Are races Equal? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Are races Equal?

Debate Information

I was once a staunch anti racist.    Then I realised that those university activist types who are always banging on about the sanctity of "equality" were all looking down their noses at me (I am a tradesman).   Worse, the only explanation that this demographic could come up with to explain why certain ethnicities were always a crime and welfare problem in every western country they inhabited, was it was "all the white guys fault."    I was taught to recognise racism when I was a kid, and here it was again, only this time it was anti white racism.    Worse, this premise has now formalised into Critical Race Theory.     This anti white racist ideology is based upon a disputable premise, it assumes that since all races are equal in every way possible, from IQ's to personality, to physical ability, then the only possible explanation for the continuing dysfunctions of notoriously dysfunctional minorities, must be that western society is inherently racist, riven with unconscious bias.     So the critical question is, are races equal?   

With ethnic division including race riots now tearing apart the very social fabric of western societies, I think that this question is the most important of our time.     
RichyValdes
«1345



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -   edited December 2021
    When talking about two entities being equal, one needs to specify the criteria of the comparison. Consider the following statement:
    "Apples are equal to pears".
    This sentence outside any context does not make a lot of sense. However, you can say, "Apples and pears are equal", when you are talking about the botanical classification of various plants and mean that apples and pears both belong to the "fruit" class, as opposed to tomatoes or potatoes that belong to the "vegetable" class.

    When saying that two or more races are equal, again, one must specify the criteria of the comparison. Two races are not equal in absolutely everything; if they were, then the term "race" would be meaningless. For one to say that this person is of the Asian race and that person is of the African race, they must acknowledge that there is some fundamental differences between these races. It can be something as superficial as the skin color in conjunction with the eye shape, or maybe something more deep and biological.

    In my personal view, people of all races are equal in the sense that their race does not in any way determine their character. People of all races must be treated equally before the law, and respectable individuals must not use race as a reason to mistreat someone socially.
    There are, of course, some biological differences between races - for example, whatever differences there are make Black people, in general, more fit to compete in the upper echelons of some sports such as running and basketball than other racial groups - but, outside very narrow contexts, those differences are fairly irrelevant.

    As far as different outcomes for different racial groups go, that is a can of worms. There are so many factors at play here: cultural, historical, economical... It is absolutely not true that Blacks in the US are performing poorer economically and committing more crime because of some "systemic racism" - however, it is quite plausible that the primary reason the culture of the Black diaspora as a whole is quite poor and leading to these outcomes is the systemic and social discrimination against Blacks in the past; I do not think that that somehow justifies these outcomes, but it might explain them.
    Then, again, "reason" is a tricky thing. As Feynman famously explained, every reason has a deeper underlying reason. It is not clear to me that "Blacks were discriminated in the past" is exactly where in the causal chain we must stop and look around. Why not go further back? Perhaps we should go all the way back to the time when the Sun was formed from the interstellar dust and gas and find an explanation there.

    Unfortunately, the only bottom line I can draw here is, "It is complicated". :) What is absolutely clear though is that talking about race and racism all the time is not the path towards fixing any problems; it is more likely to be the path towards perpetuating and worsening them. Regardless of to what extent it is true, telling millions people that they are victims of discrimination and other people are responsible for their failures is going to incentivize some poor behaviors.
    I personally have been of the mind that it is pointless to talk about who is to blame for your situation. My approach has always been very pragmatic; I do not dwell on the past, I look into the future. "Okay, here are the cards I have been dealt. Let us see how I can play the best game with them". If someone mistreats me, I will ask, "Okay, can I do something to repair the damage? If I can, do I choose to do so?" If yes, I do it and do not look back. If no, I move on and do not look back. Either way, it is not important to me who is to "blame" for my misfortune; I choose the best course of action and go forward.
  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  

    Thank you MayCeasar.    Your post is without doubt the best I have experienced when presenting it on other debate sites.     Most of the time, I just get swarmed by hecklers tossing sneery one liners, and people claiming that I must read Stormfront.

     We are not comparing apples with oranges.    We are comparing groups of people.  You appear to be saying that there are obvious differences in athletic performances between races?    Very good.    That is clearly self evident, but you have no idea how much trouble I have getting so called "anti racists" to ever admit to even that reasonable premise. 

     What remains is IQ and personality.     

     I am an Australian, and here in Australia we have an entire government department set up to look after the welfare of two races in Australia.   That is, The Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Department.      This department is extremely well funded to the tune of A$32 billion dollars a year, which roughly works out to A$80,000 dollars for every "aboriginal" (I put that in parentheses because aboriginal entitlements are so high that many people claim that they are aboriginal to get them), man, woman, and child a year.    Yet aboriginal dysfunction never improves.   

     Let's say that there was a town somewhere in the world populated entirely with white Anglo-Saxon residents?

     In that town, there were 23 year old grandmothers with grandchildren born with foetal alcohol syndrome.   There was rampant sexual abuse of children with kids under five being routinely screened for gonorrhoea.     The women in the town alleged widespread sexual abuse committed upon them by the town's male leaders.     These women were 34 times more likely to be hospitalised for domestic violence and 15 times more likely to be murdered than the women in surrounding towns.    The murder of females in the town is so common by the towns men, that legal authorities usually just charge the male spouses with "manslaughter" rather than "homicide."

     The entire adult population of that white town was entirely on intergenerational social welfare, and every two weeks when the government cheques rolled in, the whole town went on a three day drinking binge resulting in widespread violence and even riots where government supplied houses were burned to the ground.

     The town's children suffered from lice, ringworm, and malnutrition.    The kids would not go to school, and the government had to bribe parents with extra benefits to make their kids go to school.   In addition, the government had to provide cars and chauffeurs to take the kids to school, and feed the kids, because their parents didn't bother.     These kids were five times more likely to be hospitalised for domestic assaults than the kids from surrounding towns.

     The only way that jobs could be created for the town's residents was to either make them public servants, or by inventing taxpayer subsidised non jobs like picking up trash if they felt like it.    When their young men were farmed out to government subsidised jobs outside of their community, most had to be sent back because 75% of them failed drug and alcohol testing.

     Then I think that any intelligent and rational person would conclude that the town's population was a bunch of low IQ morons, commonly referred to as white trash.   

     This is the situation in every self governing aboriginal settlement in Australia, where aboriginal people live in their own communities, under their own flag, under the authority of usually extremely corrupt aboriginal leaders.     Would you agree that the explanation for this unacceptable behaviour could only be that pure blooded aboriginal people obviously have very low IQ's, and probably, a genetic predisposition to violent behaviour?     If not, what other explanation can you provide?

  • The basic principle all races of people are equal means in truth there would be only one race of person...
    We do know how that agenda had panned out?

    Races as an identity hold certain united states in which people can be grouped based on a burden of justice equally. 
  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  
    Sorry, John C.     I had trouble understanding what you were even saying.    Could you please post in declarative sentences instead of in airy implications?    Your first sentence seemed to indicate that you did not think that races are equal?    What your second sentence meant, I am still scratching my head about.
  • exconexcon 562 Pts   -  
    Bogan said:
    I was once a staunch anti racist.    Then I realised that those university activist types who are always banging on about the sanctity of "equality" were all looking down their noses at me (I am a tradesman).
    Hello B:

    Everybody starts out as equal.  Those born to poor parents living a squalid mud hut, and those born to rich parents..  Then life happens..  In the second day of these babies lives, the rich baby gets pampered, and the poor baby just tries to keep the fly's out of his eyes..   Thus ends equality.

    So, no..  Not everybody is equal.  The great thing about the USA is its citizens are guaranteed equality of OPPORTUNITY - not equality of OUTCOME.  Nobody can guarantee that..  At least, it used be that way.. 

    The scenario I alluded to above has NOTHING do with race..

    I apologize for the ignorant types we ALL have to deal with..

    excon
    piloteerClodius
  • piloteerpiloteer 1531 Pts   -   edited December 2021
    @Bogan

    So you're claiming that "races" aren't equal because "university activists looked down their noses at you", and you don't like a bunch of drunken aborigines?!?!? Absolutely none of that proves different ethnicities are genetically, morally, physically, or actually inferior in any manner. Just because other people look down their noses at you (can't imagine why :/ ), it doesn't change the fact that there are no superior ethnicities vs inferior ones. 

    If you're going to use genetics as an axiom, then you'll be discredited before you even get off the ground because there are no genetic indicators of race. Our DNA demonstrates that we are one human race and yet you are using the exact scientific axiom (genetics) that prove there are no separate human races which negates your proposal immediately and thoroughly.

    Your basing your claim on your personal "feelings" (gross) of aboriginal people. Feelings are only chemical reactions, and electric impulses throughout the brain. They cannot demonstrate any facts. Actual facts will continue to be the way they are despite your "feelings". You have demonstrated that inferior people are equally distributed among all cultures. They're known as misanthropists.   
    exconMichaelElpers
  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  

    Hi excon.

     I disagree with your premise that everybody starts out as equals.    Mother nature is no egalitarian.    Some people are born who are smart, some born who will be very attractive, some with both attributes, and some with a genetic predisposition to extreme violence.    Generally, smart people inhabit the top layers of society, and generally, the people with the lowest IQ's inhabit the bottom.     Smart people who through circumstances find themselves in the lowest rung of society usually climb right out of it.     People with low IQ's never do, short of winning the lottery.

     The basic premise of CRT is that because there is no equality of outcome for all races in western societies, then there is something intrinsically wrong with western societies.     They must be intrinsically racist, full of "unconscious racism".    I think that is baloney.    Sadly, I think that the reason why notoriously dysfunctional races are unable to prosper in western societies, is that western societies are competitive societies.      And in order to compete, you need brains.     Therefore, the reason why these races never prosper in any western society regardless of location or underlying national culture, is because of low IQ, and probably, a genetic predisposition to violent behaviour.     

     I used as an example the unacceptable behaviour of aboriginal people in Australia, where their welfare is lavishly funded, yet they behave like complete morons.

  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  

    To Piloteer.

