Topic: What's with all the hate towards racists?
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #1,356
If you're racist you have to keep it secret, or be ostracized.
Are they wrong, sure, but so are a lot of people.
If someone hates gays, well, "that's their opinion, and their entitled to it" and people just avoid talking about it, but they aren't shunned like racists.
I don't get it, why the double standard?
Are they wrong, sure, but so are a lot of people.
If someone hates gays, well, "that's their opinion, and their entitled to it" and people just avoid talking about it, but they aren't shunned like racists.
I don't get it, why the double standard?
Falco !MzQCNUfXbc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later[^] [v] #26,343
people dont care what racists think
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #26,346
@previous (Falco !MzQCNUfXbc)
Uh-huh, post something racist on your Facebook and see how many people de-friends you.
Uh-huh, post something racist on your Facebook and see how many people de-friends you.
Falco !MzQCNUfXbc replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #26,351
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #26,362
@previous (Falco !MzQCNUfXbc)
Compare to how many would de-friend you if you said gays shouldn't marry.
Compare to how many would de-friend you if you said gays shouldn't marry.
Falco !MzQCNUfXbc replied with this 15 years ago, 39 seconds later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #26,364
Falco !PZmcClOUDk double-posted this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #26,431
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
makes me think of to kill a mockingbird
read that in 11th grade. good book but slightly boring.
makes me think of to kill a mockingbird
read that in 11th grade. good book but slightly boring.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 31 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #26,514
dreamworks4mayor '11 !xPoNIEsltA joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #26,520
lol usa
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 24 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #26,583
Because more people dislike gays than blacks?
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #26,591
BEWARE THE NIGGER MENACE!
Falco !PZmcClOUDk replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #26,609
psychopath !PSYCHOhc32 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #26,612
> Implying racists are shunned in this part of Michigan
At least we have a logical reason why we're racist.
At least we have a logical reason why we're racist.
AC !tyLmN8C16E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,656
Not correcting racism is wrong because they will continue to socialize people to continue the ills and wrongs of the past.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,661
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,668
@26,656 (AC !tyLmN8C16E)
The problem is, that some people misconstrue any negativity as being racist.
The problem is, that some people misconstrue any negativity as being racist.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 15 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,669
@26,656 (AC !tyLmN8C16E)
> Not correcting homophobia is wrong because they will continue to socialize people to continue the ills and wrongs of the past.
> Not correcting homophobia is wrong because they will continue to socialize people to continue the ills and wrongs of the past.
psychopath !PSYCHOhc32 replied with this 15 years ago, 12 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,670
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,673
@26,669 (A)
Most don't even see the connection. The minority groups mass voted against gay marriage.
Most don't even see the connection. The minority groups mass voted against gay marriage.
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,676
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,686
@26,668 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
Except pointing out negative things associated with race is often done to justify the wrongs, rather than show and analyze the causes that contribute to the "bad" things about racial statistics.
Except pointing out negative things associated with race is often done to justify the wrongs, rather than show and analyze the causes that contribute to the "bad" things about racial statistics.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,694
@previous (J)
True. But even if one were to give causes for negative behavior it would still horribly offend most.
True. But even if one were to give causes for negative behavior it would still horribly offend most.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,697
@26,686 (J)
I don't feel like a sexist for pointing out bad things that men and women do,and I don't feel like a homophobe when I point out the bad behavior of gays. Should race be any different?
I don't feel like a sexist for pointing out bad things that men and women do,and I don't feel like a homophobe when I point out the bad behavior of gays. Should race be any different?
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,699
@previous (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
> Should race be any different?
Absolutely not. Blacks consistently score lower on IQ tests.
> Should race be any different?
Absolutely not. Blacks consistently score lower on IQ tests.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,704
@26,697 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
Oh, no. Pointing out bad behavior of anybody, for any reason, is okay, so long as the complaint is reasonable. What is reasonable varies, of course, but I'd say if the intent is to help the person(s) improve, and the request is respectful and in agreement with the *real* causes, then it is a "good" complaint.
