a chemical plant in older times, for example).

Even so, after about 1993 most of the mercury based vaccines were phased out. Thimersol was originally used for its antibacterial properties, but the way they can package vaccines now makes that obsolete. For those that want the autism via mercury link, the rate of autism is higher in children born post-1993 than pre-1993, which seems to show that the real culprit is better identification of autism versus, "Well, your son is a retard."

Riddeck
29th December 07, 02:12 PM
"Mr. and Mrs. Johnson. Your son, Johnny. The fruit of your loin, the pride of your eye. YOUR diamond in the rough...is fucking retarded...and I don't mean that, in a bad way."

Cullion
29th December 07, 02:47 PM
Aye, again, you do not know this. I would not let my children or myself get a vaccine, why would someone else, especially someone who may know the truth?

I've seen vaccination scars on the arms of several high-level politicians and businessmen when they've been photographed at the beach.



Also, where do you get a negligible amount of Mercury in vaccines? I have heard that right now, it is over 5 times the 'safe' limit allowed by the CDC. I remember my mother (who swears 'all kids should have their shots') telling me to back the fuck up when I broke the thermometer cause mercury could make me retarded.

An old wive's tale?

No, Mercury can be dangerous to the brain in those quantities.

Remember 'the Mad Hatter' from Alice in Wonderland?

There was a stereotype of haberdashers being crazy in the Victorian era because mercury nitrate was used in preparing felt in the process of hat making. A lot of them did develop 'cognitive impairment' from it. The phrase 'mad as a hatter' was in common use before the 'mad hatter' of Alice in Wonderland.

However, the quantities we're talking about are massively different. You can overdose on Vitamin B, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have any at all.

Riddeck
29th December 07, 03:01 PM
I've seen vaccination scars on the arms of several high-level politicians and businessmen when they've been photographed at the beach.

And their children? Which politicians, and what businessmen? Did you see the scars on the arms of David Rockefeller?




No, Mercury can be dangerous to the brain in those quantities.

Remember 'the Mad Hatter' from Alice in Wonderland?

There was a stereotype of haberdashers being crazy in the Victorian era because mercury nitrate was used in preparing felt in the process of hat making. A lot of them did develop 'cognitive impairment' from it. The phrase 'mad as a hatter' was in common use before the 'mad hatter' of Alice in Wonderland.

However, the quantities we're talking about are massively different. You can overdose on Vitamin B, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have any at all.

Yeah, I cannot recall anywhere in my biology class where cases of humans having "Mercury defficientcy(sp) " whereas they would have to supplement it.

I do not buy into the 'a little bit does not hurt' when it comes to certain things.

WarPhalange
29th December 07, 03:23 PM
Which is pretty stupid, because the dosage is everything.

fes_fsa
29th December 07, 03:43 PM
you guys are still posting in this thread?

god damn, you honkeys are slow.

it doesn't take a friggin scientist to say that negros are dumb.

Greyfox
29th December 07, 03:47 PM
Yeah, I cannot recall anywhere in my biology class where cases of humans having "Mercury defficientcy(sp) " whereas they would have to supplement it.

I do not buy into the 'a little bit does not hurt' when it comes to certain things.


Which is pretty stupid, because the dosage is everything.

I buy into the 'a little bit can be safely eliminated from the human body without interfering with physiological processes' when it comes to certain things.

Personally, I am not aware of any physiological process that requires an even an ounce of mercury.

WarPhalange
29th December 07, 05:00 PM
I buy into the 'a little bit can be safely eliminated from the human body without interfering with physiological processes' when it comes to certain things.

Personally, I am not aware of any physiological process that requires an even an ounce of mercury.

Did you know that a suspension system isn't required for a car to operate?

Mercury can be used for other purpsoses, it doesn't have to be used by the body. The point is there is a use for it in vaccines, for them to work better, and the mercury itself isn't a hazard.

I mean, we can play a game if you want: would 1 atom of mercury in your brain make you retarded? Let's start from there and move up.

Riddeck
30th December 07, 02:59 AM
Did you know that a suspension system isn't required for a car to operate?

Mercury can be used for other purpsoses, it doesn't have to be used by the body. The point is there is a use for it in vaccines, for them to work better, and the mercury itself isn't a hazard.

I mean, we can play a game if you want: would 1 atom of mercury in your brain make you retarded? Let's start from there and move up.


Your point is fucking whack. "For them to work better"...bullshit.

You do not know how much mercury is in a given vaccine. And you are not really sure the actual effect (May be different per individual) said amount has on a person.

If you know it is poison, why would you even be willing to subject anyone you care for to it?

WarPhalange
30th December 07, 03:11 AM
Holy shit, did we not just go over this? Oxygen is a poison, yet you injest it every day.

Have you ever had an X-ray done before?

Toby Christensen
30th December 07, 04:03 AM
Poop Loops, "retarded" refers to people with delayed development, whereas "cognitive decline" refers to people who are poisoned etc so they experience cognitive loss.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

WarPhalange
30th December 07, 04:31 AM
Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.

Greyfox
30th December 07, 08:40 AM
Holy shit, did we not just go over this? Oxygen is a poison, yet you injest it every day.

Have you ever had an X-ray done before?
Yes, when introduced in elevated amounts, oxygen is toxic. However, it is essential enough to life that two systems of the human body (out of eleven) are devoted to its collection and delivery. The difference between it and mercury is, as I said before, that as far as I know, mercury is not required in any biological process occurring in the human body.