     I always find it encouraging when I get an opponent like you who adopts a superior, sneery attitude, and then tries to talk down to me.     I take that as a sure indicator that my opponent has opinions which he himself knows he can not back up with a reasoned argument.    Especially when he takes what I have said previously and twists it around to make implications that are just nonsensical. 

     I began my journey away from being an antiracist when I realised that the people who were sprouting anti racism and banging on about equality were hypocrites.    Once I am confronted by obvious hypocrisy, I tend to lean away from what the hypocrites are preaching, and start to take their opponents more seriously.

     And I do intend to use genetics as an axiom.    Anyone with high school level genetics can understand that smart couples usually have smart kids, and dumb parents usually have dumb kids.     In addition, since throughout the world, males make up (93% to 97% of prison populations, that is a very powerful argument right there that genetics and violence are linked.      Another aspect, is that most adult males in prison for crimes of violence on reasonably short sentences are aged between 18 to 45.    After 45, most violent men mellow out.  

     Last I heard, 50% of the US African male population in the USA is either in prison or on parole.    That looks pretty convincing to me that there is a genetic link to their race and their violent behaviour.


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -   edited December 2021
    @Bogan

    I seriously doubt that differences like this to any significant extent are explained by biological differences. If you look at the descendants of the Aboriginal people who are well integrated into the Australian society and live outside the Aboriginal communes, or those Aboriginal people whose parents took them away from Australia when they were children and forced them to grow up in a society with little to no ability of interacting with other Aboriginals, then you will se that the outcomes for them are very different - in fact, they statistically tend to be better than those of White Anglo-Saxon residents of the respective countries.

    My understanding of the Australian situation is that there are two primary reasons Aboriginals do as poorly as they do:
    1. The welfare system.
    2. The Aboriginal culture.
    The first seriously disincentivizes Aboriginals from looking for work, when the vast majority of them receive enough welfare money that they, given their generally humble needs, see no reason to do anything with their lives. The second is the fact that, unlike Anglo-Saxons who have come very far philosophically, scientifically, technologically and politically over the course of history, the Australian Aboriginal society is still stuck somewhere around 2,000 BC - and history shows that collision between modern and ancient civilizations rarely goes well for the latter, as they get completely outcompeted by the former and isolate themselves more and more from them.

    See, I was born in Soviet Union and grew up in post-Soviet Russia. Russians are known to, in general, have certain serious flaws that, to a great extent, cause Russia to be the miserable place it is and has been - but I am not particularly prone to those flaws, because, even living in Russia, I never felt the need to "preserve Russian values", live in the "Russian diaspora" or whatever; from a very young age I was oriented towards the future, outside of any cultural traditions and norms. I did not much care about the "greatness" of the "Russian people"; I cared about making my life as great as it can be, regardless of what others think about it. As such, my outcome is disjoint from most Russians' outcomes.
    This is the case with the Aboriginal people in Australia who practice a similar approach. There are Aboriginals who, instead of sitting on welfare and boiling in their retrograde communities, go to Universities and make something of themselves. They are outside the mainstream statistics, and their outcomes are about as good as those of highly educated White Anglo-Saxons in Australia. This is not the case with those who believe in "conserving the great Aboriginal tradition" and do the same thing as their ancestors have done for millennia, never learning, never evolving, never becoming anything more than an ant in a hive.

    As far as the IQ goes, I do not think that this metric is indicative of much. I am aware of a fairly significant correlation between one's IQ and their outcomes, but this correlation does not imply causation, nor does it imply that having low IQ is a severe handicap in life. And there are also good reasons to believe that statistical differences in IQ between races are environmental, not genetical.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1531 Pts   -   edited December 2021
    @Bogan

    I have no intention to talk down to you. I apologize about my sneer little joke, but I can't help if I come off as sneer, I am not socially inept. I myself am a blue collar working class person, but I still do not understand the logic of your argument.  For instance, you said 

     I began my journey away from being an antiracist when I realised that the people who were sprouting anti racism and banging on about equality were hypocrites.    Once I am confronted by obvious hypocrisy, I tend to lean away from what the hypocrites are preaching, and start to take their opponents more seriously.



        So you have willfully admitted that you do not base your allegiance or worldview on logic, reason, or facts, but instead it is based on a purposeful reaction to your feelings of snooty people, and so you ally with their "opponents". Your feelings are only there because of how much you oppose the people you consider hypocritical. Your feelings are not based on facts or logic. And again, this does nothing at all to demonstrate that any ethnic group is, or should be unequal.   

    Has it occurred to you that middle class collegiate snooty types are not allied with any minority ethnic groups? Upper middle class people are mostly concerned with maintaining their socioeconomic status (in general, not all of them though). They believe the world is overpopulated, and they consider all other classes a threat to their wealth. This is basically true, and it goes across party lines. Liberal, and conservative middle class people are more concerned about pitting blue collar people like us against ourselves. Don't think those people who look down on you will actually go out and have a drink with the aborigines you think they are oh so concerned about. 

    Your feelings about snooty people is a main cause of your feelings on minority ethnic groups. 

     And I do intend to use genetics as an axiom.    Anyone with high school level genetics can understand that smart couples usually have smart kids, and dumb parents usually have dumb kids.     In addition, since throughout the world, males make up (93% to 97% of prison populations, that is a very powerful argument right there that genetics and violence are linked.      Another aspect, is that most adult males in prison for crimes of violence on reasonably short sentences are aged between 18 to 45.    After 45, most violent men mellow out.  

     Last I heard, 50% of the US African male population in the USA is either in prison or on parole.    That looks pretty convincing to me that there is a genetic link to their race and their violent behaviour.


    The true reason black males in the US have a higher rate of incarceration is because they are purposely targeted by justice system activist judges who want to make an example of every black youth and herd them into cells and expose them to prison culture which helps groom them to become career criminals. It is known that black American males get 20% longer prison term than white Americans who commit the same crimes. This is most likely the same kind of thing which happens with the aboriginal people in Australia, which explains the degradation of their neighborhoods. And what really stings about all this is that it is we the taxpayers who have to pay to house, feed, clean, and cloth these people. The US also has privately owned prisons, so it is beneficial for he private owners of these prisons so they can make a profit. If the justice system in the US targeted white females instead of black males, it would be mostly white females in prisons instead.

    There are no geneticists who are taught that smart parents have smart children. In fact, they are taught that smart parents can have any kind of children because the actual brilliance of any person is based on that person alone. If those dumb parents kide were taken from them as soon as they were born, and they were raised by smart people instead, they'd have just as good a chance of being smart as any other children who have smart parents.       

    If you click on the "relpy" icon that appears at the bottom of everyone's posts, you won't have topic type the name of the person you're replying to, and they'll get a notification that you have responded to them.
  • exconexcon 562 Pts   -   edited December 2021
    Bogan said:

     Last I heard, 50% of the US African male population in the USA is either in prison or on parole.    That looks pretty convincing to me that there is a genetic link to their race and their violent behaviour.

    Hello B:

    Knowing, as I do, that black people are no more prone to criminal behavior than whites, so when I see a number like that I think, BAD SYSTEM..  You see a number like that and think BAD black people..

    Piloteer gave you several reasons for those numbers, but he didn't mention the drug war, and how cops USE it to lock up young black men farrrrrrr more than they do white young men.  Plus, the bail system is not kind to poor people, and most black people are poor..  Because black people in the main cannot make bail, more often than not, they'll plead guilty when they're innocent, simply to get out of jail..  There's more, of course, much more....

    excon

    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 1531 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Rand, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn were great writers, poets, journalists and philosophers. Any "flaws" Russians may have don't seem to come from a lack of intelligence. It probably comes from corruption, not lack of talent. And corruption seems to be a problem virtually everywhere else.   
    excon
  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  

    Hi MayCaesar Thank you for another polite reply.

     I find it odd that you acknowledge that there is a significant correlation between IQ's and life outcomes, and then you deny that there is any causation between IQ and outcomes?    That looks like doublethink to me?

     The "environmental" factor in human intelligence is long term.     That is, the longer a particular people have needed to rely upon intelligence in order to create a functioning and complex society, the slowly smarter they become.     Human intelligence is heritable.    Smart parents usually have smart kids, and dumb parents almost always have dumb kids.   So to say that there is no genetic factor in intelligence is wrong.

     As for your observation that "aboriginal" people integrated into Australian society do very well, that is incorrect.    It depends upon a very broad definition of who is "aboriginal."      There is at least one "aboriginal" activist (Nigel Mansell) who has blond hair and light blue eyes.    The very generous benefits that our governments gives to "aborigines" means that anyone with the merest ancestral trace of "aboriginality" is eligible for them.     This includes having the taxpayer funding your university fees, as well as paying a generous living allowance, sometimes into the world's most prestigious universities.    Free legal advice.    Free dental care.   Cushy Government jobs reserved for "aboriginals  only".    A much lower retirement age (50).

     Hardly surprising, the number of people "identifying" as "aboriginal" has exploded from 170,000 in the sixties, to over 600,000 today.    This includes anglo saxons who have convinced a judge that they have been accepted by an aboriginal tribe as being "aboriginal", and even includes a Maori.    So no, I think your idea of what an "aboriginal person really is, is not correct.    Australians call these people "white aborigines."

     The welfare system may be part of the problem, but you are overlooking an unpleasant fact.     people get on welfare and they stay on it forever.    Smart people, even from the "disadvantaged" class, would rather work and get ahead.     I came from a government housing block of 84 flats and when Socialist Gough Whitlam came to power in 1972 and made the dole child's play to obtain, all of my apprentice mates in the flats chucked their apprenticeships in and went surfing every day.     They laughed at me because I kept working.     Dumb.    I will bet that all of them are still on the dole and their kids and grandkids are too.

     Getting back to aborigines.    I think that the example I gave above of the example town is pretty conclusive that pure blooded aboriginal people have very low IQ's.    And that accounts for their behaviour, their welfare dependency, and their very high incarceration rates.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -   edited December 2021
    @Bogan

    Not at all; correlation does not imply causation, and I laid down my argument for why the case for causation here is not very strong.