THE WORLD IS JUST SHADES OF GREY
Oh, no. Pointing out bad behavior of anybody, for any reason, is okay, so long as the complaint is reasonable. What is reasonable varies, of course, but I'd say if the intent is to help the person(s) improve, and the request is respectful and in agreement with the *real* causes, then it is a "good" complaint.
THE WORLD IS JUST SHADES OF GREY
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,713
@26,699 (G)
There could be a variety of reasons that this is true. The only way that we could really tell, would be to raise up children of different races in completely controlled environments. We would have impregnate drones to pump out children in captivity.
There could be a variety of reasons that this is true. The only way that we could really tell, would be to raise up children of different races in completely controlled environments. We would have impregnate drones to pump out children in captivity.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,720
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,724
@previous (G)
Really? That's very interesting. But, the mother's might have to be in captivity as well. We would need to monitor all intake of materials into the body, and the mother's wouldn't get to raise the children at all.
Really? That's very interesting. But, the mother's might have to be in captivity as well. We would need to monitor all intake of materials into the body, and the mother's wouldn't get to raise the children at all.
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,740
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,742
@26,724 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
Racial-group differences in IQ appear early. For example, the Black and the
White 3-year-old children in the standardization sample of the Stanford–Binet IV
show a 1 standard deviation mean difference after being matched on gender, birth
order, and maternal education (Peoples, Fagan, & Drotar, 1995).
White 3-year-old children in the standardization sample of the Stanford–Binet IV
show a 1 standard deviation mean difference after being matched on gender, birth
order, and maternal education (Peoples, Fagan, & Drotar, 1995).
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,748
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,755
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,759
@26,742 (G)
You would still need control groups. But even if it is true, you really need to treat humans with dignity and compassion.
You would still need control groups. But even if it is true, you really need to treat humans with dignity and compassion.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic double-posted this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,761
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 10 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,762
@26,755 (G)
Yeah; I’m asking. Do smarter people not tend to produce smarter kids? What influences IQ?
I have heard that proper nutrition (in addition to education, obviously), over generations, results in a general gain in IQ.
Yeah; I’m asking. Do smarter people not tend to produce smarter kids? What influences IQ?
I have heard that proper nutrition (in addition to education, obviously), over generations, results in a general gain in IQ.
AC !tyLmN8C16E double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,766
@26,759 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
> You would still need control groups. But even if it is true, you really need to treat humans with dignity and compassion.
lolthis
Treating people (who you think are lesser) as lesser beings is never excusable.
Steve’s claims that niggers have stopped us from progressing because white people landed on the moon and then had to deal with the civil rights act is bullshit, because the US as a whole has shifted toward fewer intellectual pursuits and craftsmanship, in favor of corporatism, materialism and cheap labor. There is correlation between those two, but there is not causation.
> You would still need control groups. But even if it is true, you really need to treat humans with dignity and compassion.
lolthis
Treating people (who you think are lesser) as lesser beings is never excusable.
Steve’s claims that niggers have stopped us from progressing because white people landed on the moon and then had to deal with the civil rights act is bullshit, because the US as a whole has shifted toward fewer intellectual pursuits and craftsmanship, in favor of corporatism, materialism and cheap labor. There is correlation between those two, but there is not causation.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,781
@26,762 (AC !tyLmN8C16E)
> Do smarter people not tend to produce smarter kids?
Yes.
> What influences IQ?
It's obviously a result of a wide-range of things. Genetics obviously play a role.
> I have heard that proper nutrition (in addition to education, obviously), over generations, results in a general gain in IQ.
That's a failure to understand evolution.
Yes, malnourished children will be less intelligent as adults than if they had a proper diet. However, their intelligence due to nutrition will have no affect on their off spring. I mean, a brain damaged man who was once a genius isn't going to suddenly start producing brain damaged kids.
> Do smarter people not tend to produce smarter kids?
Yes.
> What influences IQ?
It's obviously a result of a wide-range of things. Genetics obviously play a role.
> I have heard that proper nutrition (in addition to education, obviously), over generations, results in a general gain in IQ.