As for mercury in vaccines - it is there as a antiseptic and antifungal agent, so that vials can be used repeatedly, which is cheaper than making single-use vials. This is in the form of an organic compound known as Thiomersal (Thimerosal in the US), which becomes ethymercury in the body. This may not bioaccumulate (that is, it can be eliminated quicker than it accumulates), but it still takes about 120 days to be eliminated from the body.

From a NIAID research statement on thiomersal:
"Mercury is a naturally occurring chemical element found throughout the environment. Mercury is found in three forms: as a pure metal (as found in thermometers), as inorganic salts, and as an organic derivative. Humans and wildlife are exposed to all three forms. Most environmental mercury consists of the metallic and inorganic forms. Because mercury is everywhere, it is not possible to prevent all exposure to it. High levels of mercury, however, are toxic." (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/thimerosal.htm).

Just in case you're interested, another article about thiomersal:
Thimerosal, Methylmercury React Differently in the Brains of Infants, Study Says (http://www.ehponline.org/press/042105.html) (if you're wondering what the significance of that is, it is that methylmercury, which was what made hatters mad, was used as a predictor of what ethylmercury would do to the body).

NoMan
5th January 08, 02:54 PM
Let me post this again, since I posted the last piece in a hurry:


It takes roughly 36 days to clear from the blood via poop, and about 14 days to clear from the brain. The question is whether irreperable damage gets done in that time, and in low doses it is usually phased out unless prolonged exposure, (living near a chemical plant in older times, for example).

All humans are the descendants of organisms that have survived and replicated throughout the entire history of the planet for some 3.4 billion years. Our ancestors from single-cell to multi-cellular did not survive by dying or becoming impaired by the slightest problem that they encountered. Your body can and does routinely process toxins out that are extremely lethal. Find someone who has had kidney or liver failure and you'll appreciate just how much shit your body really filters in a day.

Concerning hatters, they also had a distinct skin color. If your liver quits filtering copper, you develop a yellow color to your eyes and skin. If your liver can't filter the level of silver out, your skin becomes blue and so does your hair and other body parts. When your body runs out of places to excrete most toxins, it begins to store it, usually in the fat or inside major organs. That's why most forms of metallic poisoning have distinctive skin hues associated with them, that's what happens when the body stores the metal in the fat.

Since your brain is kinda important, your body usually shuns using the brain as a storage for crap. So if babies were exposed to high levels of it that could cause damage, the effects would be seen everywhere else as well, and they would be seen in other tissues first.

WarPhalange
5th January 08, 03:16 PM
Riddick, have you ever had an X-ray done?

Riddeck
5th January 08, 04:27 PM
Riddick, have you ever had an X-ray done?

Yep.

Dagon Akujin
5th January 08, 06:23 PM
Concerning hatters, they also had a distinct skin color. If your liver quits filtering copper, you develop a yellow color to your eyes and skin. If your liver can't filter the level of silver out, your skin becomes blue and so does your hair and other body parts. When your body runs out of places to excrete most toxins, it begins to store it, usually in the fat or inside major organs. That's why most forms of metallic poisoning have distinctive skin hues associated with them, that's what happens when the body stores the metal in the fat.

LowTUTGOtE0

WarPhalange
5th January 08, 07:09 PM
Yep.

And you don't mind that they bombard you with radiation which is proven to cause cancer?

Cullion
5th January 08, 07:12 PM
And you don't mind that they bombard you with radiation which is proven to cause cancer?

Hang on now. I understand your point that there sometimes tiny doses of harmful things can serve a greater good (like letting a Dr. examine your internal organs for a greater and more imminent danger).

But what isn't clear yet is whether the tiny doses of Mercury might cause some harm in some proportion of the population. If it did, and the only reason for doing it was to save money on glass vials, might it be worth examining a switch to reusable vials?

WarPhalange
5th January 08, 08:23 PM
Well what I don't get is why we need to Lysol things like door knobs and telephones, insead of just spraying ourselves.

Cullion
5th January 08, 08:37 PM
Well what I don't get is why we need to Lysol things like door knobs and telephones, insead of just spraying ourselves.

Under that mechanical exterior, there's a beating human heart.

Greyfox
11th January 08, 08:59 AM
It's because they're common points of transmission of infection, and because contact with sprayed objects gives a lesser exposure than directly spraying oneself.

WarPhalange
12th January 08, 01:27 AM
You Brits are hilarious.

Greyfox
12th January 08, 09:28 AM
From the nation that brought you Monty Python, Rowan Atkinson, and many other comedy greats, we present: Cullion and Greyfox!!

But yeah, what more do you expect from the country that gave America existence? Mind you, there's a reason we keep Canada (here's a hint: it's not for Celine Dion). ;)

Shawarma
12th January 08, 09:31 AM
The US is a British joke? I was right all along.

Greyfox
12th January 08, 10:53 AM
Oh, of course.

However, running jokes get old, so we issued this (http://sqzm14.ust.hk/cleese.html).

Commodore Pipes
12th January 08, 11:18 AM
Wow, that's way too meta for me. A link to something called 'John Cleese's Letter to America,' featuring mildly humorous observations that seem to contradict the great comedian's personal life (John Cleese against therapy? That must be news to his psychoanalyst) and finally containing a link to Snopes.com, where you can verify for your self that it wasn't, in fact, written by John Cleese.

You blew my fucking gourd, dude.