    The fact that more intelligent parents grow more intelligent kids is absolutely environmental and easily explainable: the more intelligent the parents are, the more they will urge their kids to study, read books, go to a university and so on. It is not accidental, for example, that in Australian universities Asian students tend to outperform other racial groups (as they do in the US, in Canada and in the UK): in historically Asian regions there is a strong tradition of hard work and pursuit of knowledge - Asian parents instill these qualities in their children, who then instill them in theirs, and the effect snowballs over time.
    You will notice that this is not the case in certain Asian countries which do not have such tradition, such as Philippines or Indonesia. Therefore here in the US we see a lot of students from China or Vietnam, but not a lot from Philippines or Indonesia.

    Your argument in the pre-last and pre-pre-last paragraphs supports my thesis that this is all environmental, not racial. Of course people get on welfare and stay on it forever when they can, and the fact that Anglo-Saxons choose to identify as Aboriginals in order to do that exactly demonstrates that it is about the environment and not some inherent differences between races.

    In support of your claim that Aboriginal people in Australia have very low IQ I can only find one article (that seems to be referenced everywhere) by Richard Lynn that claims that the average IQ among them is 62, previously identified to be 80. Such a massive difference already suggests that something is off, and, to add to that, the paper (https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/9) has the label "Opinion" on it, meaning it is not a scientific peer-reviewed article.
    Not to say that the author is incorrect. I am just saying that the evidence here is slim. And furthermore, even if this number indeed is correct, it does not follow that the outcomes for the Aboriginal people are caused by low IQ. If anything, given the strength of the correlation between regional IQ and its prosperity, the environmental factor begs to be accepted as the primary effect. After all, people everywhere at some point used to live similarly to the Australian aboriginals, and yet nowadays they do not; either their IQ has increased, according to this model, or the IQ is not a determinant of the outcome. In either case, your thesis does not seem to hold.




    @piloteer

    That is a chicken or an egg question. Corruption does not drop on people from the sky, and the level of corruption in Russia far surpasses that found in most other, even developing, countries. Russian culture also features other unpleasantries such as the commonality of bowing to and worshiping dictators, strong nationalism, infamous social impoliteness ("Russians never smile" is a stereotype strongly rooted in reality) and lack of self-control when indulging in substance use.

    A few genius scientists, writers and philosophers do not refute the general trends.

    Again, it says a lot that Russians overseas statistically outperform the general population. People of the caliber of Sergey Brin are much more commonplace among Russian immigrants in the US or the UK than they are among Russians living in Russia.
  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  

    To Piloteer.

     Hahahahaha!     I love how you debate.     You take a quote from me and put the worst possible interpretation on what I said, and then claim "I wilfully admit" to it.     Tell me, is that a debating tactic of yours intended to put me on the defensive?     Or do you really think that way?    In case you don't know it, such a tactic in debating circles is called a "strawman" argument.

     When faced with the reason why certain ethnicities are always dysfunctional in whatever western nation they abide, regardless of national culture, there are only two racist explanations.   (unless you can dream up a third)   The activist caste claim it is because white people and white society is inherently racist.    The other racist explanation, is that certain ethnic groups have very low intelligence and probably, a genetic predisposition to violent behaviour.     From an impartial consideration of known facts, I consider that the second racist explanation is the real explanation.

     Left wing activists comprise most of the public service, their mates in academia, the arty farty celebrity caste, and recently, the relatively young mogals of start up IT businesses, who never outgrew their university leftist ideals.    The lefties used to claim to represent the "poor" and the working class.    But they have lost the allegiance of most of the working class when they went off chasing rainbows (like climate change) which was detrimental to the interests of the working class.    There is now little love lost between the university educated bourgeoisie Bolsheviks and the Deplorables.

     After losing the working class, the socialite socialists went after a growing demographic in western society, the illegal immigrants, dysfunctional minorities, and "refugees".     That is why all over the western world, leftist parties support open borders.     It also explains the lefties support for BLM, ANTIFA,  and other wacky ideas like "defund the police".

     I think that the "real reason" why US police target black males is because black males commit the most of the crimes.     The idea of being lenient on black criminals will do anything, has taken a real hit lately with Waukesha (if that's how you spell it?) and the fact that black criminal gangs in mostly black populated and black governed Democrat cities are getting right out of control.

     Where you got your information that "geneticists" don't think that smart parents have smart kids from, I will never know.     But from what I understand of intelligence, smart parents usually have smart kids and dumb parents usually have dumb kids.    That is something most people understand.    There is even an old saying that encapsulates it, "the fruit does not fall far from the tree."

  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  

    Hi excon.    Are you telling us something?

     There are two racist explanations for the fact that certain ethnicities are very disproportionately represented in long term welfare dependency and serious criminal behaviour.    You support CRT.     I support the idea that certain ethnicities have very low IQ's, and probably a genetic predisposition to violent behaviour.

     Comparing black African and aboriginal offending, it sure looks similar to me.    With the same explanation.     Aboriginal people are a kept people.    I wrote to MyCaeser that aboriginal people get around $A 80,000 dollars a year in welfare for every man, woman, and child.    I was wrong.   I checked the facts and it is $A100,000.    Yet aboriginal criminal behaviour in some cities in Australia is, like in the USA, getting right out of control.     Aboriginal children can have rap sheets pages long including burglary, home invasion, car theft, rape, armed robbery, dangerous driving, evading the police, and drug offences of every kind.    But there are routinely no consequences for their actions, and they are booked and released, where they promptly re-offend again.    Not real smart.   


  • BarnardotBarnardot 185 Pts   -  
    @Bogan
    your name and your first sentence says it all. Your a racist bigot because you carry on about white discrimination and about not being equal. 
    For your information no 2 people are equal no matter what race they are.
  • exconexcon 562 Pts   -   edited December 2021
    Bogan said:

     There are two racist explanations for the fact that certain ethnicities are very disproportionately represented in long term welfare dependency and serious criminal behaviour.    You support CRT.     I support the idea that certain ethnicities have very low IQ's, and probably a genetic predisposition to violent behavioure


    Hello again, B:

    At least I now know what CRT IS according to you..  CRT is acknowledging that 400 years of brutal slavery had a negative effect on black people.

    Unbelievers of CRT suggest that when the chains came off, like any decent folk, they shoulda gotten jobs, started their own companies, and applied to Harvard..  That they didn't do that means there's something wrong with 'em..

    excon
    piloteer
  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  

    It is very strong.     And the bloke who invented the term "Correlation does not denote causation" was Darwin's cousin.    He was also a eugenicist, a polymath, the inventor of isobaric weather charts, and his oft used quote was meant to denote that just because two factors appeared to be linked, it should not be assumed that it is ALWAYS the case.

     You can say that intelligent parents instilling a love of schoolwork, homework, assignments, and studying is "environmental", I can just as easily say it is genetics.      Smart people have smart kids.    Smart kids do their homework and study.    Dumb kids hate school because it is too hard.    They hate homework and they don't study.

     On the question of IQ scores for different races, my information comes from the ground breaking book "The Bell Curve" by a pair of respected cognitive metrician scientists.    They claim that intelligence is measurable and it can be heritable.    They say that IQ testing is the most reliable indicator of future success, and it is used by corporations, universities, and the military, to assess the suitability of candidates.     Their data concludes that around 100 years of IQ testing in the USA has shown that African blacks have a most common "bell curve" IQ of 70-85.    Hispanics around 93.    Whites 103.     Asians 106.    And Jews 116.     This pretty well explains the social layering of US society.

     I have no info on the IQ of Indonesians or Malays, but I think Muslims were smart once before they allowed their brains to hibernate under Islam.     That being said, I have personally regarded Indonesian Muslims as the smartest Muslims around.    Certainly, very few of them were enough to go and fight for ISIS.    Neither do I have any IQ scores for Philippinoes.      But there are many Philoppinoes in Australia, and few have gotten into trouble with the law.    Which means that they are smart enough.

     I don't know the real IQ of aboriginal Australians.   For one thing, when IQ testing of aboriginal people was once proposed, the aboriginal leaders told the aborigines to not co operate with the researchers.     I think you could conclude from that, that they did not want to know how dumb they were.    In any case, the best non direct indicator of their IQ is their behaviour, which is so bad it is shocking.

     I would agree with you that 2000 years ago, Anglo Saxons were probably almost as dumb as aboriginals today.    I say "almost" because living in a harsh environment where planning ahead and food storage is critical, is what begins the process of advancing human intelligence.   Maybe in another 1000 years or two, the aboriginal people will be as smart as white or even Asian people are today.     But we are dealing with problems today, and certain ethnicities are not smart enough today to prosper in competitive western societies.     They will always be a crime and welfare problem.  And blaming white people for their shortcomings won't wash.


  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1815 Pts   -  
    Considering Australia was originally settled as a penal colony, judging the country as it is today, it wouldn't appear that criminality is genetically determined.
  • exconexcon 562 Pts   -   edited December 2021
    Bogan said:
     They will always be a crime and welfare problem.  And blaming white people for their shortcomings won't wash.

    Hello again, B:

    Suppose you're correct..  Whadya DO with 'em?  People with a genetic propensity for violence simply cannot be allowed to roam the streets.  For our own safety, we'd have to separate ourselves from them, perhaps build a wall, maybe confine them in Gitmo, and if those don't work, we can always gas 'em..  Amirit?

    Now, if I'm over the top, bring me back to earth.  Tell me truly, what should we do? 

    excon


  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  
    The quality of the debating replies on this topic has been quite good, CYDdharta.     Sneey one liners can have their place in responses, but persistence in that type of "debating" reply is indicative of a heckler instead of somebody with an opinion they can validate with a reasoned argument.     Please lift your game or go onto an easier topic.
  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  

    Hallo yourself, excon.