That's a failure to understand evolution.
Yes, malnourished children will be less intelligent as adults than if they had a proper diet. However, their intelligence due to nutrition will have no affect on their off spring. I mean, a brain damaged man who was once a genius isn't going to suddenly start producing brain damaged kids.
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 43 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,784
niggers are nothing but trouble.
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,791
@26,781 (G)
Alright; we’re in agreement.
> Yes, malnourished children will be less intelligent as adults than if they had a proper diet. However, their intelligence due to nutrition will have no affect on their off spring. I mean, a brain damaged man who was once a genius isn't going to suddenly start producing brain damaged kids.
Yeah, I wasn’t saying that; I kept it short and succinct. The explanation I heard was that poor nutrition reduces the availability of compounds that aid biological processes in “being smart,â€Â as opposed to something like “damaging†the DNA and the person’s ability to demonstrate/propagate intelligence.
Thanks.
Alright; we’re in agreement.
> Yes, malnourished children will be less intelligent as adults than if they had a proper diet. However, their intelligence due to nutrition will have no affect on their off spring. I mean, a brain damaged man who was once a genius isn't going to suddenly start producing brain damaged kids.
Yeah, I wasn’t saying that; I kept it short and succinct. The explanation I heard was that poor nutrition reduces the availability of compounds that aid biological processes in “being smart,â€Â as opposed to something like “damaging†the DNA and the person’s ability to demonstrate/propagate intelligence.
Thanks.
(Edited 40 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,798
Falco !PZmcClOUDk replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,806
you guys are all fags
like seriously.
except for maybe ac
like seriously.
except for maybe ac
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,832
@26,798 (G)
I know that it is currently impossible to fully test and understand the differences, because the proper control and variations needed would violate human rights and our current ethical frameworks for human subjects.
I know that we may never understand its historical roots in great detail, because we have only been able to test and understand intelligence—and document it—in the period that has followed great oppression of much of the world, especially for Blacks.
I am troubled by the differences, as I believe the hypotheses that longterm malnutrition, instability, colonization, war, and disease are likely causes. (The relative health and economics of the world versus Africa [and South America, too] have always [in recorded history] been poor for Africa, but the rest of the world had grown in those indicators though the industrial revolution, which was largely a product of oppressing Africans [and South Americans] and taking their natural resources.)
I am emboldened by the post-racial worldview, as I truly believe that equal opportunity can bring positive results for everybody. At a minimum, however, I do encourage all to hold true to meaningful ethical frameworks. Continuing to treat Blacks poorly will not bring any peace or dignity to anybody, as racism hurts the oppressors, as well. Pursuing justice of all kinds is the only reasonable approach, but it will take a long time.
We truly are small blips in the lifetime of our universe, and we shouldn’t be so obsessed over ZOMG NIGGERS.
I know that it is currently impossible to fully test and understand the differences, because the proper control and variations needed would violate human rights and our current ethical frameworks for human subjects.
I know that we may never understand its historical roots in great detail, because we have only been able to test and understand intelligence—and document it—in the period that has followed great oppression of much of the world, especially for Blacks.
I am troubled by the differences, as I believe the hypotheses that longterm malnutrition, instability, colonization, war, and disease are likely causes. (The relative health and economics of the world versus Africa [and South America, too] have always [in recorded history] been poor for Africa, but the rest of the world had grown in those indicators though the industrial revolution, which was largely a product of oppressing Africans [and South Americans] and taking their natural resources.)
I am emboldened by the post-racial worldview, as I truly believe that equal opportunity can bring positive results for everybody. At a minimum, however, I do encourage all to hold true to meaningful ethical frameworks. Continuing to treat Blacks poorly will not bring any peace or dignity to anybody, as racism hurts the oppressors, as well. Pursuing justice of all kinds is the only reasonable approach, but it will take a long time.
We truly are small blips in the lifetime of our universe, and we shouldn’t be so obsessed over ZOMG NIGGERS.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,841
@previous (AC !tyLmN8C16E)
> I know that it is currently impossible to fully test and understand the differences
So, you're saying that there are differences?
> I know that it is currently impossible to fully test and understand the differences
So, you're saying that there are differences?
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 55 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,845
@previous (G)
There are measured differences, of course.
There are no ethical means of understanding the causes and contributors to those differences.
Therefore, those differences are useless, and your fact-based racism is entirely flawed, ethically, and even has zero value, scientifically, because you know that the Scientific Method has not adequately tested or verified the issues.
There are measured differences, of course.
There are no ethical means of understanding the causes and contributors to those differences.
Therefore, those differences are useless, and your fact-based racism is entirely flawed, ethically, and even has zero value, scientifically, because you know that the Scientific Method has not adequately tested or verified the issues.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,858
@previous (AC !tyLmN8C16E)
> There are measured differences, of course.
Differences that have been measured for a century across thousands of tests.
> There are no ethical means of understanding the causes and contributors to those differences.
What do you mean? List some none ethical means.
> Therefore, those differences are useless, and your fact-based racism is entirely flawed, ethically.
What are you, the PC police? Why is noting those differences "unethical"?
> There are measured differences, of course.
Differences that have been measured for a century across thousands of tests.
> There are no ethical means of understanding the causes and contributors to those differences.
What do you mean? List some none ethical means.
> Therefore, those differences are useless, and your fact-based racism is entirely flawed, ethically.
What are you, the PC police? Why is noting those differences "unethical"?
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 21 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,860
Falco !PZmcClOUDk replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,865
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,867
Falco !PZmcClOUDk replied with this 15 years ago, 39 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,868
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 52 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,871
@26,867 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
Exactly. It's funny that someone would argue with you that you shouldn't argue on the internet.
Exactly. It's funny that someone would argue with you that you shouldn't argue on the internet.
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,878
@26,858 (G)
Noting them is not unethical.
Using your untested and ethically-impossible-to-test hypotheses that niggers are innately lesser than human and never can be equal as a basis for your own racism is unethical.
Preaching these differences, like you do, is even worse than unethical behavior. I cannot call it criminal, but it is truly disgusting that a man who claims to so astringently hold the Scientific Method as our only rational truth would use unverifiable causes and correlations as a basis to oppress others.
Noting them is not unethical.
Using your untested and ethically-impossible-to-test hypotheses that niggers are innately lesser than human and never can be equal as a basis for your own racism is unethical.
Preaching these differences, like you do, is even worse than unethical behavior. I cannot call it criminal, but it is truly disgusting that a man who claims to so astringently hold the Scientific Method as our only rational truth would use unverifiable causes and correlations as a basis to oppress others.
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 57 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,881
Anonymous G double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,885
@26,878 (AC !tyLmN8C16E)
> Noting them is not unethical.
Okay.
> Using your untested and ethically-impossible-to-test hypotheses that niggers are innately lesser than human and never can be equal as a basis for your own racism is unethical.
54% of all violent crime, 12% of the population.
> Preaching these differences, like you do, is even worse than unethical behavior. I cannot call it criminal, but it is truly disgusting that a man who claims to so astringently hold the Scientific Method as our only rational truth would use unverifiable causes and correlations as a basis to oppress others.
Why? I'm not even certain what you're trying to say here.
> Noting them is not unethical.
Okay.
> Using your untested and ethically-impossible-to-test hypotheses that niggers are innately lesser than human and never can be equal as a basis for your own racism is unethical.
54% of all violent crime, 12% of the population.
> Preaching these differences, like you do, is even worse than unethical behavior. I cannot call it criminal, but it is truly disgusting that a man who claims to so astringently hold the Scientific Method as our only rational truth would use unverifiable causes and correlations as a basis to oppress others.
Why? I'm not even certain what you're trying to say here.
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,903
@previous (G)
So, all we can prove is there is a difference. We cannot ethically prove any of the causes. Therefore, the only reasonable thing is to seek justice and equality, according to reasonable contemporary theories about what causes these differences. The current consensus is (and has been, for a while) that these differences are the result of longterm injustice and oppression, and that seeking equality and justice for all is the only ethical way forward and reasonable means to reduce these differences.