     The topic under discussion is "are races equal?"     What western societies do about that when they finally admit that their immigration policies are , because we are importing dyfunctional people into our societies, and then wondering why they are becoming such a crime and welfare problem, is a subject for another day.     When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

     At the moment, I am having trouble convincing even reasonable people of what appears to me to be a simple concept.     Some ethnicities are a crime and welfare problem because they have low IQ's and probably a genetic propensity to violent behaviour.   Given the behaviour of young African and aboriginal males, that seems to be an easy prove.    Their behaviour can be mind bogglingly and unbelievably callous.

     But so many people think that pointing out the obvious is racism, and that is an internal border in their collective minds that their ego's will never allow them to cross.     They have been conditioned to think that racism is just the worst thing ever invented, when it is in fact very common among all races.     The racist joke is universal and everybody does them.    Historians always knew that the Romans had a contemptuous racist name for the British, and within an old Roman grave, they found it.     Buried with a centurion was a hinged, wooden tablet impregnated with wax, which the Romans often used for letters.

     On the wax tablet, the Centurion had written to his wife "The military exercises went well today, except of course, for the Brittanculi cavalry, who stuffed everything up, as usual."

     'Brittanculi is Roman Latin for "Wretched little Brits."


  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  
    Oh, I see you posted another post, excon.    Sorry ma-a-a-a-te (oops, I mean bud-dy)     Australia has no history of black slavery in this country.     Black African people only started immigrating to Australia around thirty years ago.     Surprise, surprise.    We are now experiencing the same sort of gang related behavior involving shootings, muggings, home invasions, car thefts, police chases resulting in injuries and deaths, crowd lootings of stores by African youth gangs, and our streets at night in certain locations becoming no go zones for whites.    One Victorian police report warned pedestrians that if they encountered an African group of men at night, to not make eye contact, and that the pedestrian should move rapidly in the opposite direction.      Black African violence on the Victorian town of Dandenong got so bad that it was impossible to purchase a baseball bat from a sporting store to protect yourself and your family in your own home.     And we are now seeing another "American" and "British" phenomonon.    "White flight" from areas with high African infestation.     

    The situation involving mainly Sudanese and Somali's became so bad that it has been speculated in the media that both sides of parliament realise that people of these two ethnicities are particularly difficult to "integrate" into Australian society.     So the importation of Sudanese and Somalis seems to have almost stopped. .    
  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  
    This site is starting to pee me off.    Whenever I write words such as "" or "dumb" some damned word program scrubs the word from my post.  I only discover the missing words after I post.     This completely destroys the meaning of entire sentences and I presume that my readers must be wondering what I am talking about?     If it keeps up I will give up on this site and find another.
  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  
    This site is starting to pee me off.    Whenever I write words such as "" or "dumb" some damned word program scrubs the word from my post.  I only discover the missing words after I post.     This completely destroys the meaning of entire sentences and I presume that my readers must be wondering what I am talking about?     If it keeps up I will give up on this site and find another.
  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  
    This site is starting to pee me off.    Whenever I write words such as "" or "dumb" some damned word program scrubs the word from my post.  I only discover the missing words after I post.     This completely destroys the meaning of entire sentences and I presume that my readers must be wondering what I am talking about?     If it keeps up I will give up on this site and find another.
  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  
    This site is starting to pee me off.    Whenever I write words such as "" or "dumb" some damned word program scrubs the word from my post.  I only discover the missing words after I post.     This completely destroys the meaning of entire sentences and I presume that my readers must be wondering what I am talking about?     If it keeps up I will give up on this site and find another.
  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  
    This site is starting to pee me off.    Whenever I write words such as "" or "dumb" some damned word program scrubs the word from my post.  I only discover the missing words after I post.     This completely destroys the meaning of entire sentences and I presume that my readers must be wondering what I am talking about?     If it keeps up I will give up on this site and find another.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -   edited December 2021
    Bogan said:

    It is very strong.     And the bloke who invented the term "Correlation does not denote causation" was Darwin's cousin.    He was also a eugenicist, a polymath, the inventor of isobaric weather charts, and his oft used quote was meant to denote that just because two factors appeared to be linked, it should not be assumed that it is ALWAYS the case.

     You can say that intelligent parents instilling a love of schoolwork, homework, assignments, and studying is "environmental", I can just as easily say it is genetics.      Smart people have smart kids.    Smart kids do their homework and study.    Dumb kids hate school because it is too hard.    They hate homework and they don't study.

     On the question of IQ scores for different races, my information comes from the ground breaking book "The Bell Curve" by a pair of respected cognitive metrician scientists.    They claim that intelligence is measurable and it can be heritable.    They say that IQ testing is the most reliable indicator of future success, and it is used by corporations, universities, and the military, to assess the suitability of candidates.     Their data concludes that around 100 years of IQ testing in the USA has shown that African blacks have a most common "bell curve" IQ of 70-85.    Hispanics around 93.    Whites 103.     Asians 106.    And Jews 116.     This pretty well explains the social layering of US society.

     I have no info on the IQ of Indonesians or Malays, but I think Muslims were smart once before they allowed their brains to hibernate under Islam.     That being said, I have personally regarded Indonesian Muslims as the smartest Muslims around.    Certainly, very few of them were enough to go and fight for ISIS.    Neither do I have any IQ scores for Philippinoes.      But there are many Philoppinoes in Australia, and few have gotten into trouble with the law.    Which means that they are smart enough.

     I don't know the real IQ of aboriginal Australians.   For one thing, when IQ testing of aboriginal people was once proposed, the aboriginal leaders told the aborigines to not co operate with the researchers.     I think you could conclude from that, that they did not want to know how dumb they were.    In any case, the best non direct indicator of their IQ is their behaviour, which is so bad it is shocking.

     I would agree with you that 2000 years ago, Anglo Saxons were probably almost as dumb as aboriginals today.    I say "almost" because living in a harsh environment where planning ahead and food storage is critical, is what begins the process of advancing human intelligence.   Maybe in another 1000 years or two, the aboriginal people will be as smart as white or even Asian people are today.     But we are dealing with problems today, and certain ethnicities are not smart enough today to prosper in competitive western societies.     They will always be a crime and welfare problem.  And blaming white people for their shortcomings won't wash.


    I fail to see what who invented this quote has to do with its validity. "Correlation does not imply causation" is one of the first things any undergraduate student in a course of statistics learns.

    You can easily say anything, but evidence does not support the thesis that it is genetics. To support the claim about genetics, actual biological observations must be made, and no observations made so far suggest that there is anything about any races that predisposes their members to lower intelligence. There is no "black brain", "white brain" or "aboriginal brain". There may be "male brain" or "female brain", although even that is still being actively disputed in the scientific circles, and the agreement that the capacity for general intelligence is not affected by the gender is virtually unanimous.

    IQ is a statistical predictor of success, it is not a measurement of intelligence. No known measures of intelligence exist, perhaps mostly due to the fact that the term "intelligence" itself is very loosely defined. When such measures are developed, they are unlikely to be reasonably summarized as a single number; they will likely be comprised of a set of numbers, different numbers corresponding to different aspects of intelligence, such as the ability to recognize patterns, the ability to learn new patterns, the ability to retain essential knowledge and so on.'

    The refusal of the aboriginal leaders to partake in IQ testing most likely has to do with the way they perceived such a suggestion. How would you take the idea, say, of the Japanese government to measure IQ of the white people living in Japan and to ask them to submit to the testing? To me it would be, at the very least, insulting. "I thought I was just a Japanese resident. Turns out I am a white gaijin living in Japan... Great."
    Your claim that their refusal is caused by their desire to not let others know "how dumb they are" seems completely unrealistic to me. Have you ever encountered a single person who seriously considered themselves "dumb?
    excon said:

    Hello again, B:

    At least I now know what CRT IS according to you..  CRT is acknowledging that 400 years of brutal slavery had a negative effect on black people.

    Unbelievers of CRT suggest that when the chains came off, like any decent folk, they shoulda gotten jobs, started their own companies, and applied to Harvard..  That they didn't do that means there's something wrong with 'em..

    excon
    This is patently false. Acknowledging that 400 years of brutal slavery had a negative effect on black people is called knowing and understanding history. "Critical race theory", on the other hand, is a twisted take on, an interpretation of history that is logically incoherent and self-contradictory, with implications on the modern times that are nonsensical, but unfalsifiable by their design. It is like a religion without god: a self-contained bunch of pseudo-philosophical gibberish.

    I also do not understand why you keep bringing up the US, when the OP is from Australia and is talking about the Australian aboriginals. Australia has had its own bloody history of mistreating minorities, but the details there were very different. The world does not revolve around the US, mate. ;)
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1444 Pts   -  
    @Bogan
      If not, what other explanation can you provide?

    The other explanation I can and will provide that such gutter talk comes from the distorted, ignorant mind of an extreme racist.

    For example: "usually extremely corrupt aboriginal leaders" and....."the town's population was a bunch of low IQ morons,........This is the situation in every self governing aboriginal settlement in Australia........ tI was once a staunch anti racist..........Yet aboriginal dysfunction never improves....... pure blooded aboriginal people obviously have very low IQ's........Therefore, the reason why these races never prosper in any western society regardless of location or underlying national culture, is because of low IQ, and probably, a genetic predisposition to violent behaviour.......      I think that the example I gave above of the example town is pretty conclusive that pure blooded aboriginal people have very low IQ's......... they behave like complete morons........genetics and violence are linked....... Left wing activists comprise most of the public service......they did not want to know how dumb they were race riots now tearing apart the very social fabric of western societies

    Not once in any of your extremist arguments did you even allude to IQ being not only the result of inherited factors but also social and environmental factors and, given that the Aboriginals were exploited and horribly abused by the invading British population (including having their children taken and being stripped of their culture and land, don't you think that such factors contribute and in fact are to blame for the plight of such a down-trodden people? 