Nobody knows how long it will take, however, but it’s a cause that I find motivating and entirely worthwhile. Giving up on this cause and oppressing black people is entirely devoid of any use to anybody, and just a demonstration of anger and fear—some basal emotions that we, as advanced people, should move past.
So, all we can prove is there is a difference. We cannot ethically prove any of the causes. Therefore, the only reasonable thing is to seek justice and equality, according to reasonable contemporary theories about what causes these differences. The current consensus is (and has been, for a while) that these differences are the result of longterm injustice and oppression, and that seeking equality and justice for all is the only ethical way forward and reasonable means to reduce these differences.
Nobody knows how long it will take, however, but it’s a cause that I find motivating and entirely worthwhile. Giving up on this cause and oppressing black people is entirely devoid of any use to anybody, and just a demonstration of anger and fear—some basal emotions that we, as advanced people, should move past.
(Edited 46 seconds later.)
AC !tyLmN8C16E double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,910
@26,881 (G)
Oh, well, then let’s oppress them injuns, because they’re nothing more than alcoholic hippies who couldn’t adapt to the Industrial Revolution, amirite?
Entirely sarcasm, if you couldn’t tell.
Oh, well, then let’s oppress them injuns, because they’re nothing more than alcoholic hippies who couldn’t adapt to the Industrial Revolution, amirite?
Entirely sarcasm, if you couldn’t tell.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,915
@26,903 (AC !tyLmN8C16E)
> So, all we can prove is there is a difference.
There is a difference, yes.
> We cannot ethically prove any of the causes.
You keep saying this. I asked you to explain what you meant.
> The current consensus is
The current consensus is that it's primarily hereditary, since the IQ difference is found even among black children who were born into economically well off families.
> So, all we can prove is there is a difference.
There is a difference, yes.
> We cannot ethically prove any of the causes.
You keep saying this. I asked you to explain what you meant.
> The current consensus is
The current consensus is that it's primarily hereditary, since the IQ difference is found even among black children who were born into economically well off families.
Anonymous G double-posted this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,918
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,923
@26,915 (G)
> > We cannot ethically prove any of the causes.
>
> You keep saying this. I asked you to explain what you meant.
Fully testing the causes of racial differences requires proper controls and variations as established by the Scientific Method. The ways to do this ethically are very limited, and there are many tests that have been done.
One of many controls would be to entirely isolate an infant and see how it develops; this would be the “natural†human. How would you do this while maintaining the dignity and human rights of this individual?
> > We cannot ethically prove any of the causes.
>
> You keep saying this. I asked you to explain what you meant.
Fully testing the causes of racial differences requires proper controls and variations as established by the Scientific Method. The ways to do this ethically are very limited, and there are many tests that have been done.
One of many controls would be to entirely isolate an infant and see how it develops; this would be the “natural†human. How would you do this while maintaining the dignity and human rights of this individual?
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,931
@previous (AC !tyLmN8C16E)
That has to be some sort of a logical fallacy. You don't have to eliminate EVERY variable. In fact, no test ever does this and I've yet to see you complain about the results.
Why such hangups?
That has to be some sort of a logical fallacy. You don't have to eliminate EVERY variable. In fact, no test ever does this and I've yet to see you complain about the results.
Why such hangups?
Anonymous G double-posted this 15 years ago, 49 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,934
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
lol
lol
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,945
@26,931 (G)
Well, then we go back to another issue; we’re trying to test something that happens across the order of multiple generations. How do you do this? How do you control for the social influences of these people? How do you control for disease and war?
Concretely and reliably finding the cause of racial differences is not practical, within the Scientific Method.
Well, then we go back to another issue; we’re trying to test something that happens across the order of multiple generations. How do you do this? How do you control for the social influences of these people? How do you control for disease and war?
Concretely and reliably finding the cause of racial differences is not practical, within the Scientific Method.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,951
@previous (AC !tyLmN8C16E)
By testing children who were adopted would be one way, but that's beside the point.
They've done studies on this. The studies have eliminated variables like wealth by comparing like groups of white and black children. Every study has just confirmed the previous: the average black IQ score is lower than the average white score.
By testing children who were adopted would be one way, but that's beside the point.
They've done studies on this. The studies have eliminated variables like wealth by comparing like groups of white and black children. Every study has just confirmed the previous: the average black IQ score is lower than the average white score.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 12 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,952
AC you are the dumbest CUNT here. go to one of those mud countries and see how long you last.
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,973
AC !tyLmN8C16E double-posted this 15 years ago, 46 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,975
@26,951 (G)
Yes, the differences are valid.
No causes have been proven valid by the Scientific Method.
Racism born from assuming the causes as innate is flawed.
/thread?
Yes, the differences are valid.
No causes have been proven valid by the Scientific Method.
Racism born from assuming the causes as innate is flawed.
/thread?
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,976
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,981
@26,952 (K)
Well, if the local crack dealers don’t bother me, I’ll be just fine, right? Those nigger apes all act the same, amirite?
Well, if the local crack dealers don’t bother me, I’ll be just fine, right? Those nigger apes all act the same, amirite?
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,983
@26,975 (AC !tyLmN8C16E)
> Yes, the differences are valid.
Sure. Why has the difference stayed the same over the years? Why is the difference apparent in places like Germany and Australia?
> No causes have been proven valid by the Scientific Method.
You keep saying that. All variables have been accounted for.
> Yes, the differences are valid.
Sure. Why has the difference stayed the same over the years? Why is the difference apparent in places like Germany and Australia?
> No causes have been proven valid by the Scientific Method.
You keep saying that. All variables have been accounted for.
Anonymous G double-posted this 15 years ago, 28 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #26,987
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,010
@previous (G)
I had an old black man ask me if I was married today. I said no, and when he asked why, I told him that I could support myself. He started laughing and walked away carrying a coffee can full of dirt.
I had an old black man ask me if I was married today. I said no, and when he asked why, I told him that I could support myself. He started laughing and walked away carrying a coffee can full of dirt.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,013
@previous (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
> I had an old black man ask me if I was married today.
Are you going to marry your girlfriend?
> I had an old black man ask me if I was married today.
Are you going to marry your girlfriend?
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 57 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,016
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,021
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,025
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,031
@previous (AC !tyLmN8C16E)
Simplification? "Racism is bad because it might make other people racist."
Simplification? "Racism is bad because it might make other people racist."
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,034
@previous (G)
Yes. We are social creatures. Our behaviors are learned.
What issue do you take with that position?
Yes. We are social creatures. Our behaviors are learned.
What issue do you take with that position?
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,036
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,049
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,061
@26,951 (G)
That's one individual and one generation.
How are you going to require a multi-generational test that is a loop of fully black children raised by white adoptive parents?
That's one individual and one generation.
How are you going to require a multi-generational test that is a loop of fully black children raised by white adoptive parents?
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 21 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #28,216
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #28,234
@previous (G)
My guess is that they didn’t go through the Medieval Dark Ages or have the black plague.
My guess is that they didn’t go through the Medieval Dark Ages or have the black plague.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #28,245
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #28,263
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #28,267
@28,245 (M)
@previous (G)
Disease, war, and social instability negatively influence the ability to express intelligence. When those ills happen over multiple generations, there is less advancement and lesser IQ.
No?
@previous (G)
Disease, war, and social instability negatively influence the ability to express intelligence. When those ills happen over multiple generations, there is less advancement and lesser IQ.
No?
AC !tyLmN8C16E double-posted this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #28,268
@28,245 (M)
Ahh, but Wikipedia says (contemporary) Korea and Japan were not affected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spread-Of-The-Black-Death.gif
Ahh, but Wikipedia says (contemporary) Korea and Japan were not affected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spread-Of-The-Black-Death.gif
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #28,270
@28,267 (AC !tyLmN8C16E)
> Disease, war, and social instability negatively influence the ability to express intelligence. When those ills happen over multiple generations, there is less advancement and lesser IQ.