    You show a total lack of respect for other people and a distasteful hatred of others who aren't like you as well as getting your "facts" completely wrong, for example:

    There is at least one "aboriginal" activist (Nigel Mansell)

    Nigel Mansell is a retired British racing driver and has nothing to do with Aboriginal activism




  • exconexcon 562 Pts   -   edited December 2021

      May Caesar said:

    This is patently false. Acknowledging that 400 years of brutal slavery had a negative effect on black people is called knowing and understanding history. "Critical race theory", on the other hand, is a twisted take on, an interpretation of history that is logically incoherent and self-contradictory, with implications on the modern times that are nonsensical, but unfalsifiable by their design. It is like a religion without god: a self-contained bunch of pseudo-philosophical gibberish.

    I also do not understand why you keep bringing up the US, when the OP is from Australia and is talking about the Australian aboriginals. Australia has had its own bloody history of mistreating minorities, but the details there were very different. The world does not revolve around the US, mate. ;)

    Hello May:

    Couple things..  I didn't know B is Australian.  And, if racism is different over there, then that kinda blows a hole in the IQ theory, and gives it a more geopolitical flavor.  That is, of course, unless black people over there are different than the black people over here...

    I think B's take on CRT is much more understandable while I can't make heads nor tails out of your word salad.. . My take on history is that we enslaved black people.  It had a negative effect, and it's STILL having a negative effect.  I have NO idea why you think that's "a twisted take on, an interpretation of history that is logically incoherent and self-contradictory". I'm sure that means something, but if I, a Jew, with a stratospherically high IQ can't get it, somethings amiss."  ;)

    excon



  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -  
    @excon

    Unless you were actually around in the days when some black people in the US were enslaved, your take on history is objectively wrong. Regardless, this is not what "Critical Race Theory" posits; this is a historical fact. What "Critical Race Theory" posits, among other things, is that the very fact of living in the society in which enslavement of some black people took place in the past makes every white person complicit in "systemic racism". This is a logically incoherent claim; it is like saying that living in Japan makes you a Sushi person, even if you have not eaten Sushi a single time in your life, because others around you eat Sushi and you are a part of the system that produces the vast majority of people eating Sushi.

    Of course, "Critical Race Theory" goes around this and all the other problems by simply proclaiming that everyone who challenges its postulates by the very fact of challenging them proves them right. If a white person challenges the claim that all whites in Western societies are complicit in racism, then it is obviously because they are racist, otherwise why would they "deny the obvious"? And if a black person does it, they have clearly been brainwashed by racist whites and even, as some would say, "are not really black anymore".

    This is a complete mess of a pseudo-philosophical rubble that makes even Marxism look scientific in comparison. Marx and Engels were delirious, but they had nothing on these "CRT" guys.
  • Bogan said:
    Sorry, John C.     I had trouble understanding what you were even saying.    Could you please post in declarative sentences instead of in airy implications?    Your first sentence seemed to indicate that you did not think that races are equal?    What your second sentence meant, I am still scratching my head about.
    The closest the idea of equality between ethnic races ever came to the world was when all men had been stated as having been created equal by their creator. Had women adopted this basic principle, all women are created equal by their creator there would have been no inequality between ethnic races. Though ignored or overlooked it still appears to be the more perfect union to date that can be made.

  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  
    To MayCaesar.

    The point I was trying to make was that the bloke was a brilliant as Darwin, and he advocated improving human intelligence through selective breeding.   Which the upper classes do any way.     They are obsessed with "breeding" and the only lower caste people that they will accept into their social strata are men who have proven to have high intelligence, or beautiful women, especially if they too have brains.    This acceptance of beautiful women into their society (like Australian farm girls Miranda Kerr and Erica Baxter from Gunnedah, NSW) has led to them being called "the beautiful people."

    I think you have lived in the USSR for too long if you still believe the rubbish about human equality.     Old time Marxists in the west once claimed that "class" was a social construct with no basis in reality.    George Bernard Shaw, the English playwright (who, like most of the artistic class are obsessed with creating a classless society, while looking down their noses at their working class inferiors) even wrote a famous book (Pygmalion, better known today through the famous Hollywood movie of the book, "My Fair lady" starring the beautiful Audrey Hepburn).     The book is a Cinderella story of an East End flower girl who is transformed into a Bohemian princess simply  by taking elocution lessons.    The lesson of the book is that everyone in society is absolutely equal, with equal intelligence and equal worth.

    Which is nonsense.     Within modern societies, the smartest (sometimes the most ruthless) inhabit the top layer and the dumbest inhabit the bottom.  Smart people can find themselves at the bottom of society through circumstances beyond their control (like my mother) but smart people work hard and are upwardly mobile.  (like my mother)    Now, the socialists are trying to say that race is a social construct and everybody is the same.    If everybody was the same, then races would have equal outcomes in life.   That is obviously not happening, because the idea that all races are equal in intelligence and personality is so laughably wrong it is hard to understand how any reasonably intelligent person could actually believe it.

    Your claim that IQ is not a measure of intelligence is  just silly.    In the USA, corporations, the military, and academia all use IQ tests to judge the quality of candidates.    If IQ testing was inaccurate, people would not use IQ testing.  IQ testing is not inaccurate.   It is the only reliable guide for future success.  At one time, ivy league universities in the USA would only use IQ tests to check whether new students were smart enough to enter their university.     This was because the ivy league professors found that they could not trust examination results or even recommendations from teachers, as a true test of suitability.     So began the SAT IQ examinations, which practically eradicated African Americans from ivy league universities, and even white Anglos were being left out after dominance in SAT scores by Asians and Jews.     After cries of "racism" from the numerous and influential black welfare organisations (and probably a few white ones) these universities now use a modified version of SAT combined with racial quotas.   Hardly a merit based system.  

    I find your parable about how insulting it is for people to submit to IQ testing to be just silly.     The leaders of aboriginal society (who are usually a lot more white than black) already know that the people they represent have very low IQ's and they take advantage of that in every way possible.    In yet another "inquiry" into the often deplorable living circumstances of aboriginal people living under the "care" of their champions, Justice O'Keefe (brother of Rockstar Johnny O'Keefe) angrily remarked that "the reason why aboriginal people are so poor is because they are being ripped off by their own leaders'!

    As for your question about "have I ever met anyone who seriously considers themselves dumb?"     Nobody likes to admit that they are dumb, even if they are dumb.    But as a person who once was part of the lowest level of Australian society, I know for a fact how sensitive dumb people are about how dumb they are.    They can be so obsessed with their own sense of self worth that they can become very dangerous if you hurt their pride.    An extreme sense of self pride seems to me to be indicative of a person.    I hear that in the USA, African blacks are known to kill people who :"diss" (disrespect) them.


  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  

    Gidday, Swolliw, I don't think you like me?

     Nigel Mansell is a notorious Tasmanian "aboriginal" activist, once laughed at around Australia for claiming to be "aboriginal" even though he had light blue eyes and blond hair.    That people often have matching names with others around the world is hardly surprising.     What is surprising is that you did not think of that before tossing sneers at me.    You just failed my IQ test.

     Well, if you think that aboriginal people were living a hobbit like existence before the Green Meanie white people invaded their land and turned their paradise into hell, then your analysis would make sense.    But it is ridiculous.     The coming of the British was the best thing that ever happened to the aboriginal people, especially female aboriginals.    

     Reality check. 

     Australian author Ion Idriess, who once roamed the Top end of Australia during the 1920's and 30's, claimed that the tribal practices of aboriginal people over the whole top half of Australia were almost identical.

    He wrote that aboriginal tribal society was a gerontocracy, where the Old Men were the power in the tribe. They owned all the women and demanded and got the best cuts of meat. Young girls were "stolen" from their mothers at puberty and given to the Old Men as wives. All Old Men had a harem of young wives.   Old women were either rented out to the young men for sex, or simply killed off.  When a middle aged man was destined by the Old Men to become a future Old Man leader, he attended a ceremony where an Old Man displayed a baby female and declared that all females born of that baby would become wives to the middle aged man.

    Young boys were "stolen" from their mothers before puberty and made to live in lodges with older boys, who taught them how to track and hunt. They were never allowed to speak to their mothers or sisters again. Young men, as they went through life, were subject to a series of painful and degrading ceremonies held under the supervision of the Old Men. This was to terrorise the young men and boys into absolute obedience to the Old Men. Especially keeping their hands off the young girls.

    These ceremonies apparently included homosexual rape, as Australia's famous Dr Fred Hollows got into trouble with the homosexual community in Australia for saying that if aboriginal people did not stop "certain practices, there would soon be no aborigines at all." Apparently, the Australian homosexual community think that initiating young boys into society by having unprotected anal sex with them is a great idea.

     Key to understanding aboriginal "justice" is that the Old Men believed that nobody just died.    If even a very elderly Old Man died, somebody had to be responsible for "singing" him to death.      The witch doctor would perform a ceremony and the guilty party identified, who was immediately killed.    This was usually a young man who was either secretly meeting with the girls, or who was considered a possible rival in tribal politics. 

    Idriess claimed that one of the reasons why there was little frontier warfare at the time of white settlement on the scale of the Indian wars in the USA, was because the young male and female aborigines, saw in the coming of the white man, the chance of a much better life. On the frontier they were needed. The girls as cooks, domestic help, exceptional stockwomen, and the wives of lonely frontier white men. The boys as exceptional stockman, fencers, and teamsters.

     As for the so called "stolen generations", that is as big a hoax as Jussie Smolletts claim to have been beaten up by MAGA hat wearing whites who were apparently roaming the streets of Chigaco at 2.00 AM with a bottle of bleach and a noose, looking for somebody like him.


  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  
    To John C 87.

    As I understand it, the idea of "all men are equal" was invented by a bunch of Virginia slave owners.     Which hardly supports the premise that their pithy saying is valid.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -   edited December 2021
    Bogan said:
    To MayCaesar.

    The point I was trying to make was that the bloke was a brilliant as Darwin, and he advocated improving human intelligence through selective breeding.   Which the upper classes do any way.     They are obsessed with "breeding" and the only lower caste people that they will accept into their social strata are men who have proven to have high intelligence, or beautiful women, especially if they too have brains.    This acceptance of beautiful women into their society (like Australian farm girls Miranda Kerr and Erica Baxter from Gunnedah, NSW) has led to them being called "the beautiful people."

    I think you have lived in the USSR for too long if you still believe the rubbish about human equality.     Old time Marxists in the west once claimed that "class" was a social construct with no basis in reality.    George Bernard Shaw, the English playwright (who, like most of the artistic class are obsessed with creating a classless society, while looking down their noses at their working class inferiors) even wrote a famous book (Pygmalion, better known today through the famous Hollywood movie of the book, "My Fair lady" starring the beautiful Audrey Hepburn).     The book is a Cinderella story of an East End flower girl who is transformed into a Bohemian princess simply  by taking elocution lessons.    The lesson of the book is that everyone in society is absolutely equal, with equal intelligence and equal worth.

    Which is nonsense.     Within modern societies, the smartest (sometimes the most ruthless) inhabit the top layer and the dumbest inhabit the bottom.  Smart people can find themselves at the bottom of society through circumstances beyond their control (like my mother) but smart people work hard and are upwardly mobile.  (like my mother)    Now, the socialists are trying to say that race is a social construct and everybody is the same.    If everybody was the same, then races would have equal outcomes in life.   That is obviously not happening, because the idea that all races are equal in intelligence and personality is so laughably wrong it is hard to understand how any reasonably intelligent person could actually believe it.

    Your claim that IQ is not a measure of intelligence is  just silly.    In the USA, corporations, the military, and academia all use IQ tests to judge the quality of candidates.    If IQ testing was inaccurate, people would not use IQ testing.  IQ testing is not inaccurate.   It is the only reliable guide for future success.  At one time, ivy league universities in the USA would only use IQ tests to check whether new students were smart enough to enter their university.     This was because the ivy league professors found that they could not trust examination results or even recommendations from teachers, as a true test of suitability.     So began the SAT IQ examinations, which practically eradicated African Americans from ivy league universities, and even white Anglos were being left out after dominance in SAT scores by Asians and Jews.     After cries of "racism" from the numerous and influential black welfare organisations (and probably a few white ones) these universities now use a modified version of SAT combined with racial quotas.   Hardly a merit based system.  

    I find your parable about how insulting it is for people to submit to IQ testing to be just silly.     The leaders of aboriginal society (who are usually a lot more white than black) already know that the people they represent have very low IQ's and they take advantage of that in every way possible.    In yet another "inquiry" into the often deplorable living circumstances of aboriginal people living under the "care" of their champions, Justice O'Keefe (brother of Rockstar Johnny O'Keefe) angrily remarked that "the reason why aboriginal people are so poor is because they are being ripped off by their own leaders'!

    As for your question about "have I ever met anyone who seriously considers themselves dumb?"     Nobody likes to admit that they are dumb, even if they are dumb.    But as a person who once was part of the lowest level of Australian society, I know for a fact how sensitive dumb people are about how dumb they are.    They can be so obsessed with their own sense of self worth that they can become very dangerous if you hurt their pride.    An extreme sense of self pride seems to me to be indicative of a person.    I hear that in the USA, African blacks are known to kill people who :"diss" (disrespect) them.


    Highly intelligent people often have very poor philosophical ideas, and "selective breeding" seems to be a good example of that to me. Hitler was very intelligent as anyone who has interacted with him can testify, yet his ideas were awful. Same can be said about Stalin, Mao and Mussolini.

    I do not "believe" anything, I go where the facts point out and that is it. It would not disturb me at all if science revealed that something in the biological differences between different races affects their inherent capacity for developing intelligence - not any more than it disturbs me that women in general are physically weaker than men. The Universe hands us over whatever cards it does. I do not treat people differently over biological differences, I only treat them differently over individual character differences.
    In this matter science just is not on your side, is all. I say it with complete impartiality and no ideological considerations involved.

    Within a given society, intelligence is a strong determinant of one's social and economical standing. This is not the case across the board, given how many other factors are involved. Take a person of Sergey Brin's brilliance and put them in two different environments: in the US, and in North Korea. The outcomes will clearly be very different.
    Here in the US I have achieved a great degree of success. It would never have happened if the Soviet Union never collapsed and I found myself stuck in that place. This does not at all imply that, had I stayed there, my intelligence would be lower than it is now.

    The fact that the IQ is popularly considered to be a measure of intelligence does not make it true. This is an ad populum argument, which is a logical fallacy. Nothing in the structure of the test itself has much to do with intelligence, just with basic visual pattern recognition - which is a valuable skill in life having deep repercussions on many other skills, but certainly is not something that determines one's overall intelligence.
    The only "evidence" in support of this thesis is the observed correlation between the IQ and one's statistical outcomes. Which in itself does not suggest any causative link. Just, again, like the fact that disproportionally poor North Korean's outcomes do not testify to Koreans having some intellectual impairment; just nearby there is South Korea - genetically exactly the same people, yet look how different the outcomes are.

    You have not presented any evidence to suggest that the aboriginal leaders think their people "dumb". Repeating it will not make your point any stronger. You may be right, but you have yet to demonstrate it logically.

    You seem to want everything to have very simple and obvious reasons, but this is not how the world works. I can tell that you are not a Bayesian. ;) Which is not a criticism, just an observation - a Bayesian one.
  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  
    Gidday, MayCaesar.

    I agree that intelligent people can be .    However much I may praise IQ, I have to admit that academics and their undergrad minions have IQ's higher than mine.    That does not mean that their advocacy of socialism is correct, just that they see in a socialist system certain advantages for their own caste, combined with a belief that they are the intelligent ones who know everything, so their caste should be the new aristocracy, telling everyone else what to do.     Which is pretty dumb, really.      My thoughts are, that continued prosperity breeds within privileged classes a sense of narcissism and hubris.     'Hubris" is a Greek word which roughly equates to "stupidity caused by arrogance."   "Hubris" was the downfall of Hitler.    At one time western allied leaders considered assassinating him.   But he was doing such a good job of destroying the German war machine by himself,  that they decided that it was better to let him live. 

    The reason why free market democracies powered ahead of the rest of the world is because they were once largely merit based societies.     Socialist, monarchist, and prelate led societies are riven with class and family privilege, and they could not compete with free market democracies in the search for new ideas.    I once read an article which claimed that one reason why there was so much alcoholism in the USSR, was because there were so many talented people who were denied by the system a chance to shine in their wished for field of endeavour, that they took solace in the bottle to alleviate their frustrations.   If the great entrepreneur Henry Ford had been born in the USSR, he would probably have ended up in on the production line of the number 19 Tuna Canning Plant, and there he would have stayed until he died.

     You keep claiming that IQ tests are meaningless, although you wrote on another post that they did reflect success in life.    Which I pointed out at the time was a contradiction.   I think you and I will have to agree to disagree on that point, because Cognitive Metricians are scientists, not Ouija board mystics.       These scientists say that intelligence is measurable, and I believe them.    So does the business world, academia, and the military.      100 years of IQ testing in the USA has revealed a pattern of "bell curves" of intelligence of various races in the USA, which very definitely reflects social outcomes and economic success in the USA of these races.       

     The truth of a premise lies in making predictions and then objectively observing whether that premise  has correct outcomes.      Cognitive metricians claim that economic and social success (or failure) in western societies is linked to IQ, and that simple truth reflects observable out comes.    I think that most people would agree with the idea that high IQ and success are linked, and low IQ and social and economic failure are linked.  As a person with obviously high intelligence, I am surprised that you can not see that.       


  • @Bogan
    As I understand it, the idea of "all men are equal" was invented by a bunch of Virginia slave owners.     Which hardly supports the premise that their pithy saying is valid.
    Most people who pay taxes in any Civilized Nation own slaves in 2021 & 2022 the treatment of slaves vary greatly between nations. Invented? It's a basic principle that can be held as a United State all you are doing is admitting why you refuse to hold your share of the burden of the state of the union it creates. 
  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  
    I can not for the life of me understand your endless implications, John C 87.?   "Most people who pay taxes in 2021 &2022 own slaves".     Huh?

    You may as well bugger off unless you can write in a rational way?     I think if you had half a brain, you would be a half wit.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -  
    Bogan said:
    Gidday, MayCaesar.

    I agree that intelligent people can be .    However much I may praise IQ, I have to admit that academics and their undergrad minions have IQ's higher than mine.    That does not mean that their advocacy of socialism is correct, just that they see in a socialist system certain advantages for their own caste, combined with a belief that they are the intelligent ones who know everything, so their caste should be the new aristocracy, telling everyone else what to do.     Which is pretty dumb, really.      My thoughts are, that continued prosperity breeds within privileged classes a sense of narcissism and hubris.     'Hubris" is a Greek word which roughly equates to "stupidity caused by arrogance."   "Hubris" was the downfall of Hitler.    At one time western allied leaders considered assassinating him.   But he was doing such a good job of destroying the German war machine by himself,  that they decided that it was better to let him live. 

    The reason why free market democracies powered ahead of the rest of the world is because they were once largely merit based societies.     Socialist, monarchist, and prelate led societies are riven with class and family privilege, and they could not compete with free market democracies in the search for new ideas.    I once read an article which claimed that one reason why there was so much alcoholism in the USSR, was because there were so many talented people who were denied by the system a chance to shine in their wished for field of endeavour, that they took solace in the bottle to alleviate their frustrations.   If the great entrepreneur Henry Ford had been born in the USSR, he would probably have ended up in on the production line of the number 19 Tuna Canning Plant, and there he would have stayed until he died.

     You keep claiming that IQ tests are meaningless, although you wrote on another post that they did reflect success in life.    Which I pointed out at the time was a contradiction.   I think you and I will have to agree to disagree on that point, because Cognitive Metricians are scientists, not Ouija board mystics.       These scientists say that intelligence is measurable, and I believe them.    So does the business world, academia, and the military.      100 years of IQ testing in the USA has revealed a pattern of "bell curves" of intelligence of various races in the USA, which very definitely reflects social outcomes and economic success in the USA of these races.       