>
> No?
No.
Also, China's history is pretty awful. It has been conquered by the Mongols, ruled by the British and Japanese, had the Opium Wars, etc, etc. China was more or less in a state of war from the 1910s to the 1960s. China has suffered massive plagues through out its history. Despite all that, they still score higher on IQ test than whites.
> Disease, war, and social instability negatively influence the ability to express intelligence. When those ills happen over multiple generations, there is less advancement and lesser IQ.
>
> No?
No.
Also, China's history is pretty awful. It has been conquered by the Mongols, ruled by the British and Japanese, had the Opium Wars, etc, etc. China was more or less in a state of war from the 1910s to the 1960s. China has suffered massive plagues through out its history. Despite all that, they still score higher on IQ test than whites.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #28,274
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #28,278
@26,975 (AC !tyLmN8C16E)> No causes have been proven valid by the Scientific Method.
I shouldn't need to explain what's wrong with this. Think, AC, think.
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #28,281
@previous (N)
Yes, sure, it can only disprove things and show that “valid†hypothesis can reliably be reproduced.
Yes, sure, it can only disprove things and show that “valid†hypothesis can reliably be reproduced.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 31 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #28,303
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #28,310
@previous (G)
We’ve already discussed this, no?
Intelligence is hereditary, but appears to be positively influenced—over millennia—by good physical and emotional health. Do you agree? Do you think the opposite is likely, as well? (e.g. negative physical and emotional health, over millennia, decrease the ability to express intelligence.)
We’ve already discussed this, no?
Intelligence is hereditary, but appears to be positively influenced—over millennia—by good physical and emotional health. Do you agree? Do you think the opposite is likely, as well? (e.g. negative physical and emotional health, over millennia, decrease the ability to express intelligence.)
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #28,313
@previous (AC !tyLmN8C16E)
> We’ve already discussed this, no?
>
> Intelligence is hereditary, but appears to be positively influenced—over millennia—by good physical and emotional health. Do you agree?
No.
> Do you think the opposite is likely, as well?
No.
Evolution does not work that way. Evolution is a reaction to selective pressures.
> We’ve already discussed this, no?
>
> Intelligence is hereditary, but appears to be positively influenced—over millennia—by good physical and emotional health. Do you agree?
No.
> Do you think the opposite is likely, as well?
No.
Evolution does not work that way. Evolution is a reaction to selective pressures.
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 59 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #28,314
@28,281 (AC !tyLmN8C16E)
Exactly. You're not just attacking racism, you're attacking the scientific method itself. Nothing can be proven to the extent that you demand.
My favourite treatment of this issue is here, a series of replies to a review of racial IQ differences. IMO, the hereditarian model is the only one left standing by the end. For me, this has no political implications: individual humans are more important than statistical averages. Obviously there are many blacks more intelligent than anyone in this thread.
Exactly. You're not just attacking racism, you're attacking the scientific method itself. Nothing can be proven to the extent that you demand.
My favourite treatment of this issue is here, a series of replies to a review of racial IQ differences. IMO, the hereditarian model is the only one left standing by the end. For me, this has no political implications: individual humans are more important than statistical averages. Obviously there are many blacks more intelligent than anyone in this thread.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #28,327
@previous (N)
Thank you for the links. I especially liked the one on the moralistic fallacy.
Thank you for the links. I especially liked the one on the moralistic fallacy.
In our target article (Rushton & Jensen, 2005), we proposed a hereditarian
model—50% genetic–50% environmental—to explain the 15- to 18-point average
IQ difference (1.1 standard deviations) between Blacks and Whites. We reviewed
the worldwide distribution of test scores, the g factor of mental ability, the
heritability of within- and between-groups differences, the relation of brain size to
intelligence and of race differences in brain size, regression to the mean, crossracial
adoption studies, racial admixture studies, and data from life-history traits
and human origins research. We were unable to identify (in Section 12 of Rushton
& Jensen, 2005) any reliable environmental contribution to the Black–White IQ
difference, including the non-g Flynn effect (i.e., the secular rise in IQ scores). We
also found that on many dimensions, East Asian–White differences were a mirror
image of Black–White differences. In Section 14, we concluded in favor of an
even stronger hereditarian model—80% genetic–20% environmental—based on
Jensen’s (1998, p. 443) “default hypothesis†that, by adulthood, genetic and
environmental factors carry the same weight in causing group differences as they
do in causing individual differences.