     The truth of a premise lies in making predictions and then objectively observing whether that premise  has correct outcomes.      Cognitive metricians claim that economic and social success (or failure) in western societies is linked to IQ, and that simple truth reflects observable out comes.    I think that most people would agree with the idea that high IQ and success are linked, and low IQ and social and economic failure are linked.  As a person with obviously high intelligence, I am surprised that you can not see that.       


    This begs the question: how do you define "intelligence"? Many academics who I, being myself currently in academia, get to interact a lot genuinely do not understand that socialism does not produce the results they hope for, even though the arguments demonstrating it are pretty simple and the evidence is massive. I am not sure that I would call these people "intelligent" all around: they may be good at solving abstract math problems, but they clearly are terrible at applying their logical ability to many more general problems. It is not just that they want to promote their interests; they are genuinely making these basic mistakes.
    Which tells me that there are likely many different types of intelligence, and few people, if any, excel in all of them. In Russia, it is not even true that people in the academia achieve better outcomes than people outside of it generally. In the US or Australia this is different, but one could make an argument that it is different not because of how different the academics here are, but because of how different systems are - in the US and Australia professors are among the top earners nationwide, while in Russia they are on the lower side of the income distribution.

    It is true that the free market offers clear advantages to more controlled market. But that again just adds another argument to the pile of arguments in favor of the strong effect of the environment. The same person born and growing up in different environments will often achieve very different outcomes, often diametrically different: someone like Kim Jung Un who is at the top of the social ladder in North Korea would unlikely be anything more than a dishwasher in, say, Norway.
    It is not just the environment, obviously, but when it comes to statistical differences between different groups within societies, as well as between different societies, it is a very strong contributor. While the "genetics" hypothesis does not withstand the scrutiny by evidence.

    I do not think that IQ tests are "meaningless", no. They measure "something". What this something is is what is unclear, and I have not seen any reasonable arguments about this something being intelligence. They are correlated with success to some degree (I believe they explain the 30% of the variance in the outcomes?), but they alone certainly cannot explain why Bushmen live as they do and Japanese live as they do. One would need to have a very shallow outlook to seriously suggest that the main reason that Bushmen are poorer than Japanese is because the Japanese have a superior genetics (for that matter, just a century ago the average Japanese commoner was among the poorest people on Earth; it is hard to imagine that the genetics can change so dramatically over several generations as to reverse the situation completely).

    I have never heard of a "cognitive metrician" as a subset of scientists. Whoever that is, they certainly are not regarded as such by the majority in the scientific community. I am only aware of one scientist who produced any research of substance on this topic - Charles Murray - and he, again, makes only purely the correlatory argument and does not make any claims about a causal link between the IQ and the outcomes of different societies.
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2195 Pts   -   edited December 2021
    edit



  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  

    Hi again, MayCaeser.

    How do I define intelligence myself?    I am not a trained cognitive metrician, but could I make some personal observations?     Dumb people do not care about their health and overindulge in alcohol, illegal drugs, and cigarettes.   They eat too much fatty and sugary foods, and they never exercise.   They do not value education nor encourage their usually dumb kids to do so either.    They don't clean their teeth or wash themselves too regularly.    They would rather be on social security than go to work.    If they manage to get a job (or more likely, are forced by authorities to get one), they take too many "sickies" are not punctual, are not trustworthy, and they usually lose the job as soon as the boss can find somebody better.   They take, and take, and take, and never give.    They seem to delight in , risk taking behaviour and they often earn a Darwin Award because of that..   They are usually well known to police and when arrested, usually for a crime that is absolutely idiotic, they jump bail and continue re-offending.    Really dumb offenders have rap sheets longer than a roll of toilet paper.     Like that Mensa who ran down those folks in the Christmas parade in Waukesha.      In the USA they vote Democrat.   In Australia, they vote Labor.

     You are correct in saying that there are many different types of intelligence and sometimes those "intelligences" are mutually exclusive.     Some people who are good at maths are bad at Literature, and vice versa.    Some people have "athletic" intelligence for the amazing control that they have over their bodies, as dancers or athletes.    Women have better "social intelligence" than men.   Some people with high intelligence in one field of human endeavour are noted for their lack of social skills.      The "absent minded professor" is a very real personality type.    The great physicist Robert Oppenheimer was absolutely terrified of pretty young women.    The young typist girls at Los Alamos had a lot of fun "accidently" brushing against him to see his reactions.

     The only "environmental" factor pertaining to whether IQ is indicative of future success is that meritocracies out perform cronyocracies.     The western world is now awash with imported people who are just not intelligent enough to compete against whites, Asians, and Jews.   They will remain a crime and welfare problem forever.     Their representatives are trying to embrace the failed concept of "socialism" again where merit means less than political connections or identity politics.    In Australia, the fact that pure blooded aboriginal people with very low IQ's are just hopeless cases is always ignored.    Instead we get activists demanding ever more funding to "close the gap" to obtain  "equal outcomes" that can never close. 

     In the Northern Territory, 66% of the education budget is allotted to the 33% of students who are aboriginal, for a failure rate of 90% in national (NAPLAN) testing.    The endless cry of the activists is always "increase funding!"     Which, if aboriginal children were as bright as others would make some sense.    But the sad fact is, they are not.    And it is about time that the Australian government itself came out and admitted that pure blooded aboriginal children are just too dumb to teach.    In the "aboriginal" settlement of Arakun, recently, one teacher fled the settlement entirely after being chased by his students with weapons.    Not real smart.    It is now almost impossible to obtain teachers to go to remote areas and teach aboriginal children.    Once it was a fashionable thing for idealistic, virtue signalling young white teachers to do.    Not anymore.   Today the word has got around to even the virtue signaling young elites.   Keep out of aboriginal areas.  They are nuts.

     I don't have my copy of "The Bell Curve" with me.   I moved house recently and a friend agreed to store a lot of my book collection.    But anyhoo, The Bell Curve is a serious scientific work by a pair of serious scientists.    When they published their book, all hell broke loose and they were condemned by the usual leaders of dysfunctional minorities, to hell and back.     If their research was not valid, then a Nobel Prize is waiting for anyone who can go back through the data and who can prove that they are wrong.    All races do have equal intelligence.    But that is never going to happen.    Even their own most vehement critics know that they are right.  

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1444 Pts   -  
    @Bogan
     Nigel Mansell is a notorious Tasmanian "aboriginal" activist. once laughed at around Australia for claiming to be "aboriginal" even though he had light blue eyes and blond hair.    That people often have matching names with others around the world is hardly surprising.     What is surprising is that you did not think of that before tossing sneers at me.    You just failed my IQ test.

    There is no such person. Nigel Mansell is a retired British Formula 1 racing driver and his name matches nobody's of any notoriety anywhere in the world....you got it horribly wrong....twice.

    Are you sure that you don't mean Michael Mansell, the highly educated lawyer and Aboriginal rights activist? And, before you get mistaken again, I don't think Michael Mansell ever hooned around the APY Lands (or Tasmania from whence he came) in an F1 Ferrari.

    As for the so called "stolen generations", that is as big a hoax as Jussie Smolletts claim.....
    Yeah, quite witty. If you compare the Aboriginals with the Maori you will see that the Maori were a fearsome, fighting race who took absolutely no crap from the invading Brits. They forced the Treaty of Waitangi and fully integrated into society. The aboriginals' only "crime" was that they were a passive, peaceful, nomadic people who were pushed around by their invaders...they had no chance and still have a small chance of progressing today....a legacy from generations of mistreatment and abuse.
  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  
    To Swalliw

    You could be right there.   Mansell was considered a laughing stock in Australia around thirty years ago because of his claim to being "aboriginal". His first name may have been Michael instead of Nigel.    It was a long time ago.  

    If you are saying that Maori's are fierce while aborigines are passive, Congratulations, you just made a racist statement.    You are just as big a racist as I am.  
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -  
    Bogan said:

    Hi again, MayCaeser.

    How do I define intelligence myself?    I am not a trained cognitive metrician, but could I make some personal observations?     Dumb people do not care about their health and overindulge in alcohol, illegal drugs, and cigarettes.   They eat too much fatty and sugary foods, and they never exercise.   They do not value education nor encourage their usually dumb kids to do so either.    They don't clean their teeth or wash themselves too regularly.    They would rather be on social security than go to work.    If they manage to get a job (or more likely, are forced by authorities to get one), they take too many "sickies" are not punctual, are not trustworthy, and they usually lose the job as soon as the boss can find somebody better.   They take, and take, and take, and never give.    They seem to delight in , risk taking behaviour and they often earn a Darwin Award because of that..   They are usually well known to police and when arrested, usually for a crime that is absolutely idiotic, they jump bail and continue re-offending.    Really dumb offenders have rap sheets longer than a roll of toilet paper.     Like that Mensa who ran down those folks in the Christmas parade in Waukesha.      In the USA they vote Democrat.   In Australia, they vote Labor.

     You are correct in saying that there are many different types of intelligence and sometimes those "intelligences" are mutually exclusive.     Some people who are good at maths are bad at Literature, and vice versa.    Some people have "athletic" intelligence for the amazing control that they have over their bodies, as dancers or athletes.    Women have better "social intelligence" than men.   Some people with high intelligence in one field of human endeavour are noted for their lack of social skills.      The "absent minded professor" is a very real personality type.    The great physicist Robert Oppenheimer was absolutely terrified of pretty young women.    The young typist girls at Los Alamos had a lot of fun "accidently" brushing against him to see his reactions.

     The only "environmental" factor pertaining to whether IQ is indicative of future success is that meritocracies out perform cronyocracies.     The western world is now awash with imported people who are just not intelligent enough to compete against whites, Asians, and Jews.   They will remain a crime and welfare problem forever.     Their representatives are trying to embrace the failed concept of "socialism" again where merit means less than political connections or identity politics.    In Australia, the fact that pure blooded aboriginal people with very low IQ's are just hopeless cases is always ignored.    Instead we get activists demanding ever more funding to "close the gap" to obtain  "equal outcomes" that can never close. 