Gottfredson (2005) is the only commentator who confronted head-on all the
empirical, theoretical, and moral issues. The other commentators (Nisbett, 2005;
Sternberg, 2005; Suzuki & Aronson, 2005) sidestepped the totality of the threeway
race– behavior matrix shown in our Table 3. They invoked one or other of the
culture-only refrains, that “race†is only “skin deepâ€; if not, then any difference
is too small to matter; if not, then it is due to cultural factors such as statistical
artifacts, insensitive tests, racism, stereotype threat, and poverty; if not, then it is
poor form to talk about it. They also offered the usual culture-only promissory
notes that the Black–White IQ gap can be reduced by economic improvements,
interventionist programs, culture-friendly assessment systems, and nonweighted
models of gene– environment interaction. Their examples only confirm what we
described in Sections 2, 13, and 14: Culture-only theory is a degenerating research
paradigm.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen-reply-to-commentaries-on-30years.pdfmodel—50% genetic–50% environmental—to explain the 15- to 18-point average
IQ difference (1.1 standard deviations) between Blacks and Whites. We reviewed
the worldwide distribution of test scores, the g factor of mental ability, the
heritability of within- and between-groups differences, the relation of brain size to
intelligence and of race differences in brain size, regression to the mean, crossracial
adoption studies, racial admixture studies, and data from life-history traits
and human origins research. We were unable to identify (in Section 12 of Rushton
& Jensen, 2005) any reliable environmental contribution to the Black–White IQ
difference, including the non-g Flynn effect (i.e., the secular rise in IQ scores). We
also found that on many dimensions, East Asian–White differences were a mirror
image of Black–White differences. In Section 14, we concluded in favor of an
even stronger hereditarian model—80% genetic–20% environmental—based on
Jensen’s (1998, p. 443) “default hypothesis†that, by adulthood, genetic and
environmental factors carry the same weight in causing group differences as they
do in causing individual differences.
Gottfredson (2005) is the only commentator who confronted head-on all the
empirical, theoretical, and moral issues. The other commentators (Nisbett, 2005;
Sternberg, 2005; Suzuki & Aronson, 2005) sidestepped the totality of the threeway
race– behavior matrix shown in our Table 3. They invoked one or other of the
culture-only refrains, that “race†is only “skin deepâ€; if not, then any difference
is too small to matter; if not, then it is due to cultural factors such as statistical
artifacts, insensitive tests, racism, stereotype threat, and poverty; if not, then it is
poor form to talk about it. They also offered the usual culture-only promissory
notes that the Black–White IQ gap can be reduced by economic improvements,
interventionist programs, culture-friendly assessment systems, and nonweighted
models of gene– environment interaction. Their examples only confirm what we
described in Sections 2, 13, and 14: Culture-only theory is a degenerating research
paradigm.
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #28,338
@28,314 (N)
No. You’re assuming bad faith.
I never attacked the scientific method. I never said they were not adequately tested. I said you cannot ethically prove the causes as innate by setting up appropriate controls.
I do appreciate that you are able to find individuals to be more important that what the statistics say. Here’s to life, my fellow man!
No. You’re assuming bad faith.
I never attacked the scientific method. I never said they were not adequately tested. I said you cannot ethically prove the causes as innate by setting up appropriate controls.
I do appreciate that you are able to find individuals to be more important that what the statistics say. Here’s to life, my fellow man!
(Edited 1 minute later.)
AC !tyLmN8C16E double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #28,342
Also: thanks, guise, for making this a polite, reasoned conversation with details. It’s nice to get past the simplifications and generalizations, for once.