     In the Northern Territory, 66% of the education budget is allotted to the 33% of students who are aboriginal, for a failure rate of 90% in national (NAPLAN) testing.    The endless cry of the activists is always "increase funding!"     Which, if aboriginal children were as bright as others would make some sense.    But the sad fact is, they are not.    And it is about time that the Australian government itself came out and admitted that pure blooded aboriginal children are just too dumb to teach.    In the "aboriginal" settlement of Arakun, recently, one teacher fled the settlement entirely after being chased by his students with weapons.    Not real smart.    It is now almost impossible to obtain teachers to go to remote areas and teach aboriginal children.    Once it was a fashionable thing for idealistic, virtue signalling young white teachers to do.    Not anymore.   Today the word has got around to even the virtue signaling young elites.   Keep out of aboriginal areas.  They are nuts.

     I don't have my copy of "The Bell Curve" with me.   I moved house recently and a friend agreed to store a lot of my book collection.    But anyhoo, The Bell Curve is a serious scientific work by a pair of serious scientists.    When they published their book, all hell broke loose and they were condemned by the usual leaders of dysfunctional minorities, to hell and back.     If their research was not valid, then a Nobel Prize is waiting for anyone who can go back through the data and who can prove that they are wrong.    All races do have equal intelligence.    But that is never going to happen.    Even their own most vehement critics know that they are right.  

    I have met a lot of people that you described in the first paragraph who conventionally would be considered highly intelligent, such as elite university students or professors. If those people are "dumb", then who is intelligent, and, again, how is intelligence defined?
    For that matter, this kind of people is a minority in virtually any meaningful group you can come up with. Even among the Aboriginal people in Australia, for example, the unemployment rate is around 19%, which is less than 1/5th of the population. Maybe 19% of the Aboriginal people are "dumb", in your terminology, but you are generalizing it to the whole population which is unwarranted.

    To me, "absent-minded professor" is exactly the best example of the fact that intelligence cannot be measured in a meaningful way by some single-number metric. So I do not exactly understand what people mean when they say that ethnic/racial/gender/etc. group X is less intelligent biologically than group Y. Less intelligent in what way? Is an Australian aboriginal, when becoming a professor, more likely to be that of the "absent-minded" type? Is an Australian aboriginal less likely to become a professor when putting in the same amount of effort as an Australian Anglo-Saxon? Is an Australian aboriginal less likely to want to become a professor in the first place, specifically for some deeply irrational reason? And, finally, if one of these is true, what supports the idea that there is a causal connection between these factors?

    That environmental factor that you just mentioned is exactly what I am talking about, only it is much wider than just about merit. All kinds of cultural elements play a role here. Japanese and Chinese are genetically fairly similar people, but their cultures are very different, and, as such, the average Japanese is going to learn a very different set of habits and ways of thinking than the average Chinese. The average Chinese whose parents immigrated to Japan when he/she was very little is going to be far closer in terms of mentality to the average Japanese than the average Chinese, unless his/her parents are of the rare variety of Chinese people who stubbornly hold on to their traditions and cultural elements when living overseas (Chinese people tend to be highly adaptable to new environments, which is also a part of their culture).
    Again, there is no reason to invoke the genetical argument anywhere here.

    How do you think education works? A child goes to school, has a uniformly sized chunk of knowledge dropped on his head, processes this information automatically based on his intelligence and that is it? Do you not consider the fact that that child, regardless of what he does while at school, at the end of the day goes back to his parents and boils in their culture? Or the fact that the schools disproportionally attended by children of a certain group tend to also be taught and run by members of the same group, again perpetuating the same type of culture?
    I have not succeeded in life because of how amazing Russian schools run by white Russian people are; I have succeeded exactly because I did a lot to negate the values those people tried to instill in me in order to make me an obedient member of the "great Russian people" and did my own thing. Other people did not and did not succeed; they became the mainstream Russian people perpetuating the values of that culture and never changing, never evolving.
    Same is true for all those aboriginal kids in Australia who, due to the influence of their surroundings and to their personal inability to negate this influence through rational free thinking, never escaped the retrograde aboriginal culture. This is not true for those who broke out of this conditioning and pursued their own happiness outside of any collectivist pressure groups.

    "The Bell Curve" is exactly a book written by Charles Murray who I referred to. His claims do not align with yours; he does not suggest any causal links between the IQ and the general quality of life of the population. I think you are reading from his work what you want to be reading and not what is actually there.
    No one receives a Nobel Prize for refuting a point that no one has ever convincingly made. If people misinterpret Charles' work, then it is on them; it does not diminish the quality of that work, nor does it strengthen their (mis)interpretation of it.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1815 Pts   -  
    Bogan said:
    The quality of the debating replies on this topic has been quite good, CYDdharta.     Sneey one liners can have their place in responses, but persistence in that type of "debating" reply is indicative of a heckler instead of somebody with an opinion they can validate with a reasoned argument.     Please lift your game or go onto an easier topic.
    Heckler?  Sneey?  (I have no idea what that means, but the context makes it seem rather negative)  You seem to have gotten my observation all wrong.  The Australian people have done quite a good job of rising above their inauspicious beginnings, which is why it's so relevant to this topic.  If I wanted to test the theory that criminality was hereditary, I could hardly find a better example to test than a penal colony.  But the fact that Australia has turned out so well demonstrates that criminality isn't hereditary, and undercuts your position.
    piloteer
  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  
    Hi MayCaesar.     That was quick.

    I am sorry if you do not accept my particular definition of low IQ people, but I would have thought it to be self evident?       I suppose we will have to agree to disagree there.      

    Intelligence is defined by Google as "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills."     

    As for aboriginal unemployment, I don't know where you got your figures from, but I would say that somebody is being economical with the truth.     To begin with, exactly what is aboriginal"?     Australian laws define "aboriginal" as anybody with the merest trace of "aboriginality."    In the USA, Southern racists claimed that a white person was really a negro if they had so much as "one drop" of African blood.    There was even an old movie made about "the one drop rule" involving a white woman who accidently discovers she has "one drop" of African blood and is shunned by her friends and forced into slavery.   In Australia, "the one drop rule" works the other way around.    "One drop" of "aboriginal" blood and you are a fair dinkum aborigine.    When a respected journalist in Australia questioned why so many white people were accessing the very generous welfare given to aboriginal people, he was sued by a bunch of "white aborigines", who won the court case.     One said "I am 1/64th aboriginal, the rest of me is mongrel."       Even that man's parents and sister said that they were not aboriginal.    But wherever there is a handout, there are sticky fingers abounding. 

    Most "aboriginal" people who are working are doing government non jobs like "Sacred site investigator', "welcome to country dancer"    'aboriginal cultural ambassador"    "aboriginal land park ranger (which means you get paid to go huntin' and fishin' every day in a government supplied vehicle, with government supplied rifles and ammo)    "aboriginal truancy ofifcer, since aboriginal kids won't go to school the government provides "jobs" and cars and petrol for aboriginal people to drive around picking up the kids who don't want to go to school.   The Rudd Labor government instituted the Remote Jobs and Communities Program to alleviate the high levels of chronic unemployment by remote area aborigines. It was not that there was no work to do in these communities, but all the work was being done by fly in/fly out white workers who did whatever was necessary, from building new homes, repairing old homes, and maintaining power and water services.The $1.5 billion dollar program has been an abject failure. Only 30% of the 37,000 aboriginal people on unemployment even bothered to apply for the program, which involved contracted "Providers" in each of 60 declared "remote" regions, who's job was to work with individuals, communities, and local employers to find jobs for aborigines.

    The costings reveal that an incredible $430,000 thousand dollars was spent by the program to place each aboriginal worker in a job which lasted more than six months. And only 30% of those jobs involved "structured work with mutual obligations." Exactly what this bureaucratic diseased English quote means, is anybodies guess. But I opine that it means that 70% of the jobs bought for $430,000 dollars by the Aussie taxpayer involved nothing more than the candidate picking up litter from around his community, if he or she felt like it.

     The list goes on and on forever.    And it is all to impress and fool nice people like yourself into thinking that aboriginal people are as smart as the rest of us.

    The rest of your arguments are too esoteric and amorphous for me to comment upon.    You seem to suggest that since intelligence is hard to define, it can not exist?    Sorry, I think most people would disagree with you there.     Just because a concept is an abstract one does not mean it can have no validity.     How do you define "beauty?       Intelligence is a valid concept and intelligent people are prized in most societies.

    You may say that intelligence can not be measured but the cognitive matriclans disagree with you.     As pointed out previously, if IQ testing was bunkum, nobody would use IQ testing.     There are no pure blooded aboriginal professors.    Only white people who had a great, great grandmother who was "aboriginal"        I disagree with your claim that the authors of "the Bell Curve" did not display the clear distinction between races and intelligence.   I read the book, you did not.    I have no idea where this claim of yours comes from that TBC did not display racial differences in IQ.    That was what the whole book was about.    Something like 1000 pages.      The book caused a sensation and the authors took a lot of flak.    I still have my copy of "Scientific  American" which attacked the book, right, left, and center.      A Nobel Prize awaits anybody who can prove 'the Bell Curve" was wrong, and proves that all races have equal bell curves of intelligence.    On the principle that it is easier to prove the truth than to prove a lie, that should be easy to do.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1444 Pts   -   edited December 2021
    @Bogan
    You could be right there.

    Wrong. I am right.....for the third bleeding time.

    Saying that Maori were warlike and that Aboriginals were passive is not racist, it is reporting facts to make a point. Reporting incorrect or exaggerated "facts" and excluding other mitigating facts to make a point is prejudice, in this case we are talking racism. Making the same incorrect fact three times, (the third being a lame excuse and still not accepting the fact) is prejudice gone way off the Richter. The next time I'm taking the Landcruiser up the Stuart highway I'll watch out on the roadside for an F1 Ferrari that wrapped itself around a roo the night before, shall I?

    SoundSaturn5828
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch