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.


Communities




Are races Equal?

13»



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • @Bogan Apologizes for the wait time, I was busy for much of the day and thus did not find much time to respond to your argument immediately. 
  • BoganBogan 421 Pts   -  

    MineSubCraftStarved quote    Apologizes for the wait time, I was busy for much of the day and thus did not find much time to respond to your argument immediately. 

     Hi MineSubCraftStarved , me too.    My new home is halfway between two widely spaced Australian cities on the tourist trail, and numerous friends and relos keep dropping in and staying for a few days.   Another one turned up yesterday.

     

    MSCS quote   species is defined as any group of organisms with the ability to produce fertile offspring. By this definition, dogs are definitely a subspecies(and a member of the wolf, or Canis Lupus species) as they have been known to reproduce with other wolves and produce fertile offspring.  

     You are correct.    Although interestingly, my new research (which your intelligent logic forced me to do) revealed that naturalists and taxonomists realise that there is no really logical definition of "species" anymore, and there are now around ten other ways of defining species among naturalists, all of which can be considered reasonable and valid.         This was because it is now recognised that species can, and do, breed with one another to produce fertile offspring, which can breed with either species.      Brown bears are now known to breed with Polar bears, who (surprisingly) are not even classified as "bears" but as "marine mammals."    Anthropologists have long speculated that European humans once mated with Neanderthals, and last I heard, geneticists today are confirming that premise.     But the old idea that species can not breed with each other has long been the explanation, and it is still the usual one that people use.    Although not now considered scientifically accurate, naturalists still use it themselves as shorthand, as it is still essentially valid in almost all cases.


     MSCS quote    Adrenaline levels are a single gene out of tens of thousands. This small difference amounts to great differences in appearance and behavior, and this effect is not only limited to dogs.     An experiment by Russian scientists on foxes showed that when adrenaline levels decreased, different physical appearances and behavioral changes began to take effect. A similar effect has happened with dogs, wherein adrenaline differences produced such major differences, rather than genetic differences.

     I do not know if your claim that adrenaline production in human and animal genomes rests with a single gene, is correct or not.    But regardless of whether it is a single gene or a combination of genes, my original premise is still valid.    Hormone levels are a product of genetics.    

     

    MSCS quote.   If both a person of Hebrew descent and a person of Aboriginal were to grow up in the same household, with the same environment, and go to the same school. You would expect that their outcome would be the same. The differences between races in aspects of let's say, intelligence, can most accurately be marked up as cultural differences rather than genetic differences. This is seen by the fact that, for example, those of Hebrew descent generally have a culture of studying, reading books, and pursuing intellectual and educational goals first and foremost. While those of Aboriginal descent may not have the same culture generally, and thus may perform differently. This doesn't prove any hereditary difference, rather it simply shows that different cultures may try to achieve different things and thus may have different outcomes.

     Cognitive metricians, who are scientists, are actively involved in measuring human intelligence.    They maintain, and industry, governments, and universities agree with them, that intelligence can be measured, and the measurement is accurate.       The book "The Bell Curve" by Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray, created a scientific and social furore equal to "Origin of Species".    This was because  the statistical analysis of 70 years of  IQ testing revealed that different races have different "Bell curves" of intelligence.     They speculated (and I agree with them) that high human IQ is mainly a factor of how long a particular race of people have lived in civilisations.      Primitive people have no need of high intelligence, since their hand to mouth existence precludes any need for higher thought.    Most primitive people's concept of "mathematics" consists of "one, two, and many." 

     The idea that races with low IQ could be raised to a higher (or acceptable) level of IQ through diet and education does have some validity.    But no amount of good diet and education can make a basically dumb person into a person with average intelligence within even a few lifespans.     US educationalists tried it with a number of US government financed social programs from the 1930's to raise low IQ African children to at least average IQ , and every program failed miserably.       Some of these programs were run by well intentioned leftists who were desperate to prove that all races were equal.   They all claimed  that these programs did indeed raise intellect, if only by a half dozen IQ points.    One was heralded as "The Miracle in Milwaukee" by the media when the guy who ran the program claimed a 30 IQ point rise in IQ among the children he was teaching.    This guy went to jail when it was found that his data was fabricated, and using government funds for pseudo science and falsifying data is a criminal offense in the USA.    (pity it is not used on climate scientists)   

      However, a well respected statistician from Yale university was hired by the government to review the raw data from these programs and his report claimed that any claim that "proved" that education could significantly raise a child's IQ could not be substantiated by the data.    Naturally, the leftists at Yale university hounded the poor guy out of his university, he got death threats, and he had to change his address to avoid the "all races are equal" zealots.    This is the fate of any scientist today who does not play ball with this new "humanitarian" ideology.

     As for implying that Jews are smart because they have a smart culture, and indigenous Australians are du-mb because they have a du-mb culture, ignores the fact that smart people will always create a smart culture where education is valued, while du-mb people will always have a du-mb culture which does not value education.    And smart people typically act smart, while du-mb people typically act du-mb.

     

    MSCS quote     You have thus far failed to provide any evidence that genetic differences are the reasons that there exist demographic discrepancies between races. You have only provided a correlation of traits between races, rather than proving that certain intelligence or personality traits are caused by race.

     I would have thought that observable reality proved that point?   If genetics causes certain sub species of brown bears to be regarded as intrinsically more dangerous and aggressive than other sub species of brown bears, then obviously, generic diversity caused by adaptations to environment, is the logical cause.     And what apples to other mammals applies equally to human mammals.

     

    MSCS quote    Additionally, any person of any race can be a prodigy, or a great runner, just like any person of any race can be downright idiotic and unathletic, race has had a minimal effect on what someone may achieve.

     Yes.   "The Bell Curve" explained that when they talk about "bell curves" of intelligence, they mean that every race has people who have low, average, and high intelligence within that race.    This is the "bell curve" of intelligence.    But between races, the bell curves are displaced.     There are still smart people within dysfunctional races and du-mb people within smart races.  The book maintained that smart people from low bell curve IQ races have no trouble being accepted as equals among liberal minded people of the same IQ, who live and work with them.    The problem is, that some races have a much higher proportion of people with very low IQ and a low proportion of people with high IQ.   Even Asians have a higher "bell curve" of IQ than white people, although they do not seem to have the really towering intellects that whites and Jews seem to produce.     Please name any black African "prodigy" who has won a Nobel Prize for science?     

     

    MSCS quote     Your main fallacy in this argument is the belief that correlation is the same as causation. Take for instance the statement: "Most people who drink milk get into car crashes." Although this may be a true statement, and that the consumption of milk may indeed correlate with car crashes, this does not mean that if I drink milk I am more likely to get into a car crash. Why? Because only correlation was proven between the two variables, there was no causation data to suggest that drinking milk causes car crashes. In your argument, you claim that since young African American males occupy a disproportionate level of serious crimes, therefore, there is a correlation between African Americans and crime and thus that is evidenced that being African American causes you to commit more crimes.

     You are not using the term "correlation does not denote causation" in the way which it's inventor, Sir Charles Galton, intended.      Galton was Darwin's cousin and he was a polymath, statistician, advocate for eugenics, inventor of the dog whistle, and inventor of the isobaric weather chart.    As a statistician, he knew that statistical correlation between two axes usually did denote correlation, but such a fact should not be considered as valid in every case.

     Leftists today have a new concept of "correlation does not denote causation".      When statistical correlation works for the lefties, it is absolutely true.    When it works the other way against them, it becomes "correlation does not denote causation."

     

    MSCS quote      However this is not necessarily true, there could be a multitude of reasons that African Americans commit more crimes. Such as, poverty levels, lack of police, lack of education, individual choices and cultural aspects, etc. However, your claim that genetics has an intrinsic role to play in this is without evidence, and you have shown no scientific papers supporting your evidence that African Americans are significantly more predisposed to commit crimes, measure lower on IQ tests and have higher testosterone levels. You haven't provided any real scientific data to suggest that hereditary reasons cause differences between races in terms of education, crime, income, and intelligence.

     The premise is simple and eminently understandable,    Some ethnicities have a low measured IQ.    The same ethnicities are very disproportionately represented in intergenerational welfare dependence and serious criminal behaviour.   Du-mb people do not value education.   In Australia, "indigenous" kids do not ant to go to school and truancy is endemic, even though "indigenous" children are provided with free food at school.      The Northern Territory government spends four times as much money on educating "indigenous" students as it does with other ethnicities, for  90% failure rate in NAPLAN (National) school testing.

     Du-mb people eat too much fatty and sugary food and become obese.    Du-mb people do things and hurt themselves.    Du-mb people rob banks that are right next to police stations.   Du-mb people drive like id-iots, which is why insurance companies grade car insurance risk by suburb.   Du-mb people would rather live on welfare than do entry level jobs which might improve their lot through promotion.   Jails are full of du-mb people.  Du-mb people are a problem in advanced societies, and unfortunately it is largely linked to race.

  • @Bogan
     You are correct.    Although interestingly, my new research (which your intelligent logic forced me to do) revealed that naturalists and taxonomists realize that there is no real logical definition of "species" anymore, and there are now around ten other ways of defining species among naturalists, all of which can be considered reasonable and valid.         This was because it is now recognized that species can, and do, breed with one another to produce fertile offspring, which can breed with either species.      Brown bears are now known to breed with Polar bears, who (surprisingly) are not even classified as "bears" but as "marine mammals."    Anthropologists have long speculated that European humans once mated with Neanderthals, and last I heard, geneticists today are confirming that premise.     But the old idea that species can not breed with each other has long been the explanation, and it is still the usual one that people use.    Although not now considered scientifically accurate, naturalists still use it themselves as shorthand, as it is still essentially valid in almost all cases.
    The vast majority of biologists and experts certainly do agree on a definition of a species. A species( which I have defined previously) is simply a level of taxonomy that distinguishes two organisms. If you contest my definition of a species then I would certainly like to hear your definition and we can discuss then which is more scientifically accurate. But as you have not given your own definition, my definition of species is the baseline within this debate on what constitutes a species. Additionally, it is simply untrue that Polar bears are not considered to be bears, this is wrong. Furthermore, genetic offspring between brown bears and polar bears would not bear genetic offspring that are fertile, thus, they are not the same species, if their offspring were fertile they would be, but their offspring are not fertile. Furthermore, you seem to have misunderstood the definition of species, what constitutes whether or not organisms are part of the same species is not whether or not they are able to breed offspring in general, but that they are able to breed fertile offspring. For example, tigers and lions can breed with each other, however, their offspring(ligers) will not be fertile. Furthermore, the admixture of Neanderthal DNA within European haplogroups has been estimated by a large number of studies to be around 10% Neanderthal DNA, with the rest of the DNA coming from other hominids, the vast majority being Homo Sapien admixture. If two species were to be able to breed offspring that can reproduce, then they are the same species.
    Cognitive metricians are scientists who are actively involved in measuring human intelligence.    They maintain, and industry, governments, and universities agree with them, that intelligence can be measured, and the measurement is accurate.       The book "The Bell Curve" by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, created a scientific and social furor equal to "Origin of Species".    This was because the statistical analysis of 70 years of  IQ testing revealed that different races have different "Bell curves" of intelligence.     They speculated (and I agree with them) that high human IQ is mainly a factor of how long a particular race of people has lived in civilizations.      Primitive people have no need for high intelligence since their hand-to-mouth existence precludes any need for higher thought.    Most primitive people's concept of "mathematics" consists of "one, two, and many." 
    As stated previously, you are finding a correlation between demographics rather than causation between race and intelligence. Your main fallacy in this debate is the failure to distinguish between causation and correlation. For instance, the statement, "100% of people that breathe oxygen will die. Therefore, oxygen causes people to die, so I will refuse to breathe any oxygen." This statement is obviously ridiculous as no causation has been proven between oxygen and death. Simply because something correlates with something else doesn't necessarily mean that one thing causes the other. Therefore, simply because those of African descent tend to score lower on IQ tests, does not mean that their being of African descent causes lower IQ tests, and you have yet to prove this aspect.
     You are not using the term "correlation does not denote causation" in the way that it's inventor, Sir Charles Galton, intended.      Galton was Darwin's cousin and he was a polymath, statistician, advocate for eugenics, inventor of the dog whistle, and inventor of the isobaric weather chart.    As a statistician, he knew that statistical correlation between two axes usually did denote correlation, but such a fact should not be considered valid in every case.
    You are still committing this fallacy as you are linking causation solely on the basis of correlation. It is irrelevant what the 'inventor' of this fallacy intended for its 'use'.
  • BoganBogan 421 Pts   -  
    @MineSubCraftStarved

    MSCS quote     The vast majority of biologists and experts certainly do agree on a definition of a species. A species( which I have defined previously) is simply a level of taxonomy that distinguishes two organisms. If you contest my definition of a species then I would certainly like to hear your definition and we can discuss then which is more scientifically accurate.      But as you have not given your own definition, my definition of species is the baseline within this debate on what constitutes a species 

     According to a recent video on species and sub species I watched only yesterday, that is not correct. Your definition is no longer considered entirely valid.   According to the video, biologists today have more than half a dozen new definitions of what a "species" is, because the old definition was not valid in every case.   Although it is still used as a shorthand, because it is true in almost every case.   

     

     MSCS    quote Additionally, it is simply untrue that Polar bears are not considered to be bears, this is wrong.

     No.   It is right.    Zebras and donkeys are not horses, although they look similar and share the same genus.    Koala bears are not "bears", they are not even mammals.      And Polar bears are not the same species as bears, because although they have a common genus, they do not share the same scientific taxonomical name which denotes species.      The scientific name for the bear species is "actos".    Grizzley bears are ursos actos horribilus.  Being "ursos" (genus name) "actos" (species name) and "horriblis" (sub species name.)      Polar bears are ursos maritimus.    Being "ursos" (genus name) "maritimus" (species name) with no third Latin name, which denotes that Polar bears are a pure species which have no sub species.


     MSCS    Furthermore, genetic offspring between brown bears and polar bears would not bear genetic offspring that are fertile, thus, they are not the same species, if their offspring were fertile they would be, but their offspring are not fertile.    Furthermore, you seem to have misunderstood the definition of species, what constitutes whether or not organisms are part of the same species is not whether or not they are able to breed offspring in general, but that they are able to breed fertile offspring. For example, tigers and lions can breed with each other, however, their offspring(ligers) will not be fertile.  

     The Youtube video I watched says that you are wrong, that Polar bears and brown bears do mate and produce fertile offspring, which negates the old category that separate species can not interbreed to produce fertile offspring.    I can not validate whether what they claimed is about polar bears and brown bears mating and producing fertile offspring is correct or not.  But that is what the video claimed and the video also claimed that even though the old species category is now known to be not quite right, the category is still commonly used as a shorthand, even though biologists know it is not carved in stone.    It is a bit like electricity.      A hundred years of teaching told students that electricity flows from positive to negative.    By the time somebody figured out it was the other way around, it was a bit late to change the textbooks.    But electricians today are taught that although text books still say that current flows from positive to negative, it doesn't.

     

     MSCS quote     Furthermore, the admixture of Neanderthal DNA within European haplogroups has been estimated by a large number of studies to be around 10% Neanderthal DNA, with the rest of the DNA coming from other hominids, the vast majority being Homo Sapien admixture. If two species were to be able to breed offspring that can reproduce, then they are the same species.

     Wrong, wrong, wrong.    Once again, scientific taxonomical naming proves you wrong.   Homo sapiens (humans) and homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) were separate species.    In accordance with Carl Linnaeus's taxology, the first Latin name (homo) is the genus category, the second Latin name (neanderthalis or sapien) is the species category, and any latter prefix is the sub species category.    Since humans and Neanderthals had different species names, then they must be different species according to their separate taxology categories.   The fact that two different species of hominids could breed with one another and produce fertile offspring, validates the video, and proves that the old classification of "species" is no longer considered entirely correct.


     MSCS quote      As stated previously, you are finding a correlation between demographics rather than causation between race and intelligence.

     No, I have submitted that as far as cognitive metricians are concerned, different races have different "bell curves" of intelligence.     If all races have equal bell curves of intelligence, then some clever scientist has got a Nobel Prize waiting for them, and the undying acclaim of the whole liberal world forever, if they can prove the "truth" that all races have equal intelligence.   They will have statues of him all over the place.   Buildings , bridges, and streets will be named after him,    He will be listed with Galton Darwin, Newton, and Galileo as being one of the giants of science.   But you and I know that is never going to happen.   No matter how the "all races are equal" zealots prance and hyperventilate, I am sure that they themselves know that the dysfunctional ethnicities they champion are mainly du-mb arses, and very violent to boot.    And if the non scientists among them are still blinded by their wishful thinking ideology, the scientists know it is pure malarkey.    So no woke liberal scientist is even going to try and prove it is true.

     And I have backed up this scientific fact with an example using aboriginal Australians which clearly show by their behaviour that they self evidently have very low intelligence.      I pointed out that if white people in the same circumstance acted that way, you would have no trouble at all concluding that they were du-mb white trash.    But when dysfunctional ethnicities quite clearly display low intelligence behaviour,  people like you come up with every excuse under the sun except the screamingly obvious one.

     

    MSCS    quote       Your main fallacy in this debate is the failure to distinguish between causation and correlation. For instance, the statement, "100% of people that breathe oxygen will die. Therefore, oxygen causes people to die, so I will refuse to breathe any oxygen." This statement is obviously ridiculous as no causation has been proven between oxygen and death. Simply because something correlates with something else doesn't necessarily mean that one thing causes the other. Therefore, simply because those of African descent tend to score lower on IQ tests, does not mean that their being of African descent causes lower IQ tests, and you have yet to prove this aspect.

     Already explained at length.  When statistics agree with lefties, then the statistics are accurate.  When the statistics  prove them wrong, out comes the chanting of the mantra "correlation does not denote causation"..


  • @Bogan

     No, I have submitted that as far as cognitive metricians are concerned, different races have different "bell curves" of intelligence.

    Again, you are drawing causation of the bell curves that race is a key factor in intelligence based simply on correlation. Statistical trends are irrelevant to the validity of your claim that race decides intelligence. No matter how much you try to avoid this fallacy and continue relying your claim on the poor argument of statistical trends, you have not brought a single source to prove that race is a deciding factor in determining the hereditary intelligence of a human. Race by definition is only based on physical characteristics, such as skin tone, rather than mental ones, such as intelligence.
    Here is the definition of 'race'.
    1aany one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry

    The bell curves attributed to intelligence can most likely be attributed to educational or cultural differences, rather than hereditary ones.
    Take, for instance, Laos and Indonesia. Despite the fact that both Laos and Indonesia have large amounts of relative genetic admixture with the populations of both China and Hong Kong, when you compare their IQs, there are significant differences. Laos has an 81.0 IQ level on average, and those in Indonesia have an average of 78.5 IQ. Meanwhile, China has on average 104 IQ and Hong Kong has an average of around 105. Also, given the fact that those in Indonesia, Laos, and China/Hong Kong are all typically considered to be the same race, therefore by your logic should perform relatively the same on the IQ scale, however, this appears to not be the case, and race has not proven to be a deciding factor when considering intelligence. In fact, those in Indonesia tend to perform the same as those in Chad(78.9 IQ on average), clearly, this disproves your argument that those of African descent tend to have lower intelligence, given the fact that they have similar intelligence to those living in Indonesia(who[those of East-Asian descent] you claim to tend to have an above average IQ level).
    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-iq-by-country

    Furthermore, you have still not given a single source, or shred of evidence for that matter, to support your claim that race(that being divisions based on physical characteristics, rather than mental attributes), has a significant and hereditary effect regarding intelligence. One that can be genetically identifiable.
     Already explained at length.  When statistics agree with lefties, then the statistics are accurate.  When the statistics  prove them wrong, out comes the chanting of the mantra "correlation does not denote causation"..
    I currently am unaware and have a lack of caring over what the lefties believe regarding statistics. You don't even know if I'm left or right of the political aisle, and race certainly isn't a left-right political issue.
  • BoganBogan 421 Pts   -  
    @MineSubCraftStarved

    Hi MSCS, I missed you.  Welcome back.

     

    MSCS quote  Again, you are drawing causation of the bell curves that race is a key factor in intelligence based simply on correlation. Statistical trends are irrelevant to the validity of your claim that race decides intelligence.

     As I previously stated, if any liberal, woke scientist really believes that races have equal intelligence, then a Nobel Prize, and the thunderous applause of the whole liberal world would be showered on him for proving it.     Simply on the principle that it is easier to prove the truth than it is to "prove" a falsehood, then if races have equal intelligence, that premise should be very easy to prove.      Intelligence is measurable.    But as "The Bell Curve" pointed out, the inconvenient truth is that 70 years of IQ testing conclusively proved the opposite. 

     

    MSCS    No matter how much you try to avoid this fallacy and continue relying your claim on the poor argument of statistical trends, you have not brought a single source to prove that race is a deciding factor in determining the hereditary intelligence of a human.

     That logic works both ways.    Where is your "scientific evidence" or statistical analysis that races have equal IQ's?     Your position is that, "of course I am right", so naysayers musty prove you wrong.  You don't think there is any onus upon you to prove your premise.      No way, Jose.    If you think that races have equal intelligence, then prove it.     Intelligence is measurable, so it should be easy to prove your side is right.     A Nobel Prize and worldwide fame await any scientist (or even MSCS) who simply uses readily available standard IQ tests to prove that all races are equal.    Do you think that the reason why nobody tries it, is because no matter how the pseudo scientists who toe the woke party line posture and virtue signal, they all know that it is just not true? 

     

    MSCS   quote Race by definition is only based on physical characteristics, such as skin tone, rather than mental ones, such as intelligence.

     You are partly correct.  The categorisation of all species and sub species is usually based upon physical resemblance.   I love the way that you think that identifying species and sub species by their appearance is somehow insidious?       Scientists look for similarities in appearance first to try and classify species and sub species, and then they examine the differences in their environments, diet, intelligence, and behaviour, to confirm their classifications.      And that process works for humans as well as for animals.

     

    MSCS   Here is the definition of 'race'.

     Okay, I don't have a problem with your submitted definition of "race.".    What you did not explain to me is how this definition supported your argument that races have equal intelligence?

     

    MSCS  The bell curves attributed to intelligence can most likely be attributed to educational or cultural differences, rather than hereditary ones.

     Okay, you have just crossed the Rubicon and admitted that races have different bell curves of intelligence.    Well, that's good, we are making progress.   No backsliding please.   But now you are claiming that these differences are caused by environmental, cultural, and educational factors?      Well, let's dismiss "culture" right away.    Du-mb people have du-mb cultures.    Du-mb people do not value education, and the du-mb cultures that they live in do not value education. 

     As for "environmental and educational" factors, in 1960 scientists would have almost unanimously agreed with you.    Educationalists were fully aware of the 15 point IQ gap between US blacks and US whites and they argued that it could be overcome if the US Federal and State governments invested in special learning programs in special schools, where kindergarten aged minority children were even given free nourishing food, and given a cognitively stimulating syllabus taught by quality teachers.    Result?  Total failure.

     

    MSCS quote    Take, for instance, Laos and Indonesia. Despite the fact that both Laos and Indonesia have large amounts of relative genetic admixture with the populations of both China and Hong Kong, when you compare their IQs, there are significant differences. Laos has an 81.0 IQ level on average, and those in Indonesia have an average of 78.5 IQ. Meanwhile, China has on average 104 IQ and Hong Kong has an average of around 105. Also, given the fact that those in Indonesia, Laos, and China/Hong Kong are all typically considered to be the same race, therefore by your logic should perform relatively the same on the IQ scale, however, this appears to not be the case, and race has not proven to be a deciding factor when considering intelligence. In fact, those in Indonesia tend to perform the same as those in Chad(78.9 IQ on average), clearly, this disproves your argument that those of African descent tend to have lower intelligence, given the fact that they have similar intelligence to those living in Indonesia(who[those of East-Asian descent] you claim to tend to have an above average IQ level).

     Thank you for finally agreeing with me that races have different IQ levels.  Why are we arguing?     I am so glad that you are on my side at last.    Good fellow.  No backsliding, please.

     As for Asians "considering themselves" as all of the same race, Asians themselves do not consider they are all of one race.   Even though Koreans look exactly like Japanese, the Japanese consider them racial inferiors, and Koreans in Japan are discriminated against.      In Communist China, the official dogma taught in schools is that every race on earth evolved from Africans, except the Chinese.    The Chinese consider themselves a race apart from the rest of humanity, who evolved entirely from proto humans in China.     Yeah, MSCS.   The Chinese actually believe that they are a different species from the rest of us.    And they must be right because their scientists toe the party line and support the CCP.    You can't argue against scientists, can you?

     As for your claim that Laos and Indonesians have very low IQ, I can not say if that is correct or not.   But I am giving those figures a jaundiced eye.      The list you provided looks wrong to me.     It lists Israel as second last lowest IQ in the whole world?    Let's see.    Jews make up 0.3% of the world's population and they get 27% of Nobel Prizes for Science?   Israel, a tiny country with no natural resources at all, is one of the most technologically advanced and richest countries on the planet.     Sorry, MSCS, I don't buy those figures.     

      I lived through a time when Asians, Muslims, and Africans, were pretty well equally poverty stricken, and Asian people are now surpassing the even their white tutors in social development.   And they did it by themselves.    But all the trillions of dollars in UN aid directed at African countries has done nothing except make them dependent upon international welfare, in the same way as certain ethnic minorities in western countries are entirely dependent on welfare.

     

    MSCS    Furthermore, you have still not given a single source, or shred of evidence for that matter, to support your claim that race(that being divisions based on physical characteristics, rather than mental attributes), has a significant and hereditary effect regarding intelligence. One that can be genetically identifiable.

     Boing, boing?    Naughty, naughty, you are backsliding.   You have already agreed above that races do not have equal intelligence, and even suggested reasons for why this is so.   And now you are denying it?     I  think you should have a cup of tea, a Bex, and a good lie down, and think about how you are going to explain away your contradiction to me?

     In any case, as I said previously, that logic works both ways.   If you occasionally think that races are equal in intelligence, then where is your proof?    I, on the other hand, have argued reasonably that races obviously do not have equal IQ.    I have given the examples of how Australian aboriginal people behave.    It people act like id-iots than I think it is reasonable to conclude that it is because they are id-iots.    And I have submitted "The Bell Curve" which I consider the greatest scientific work since "Origin of Species."    In addition, I have addressed your claims that IQ is a factor of education, culture, or environment.    The US government's own strenuous efforts to raise US African IQ using special educational programs and free nutritious food failed miserably.

      

    MSCS  quote    I currently am unaware and have a lack of caring over what the lefties believe regarding statistics. You don't even know if I'm left or right of the political aisle, and race certainly isn't a left-right political issue.

     If there is one thing which practically defines the Left, it is their absolute insistence that everyone is equal.    So if I get an opponent like your good self who strenuously advocates for this false premise, then it is reasonable to conclude that you are left wing in outlook.    But if you are not, then that is great.  It means that you have a functioning brain and I should be able to get rid of the virus infecting it..


    MineSubCraftStarved
  • @Bogan
     That logic works both ways.    Where is your "scientific evidence" or statistical analysis that races have equal IQs?     Your position is that "of course I am right", so naysayers must prove you wrong.  You don't think there is any onus upon you to prove your premise.      No way, Jose.    If you think that races have equal intelligence, then prove it.     Intelligence is measurable, so it should be easy to prove your side is right.     A Nobel Prize and worldwide fame await any scientist (or even MSCS) who simply uses readily available standard IQ tests to prove that all races are equal.    Do you think that the reason why nobody tries it, is because no matter how the pseudo-scientists who toe the woke party line posture and virtue signal, they all know that it is just not true? 
    I have already proven above that race is not an accurate way to derive someone's or a group's intelligence. As seen above, those in Indonesia perform markedly lower than those in China although they are the same race. If race is a determinant of intelligence, then why do groups of the same race have such widely different IQ levels? The reason those in Indonesia and Laos are considered the same 'race' as those in china is that they have significant shared East Asian genetic admixture, and thus are very close genetically.
     Okay, you have just crossed the Rubicon and admitted that races have different bell curves of intelligence.    Well, that's good, we are making progress.   No backsliding, please.   But now you are claiming that these differences are caused by environmental, cultural, and educational factors?      Well, let's dismiss "culture" right away.
    A bell curve is defined as simply the distribution of a certain variable. As I have stated many times at this point, it is simply the correlation between two factors, not causation between them.
    It is a fallacy to claim that race serves as the main causation for intelligence simply based on the correlation of the two factors. Take for instance the statement, "Everyone that has breathed oxygen has died, therefore, oxygen kills people." This statement runs under the fallacy that correlation equates to causation. This is similar to your claim, "African Americans tend to score lower on IQ bell curves, therefore, being African American causes a lower IQ score." Just like in the example regarding oxygen I provided, you are linking race with intelligence based purely on correlation, rather than causation. Thus you are committing a logical fallacy, and you cannot claim that race is a key variable when it comes to intelligence without any scientific papers to support that causation.
     As for "environmental and educational" factors, in 1960 scientists would have almost unanimously agreed with you.    Educationalists were fully aware of the 15-point IQ gap between US blacks and US whites and they argued that it could be overcome if the US Federal and State governments invested in special learning programs in special schools, where kindergarten-aged minority children were even given free nourishing food, and given a cognitively stimulating syllabus taught by quality teachers.    Result?  Total failure.
    It's disingenuous to mention a study without providing a link, especially when you can do so in Debate Island. Unless you provide a link from which we can discuss the study in depth, your point shall be considered mute.
     If you occasionally think that races are equal in intelligence, then where is your proof?    I, on the other hand, have argued reasonably that races do not have equal IQ.    I have given examples of how Australian aboriginal people behave.    If people act like idiots than I think it is reasonable to conclude that it is because they are idiots.    And I have submitted "The Bell Curve" which I consider the greatest scientific work since "Origin of Species."    In addition, I have addressed your claims that IQ is a factor of education, culture, or environment.    The US government's strenuous efforts to raise US African IQ using special educational programs and free nutritious food failed miserably.
    Races tend to be equal in intelligence because there has been no scientific evidence to suggest that race is a determinant of intelligence. There isn't even a scientific basis for race. Race is simply a made-up term used by pseudo-scientists based on arbitrary classifications and divisions of homo sapiens based purely on physical appearances. The fact is that all humans are nearly identical genetically speaking, and there simply hasn't been enough time for any significant changes to occur between population groups. And again, unless you have any real scientific data to support that there are consistent genetic differences between races that determine lower intelligence for some and higher intelligence for others, your argument is mute.
  • BoganBogan 421 Pts   -  
    @MineSubCraftStarved

    MSCS  quote    I have already proven above that race is not an accurate way to derive someone's or a group's intelligence.

     Just claiming that you have proved something when you have not, is just silly.    You presented a list of average IQ of countries which does not make sense.    Israel could hardly be a country with the second lowest recorded IQ.    That is patently false.  And by presenting that list as a "fact" you are tacitly admitting that races do have unequal intelligence.

     

    MSCS      As seen above, those in Indonesia perform markedly lower than those in China although they are the same race.         The reason those in Indonesia and Laos are considered the same 'race' as those in china is that they have significant shared East Asian genetic admixture, and thus are very close genetically.   

      Broadly speaking, Chinese and Indonesians are considered "Asians", but they are not the same race, and they themselves do even not regard each other as the same race.     The Chinese in Indonesia are identifiably different to Indonesians, who have different facial features and darker skin, and the Indonesians discriminate against the Chinese.    Genetically, homo sapiens are very close to chimpanzees, but homo sapiens are not chimpanzees. 

     

    MSCS    "If race is a determinant of intelligence, then why do groups of the same race have such widely different IQ levels?

     Okay, I have already explained to you how "bell curves" of intelligence works, but perhaps I did not do a good enough job of it?  

     Throughout history, the rulers of states have recognised that some people have low intelligence and some have high intelligence.      They hardly valued people of low intelligence, but they knew that people of high intelligence were very valuable.    It was not until the early 20th century that Psychology could (especially in the USA) branch out into a new scientific field of IQ testing, and the scientists who performed these tests were called "cognitive metricians."

     Prior to the late 20th century, when society was not hyper sensitive about race, cognitive metricians in the USA began testing people in regards to class and race and discovered exactly what common sense already told them.       That is, that within the US population (and by inference every population in the world) there are a very small number of people with very low IQ.    There are a significant proportion of people with below average IQ, and the vast majority of people who have average IQ.    Beyond that, there are a significant proportion of people with above average IQ, and a tiny minority who have very high IQ.     Plotted on a graph, this IQ spread takes the form of a stretched bell shaped curve.

     They also discovered, unsurprisingly, that people in the white upper classes usually had high to very high IQ.   Middle level managers had above average IQ.   White working class people usually had average IQ.     People in the "disadvantaged" class usually had below average to low IQ.

     They also discovered that the "bell curves" of IQ were displaced according to race.    The mean (most common, or top of the bell curve) )  IQ for US blacks was 85.    Whites 103.   Asians 106.   And Jews 120.    This just happens to equate with the social layering within US society.    You are a smart guy, do you think that there is a connection?

     

    MSCS quote   A bell curve is defined as simply the distribution of a certain variable. As I have stated many times at this point, it is simply the correlation between two factors, not causation between them.

     And I have stated previously that statistical analysis is all about looking for and finding correlations between two or more variables.    If that is not true, why would people even bother with statistics?    Your premise means that statistics must always be considered inaccurate.    They are not inaccurate if you take the time to understand that two variables may not be related, and understand why this is so.     That is what Galton meant in his famous truism that "correlation does not denote causation".    This quote is misused by any person who is confronted by inconvenient statistical information that they wish to deny.

     

    MSCS quote     It is a fallacy to claim that race serves as the main causation for intelligence simply based on the correlation of the two factors. Take for instance the statement, "Everyone that has breathed oxygen has died, therefore, oxygen kills people." This statement runs under the fallacy that correlation equates to causation.

     This example of yours is a good example of Galton's truism.   The mistake here is to take a known fact to it's most illogical extreme and then draw a false inference from it.

     

     MSCS quote   This is similar to your claim, "African Americans tend to score lower on IQ bell curves, therefore, being African American causes a lower IQ score."   

    Well firstly, you have already admitted in your last post that you already know that races have different IQ scores.   You even proposed reasons for that which I dealt with.    Now you are backsliding and pretending you don't agree with what you have already agreed to.   It is difficult debating against an opponent who changes his position whenever the wind blows in another direction.

     Secondly, your mistake is to try and equate an example of extreme illogical thinking to quite reasonable and understandable thinking.    You are basically saying that statistical analysis is always meaningless.   It is not meaningless.     It is a proven tool of research,  if the people comparing two variables are honest and they compare two variables which they already know or at least have reason to strongly suspect is related.     Statistical analysis is meaningless if the people comparing two variables deliberately use variables which they know are unrelated, and the purpose is to deceive. 

     

    MSCS      Just like in the example regarding oxygen I provided, you are linking race with intelligence based purely on correlation, rather than causation. Thus you are committing a logical fallacy, and you cannot claim that race is a key variable when it comes to intelligence without any scientific papers to support that causation. 

     Yeah, well, unfortunately for you, the people who proved the connection between race and IQ were just scientists, not ideologues, who were doing what scientists are supposed to do.    They were seeking the unbiased truth, regardless of what vested interests wanted them to say.       But as I pointed out twice previously in my last post to you, if you think that races are equal, then why haven't the pseudo scientists who may support your position proven it?      As I pointed out previously, this should be easy to do and a Nobel prize awaits the "scientist" who does this simple task.   These are is the questions that you keep dodging and dodging.    And I can tell a lot more about what my opponents real intentions are from the questions that they refuse to answer, than from the ones that they do.

     

    MSCS quote     It's disingenuous to mention a study without providing a link, especially when you can do so in Debate Island. Unless you provide a link from which we can discuss the study in depth, your point shall be considered mute.

     Then unmute it.     The whole story is recounted in  a Youtube video      "The Bell Curve: the most controversial book in science   Richard Haier and Lex Fridman."

    Watch all of it and expand your knowledge.   The sunlight of knowledge is the best disinfectant to lies.

     

    MSCS quote     Races tend to be equal in intelligence because there has been no scientific evidence to suggest that race is a determinant of intelligence.

     Yes there is.    That is like saying that Evolution has yet to be proven by anyone.  And you are once again refusing to apply your logic to your own premise.    Once again I ask you that if races have equal intelligence, then what proof do you have to support your premise?     And why hasn't science proven you right when it should be very easy to do so?        Don't keep dodging  these crucial  questions.    If you keep dodging  perfectly reasonable and crucial questions, it indicates to me that you are not a fearless seeker of the truth, you are just another ideologue seeking to conceal the truth because it destroys your wishful thinking, supposedly world saving, ideology.

     

    MSCS       There isn't even a scientific basis for race.

     That is a falsehood concocted around the fact that scientists use scientific terms instead of everyday language.   Scientists use the words species and sub species instead of the everyday English word of "race" which denotes exactly the same things.      Forensic anthropologists examine the unidentified skeletons of possible murder victims to help the police identify who they are.     What the police want to know to begin the investigation is the age, sex, and race of the victim.      Forensic anthropologists do not say to the police "we can give you age, but we can't give the sex because the person may have "identified" as being transgender, and we can't give you the race, because as scientists, we don't recognise the concept of race".   Of course scientists recognise race, MSCS.  And gender.     But somebody told you that they didn't and you wanted to believe it so much that you did not bother to check or even think about it.

     

    MSCS quote     Race is simply a made-up term used by pseudo-scientists based on arbitrary classifications and divisions of homo sapiens based purely on physical appearances.

     Race is a word that has been around for thousands of years and it defines what scientists today call "species and sub species."    And what differentiates species and sub species is their appearance.

     

    MSCS       The fact is that all humans are nearly identical genetically speaking, and there simply hasn't been enough time for any significant changes to occur between population groups.

     Observable reality dismisses that incredible claim.    And scientific examination of non observable features dismisses any claim that races are equal.     Even medical researchers know that some human diseases are largely race specific.   Black male Africans have twice the rate of prostate cancer than white Europeans.     Asian men are infinitely more prone to die of SADS than any other race.    SADS (Sudden Adult Death Syndrome) is a disease in which perfectly healthy Asian males around 40 years of age just drop dead for no fathomable reason.     The most high profile victim of this almost race specific syndrome was martial arts actor Bruce Lee, an exceptionally fit man with no medical problems at all.  

     

    MSCS     And again, unless you have any real scientific data to support that there are consistent genetic differences between races that determine lower intelligence for some and higher intelligence for others, your argument is mute.

     I have got "The Bell Curve", I have medical evidence that one human disease is almost race specific, and I have observable reality that some ethnicities act like people with very low IQ.   What have you got?


  • MineSubCraftStarvedMineSubCraftStarved 148 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @Bogan
     Just claiming that you have proved something when you have not, is just silly.    You presented a list of average IQs of countries which does not make sense.
    I presented a comparison between Laos and Indonesia versus China and Hong Kong and demonstrated that despite their very close genetic similarity, they perform significantly differently on IQ tests. This directly contradicts your statement that people of the same race should perform similarly poorly or similarly well when the evidence demonstrates that IQ levels are not consistent with race. After all, if they are the same race, and if intelligence is to a large extent determined by race, then shouldn't their average IQs(and thus their IQ bell curves) be roughly the same as well?
    Israel could hardly be a country with the second-lowest recorded IQ.    That is patently false.  And by presenting that list as a "fact" you are tacitly admitting that races do have unequal intelligence.
    I'm not sure what would have led you to believe that the site stated that Israel had the second lowest recorded IQ when it clearly shows Israel has ranked the 49th highest country in the world out of 199. It should be stated that you need to take better care when looking over a source.
      Broadly speaking, Chinese and Indonesians are considered "Asians", but they are not the same race, and they themselves do even not regard each other as the same race.     The Chinese in Indonesia are identifiably different to Indonesians, who have different facial features and darker skin, and the Indonesians discriminate against the Chinese.    Genetically, homo sapiens are very close to chimpanzees, but homo sapiens are not chimpanzees. 
    What defines a race? Every person is identifiably different from every other person in some way or another, therefore, does every person constitute their own separate race? If a race is defined as divisions based on physical characteristics, then I look different from everyone else, and thus, am I not my own race? You implied initially that Chinese and Indonesians are both considered 'Asian' peoples, but immediately backtracked it, so which is it? It seems to be apparent that you are dividing up what classifications of 'race' are for the benefit of your own argument. You are constructing facts based on an argument, rather than an argument based on facts. If we are to divide up those in China and Indonesia as different races, then why don't we go further to divide those in Indonesia into races based off of specific islands, after all, those in Sumatra tend to have a different genetic make-up then those in Batavia. Let's go a step further and divide race into different genetic admixtures based on individual villages or cities. Then we go further and further and we break race down into the individual, that each individual constitutes his own physical characteristics and thus his own race. Ultimately your argument is one that is a slippery slope.
     They also discovered that the "bell curves" of IQ were displaced according to race.    The mean (most common, or top of the bell curve) )  IQ for US blacks was 85.    Whites 103.   Asians 106.   And Jews 120.    This just happens to equate with the social layering within US society.    You are a smart guy, do you think that there is a connection?
    I think that drawing a causation between race and intelligence, like you are doing, simply based off of correlation, as I have stated perhaps a dozen times at this point, which is a logical fallacy. The reason that African Americans tend to score lower than Hebrew Americans(for example), is because African Americans tend to have worse education. Why do they have worse education? It's because in the United States school funding is based on local property taxes, so if you are poorer, your property tends to be cheaper, which means lower taxes, and thus worse schools. Since African Americans tend to have lower incomes, their schools will therefore be worse. The same logic would apply to Jewish Americans, since Jewish Americans tend to have higher incomes, their schools will be better, and thus they will score better on IQ tests.
    This raises the obvious question as to why Jewish Americans have higher incomes in the first place and African Americans have lower incomes. The reason why Jewish Americans have a higher income in the United States is because generally Jews were oppressed and discriminated against in the countries they lived in, and thus to survive they had to have a higher work ethic and thus higher income. Furthermore, Jewish culture often promotes studies and academics, specifically through an ethic of reading. This descends from the studying that is often taken into the Torah and the Talmud, specifically through institutions such as Yeshivas. Meanwhile, African Americans were regularly discriminated against, but their level of schooling was restricted and it was hard for African Americans to find high-paying jobs for much of history due to racism(I'm not even going to mention slavery). This means that certain effects of segregation, such as the effect redlining, limited the ability of African Americans to gain income, which is why African Americans have a lower income today.
     And I have stated previously that statistical analysis is all about looking for and finding correlations between two or more variables.    If that is not true, why would people even bother with statistics?    Your premise means that statistics must always be considered inaccurate.
    This is fundamentally inaccurate, my argument does not invalidate statistics. What it does invalidate is the use of statistics alone to draw causations and conclusions of given variables.
     This example of yours is a good example of Galton's truism.   The mistake here is to take a known fact to it's most illogical extreme and then draw a false inference from it.
    What fact have I taken to an illogical extreme? I simply compared your fallacy to another example of the fallacy of correlation equals causation.
     Yeah, well, unfortunately for you, the people who proved the connection between race and IQ were just scientists, not ideologues, who were doing what scientists are supposed to do.
    Unfortunately for you, the vast majority of respected biologists and anthropologists agree that race is nothing more than arbitrary classifications based on shared physical characteristics. You, and you alone could be classified as your own unique race since you have a unique set physical characteristics that no other person on the planet has. And the same logic should apply to everyone. Ultimately the notion of race is just plain flimsy as there is no definition to the extent to which different physical characteristics define different 'races'.
     But as I pointed out twice previously in my last post to you, if you think that races are equal, then why haven't the pseudo scientists who may support your position proven it?
    I already responded to your question previously in my last post(see the bottom), I am not responsible for your apparent lack of due diligence when observing arguments and data.

    Well firstly, you have already admitted in your last post that you already know that races have different IQ scores.   You even proposed reasons for that which I dealt with.    Now you are backsliding and pretending you don't agree with what you have already agreed to.   It is difficult debating against an opponent who changes his position whenever the wind blows in another direction.

    Wrong, I stated that races tend to have different IQ trends. This is an acknowledgment of correlation, but more importantly, it is is not an acceptance of causation between the two factors. What you are doing is building a strawman argument and falsely claiming that I agreed with your argument that races causes different levels of intelligence.
    I ask you that if races have equal intelligence, then what proof do you have to support your premise?
    I have already provided numerous points of interest that prove that races are intelligence. I provided evidence regarding the IQ's of Laos and Indonesia versus those of China and Hong Kong, and I don't wish to regurgitate my argument regarding this example for the millionth time so you can understand. To give another example, both Singapore(105.9 IQ) and Malaysia(87.6 IQ) have drastically different IQ levels, despite the fact that they are very close genetically(they used to be the same nation at one point).
     Race is a word that has been around for thousands of years and it defines what scientists today call "species and sub species."    And what differentiates species and sub species is their appearance.
    To imply that different races are somehow different subspecies is not grossly inaccurate, but can also be used as a poor excuse for racism.
    Furthermore, race is regarded largely as a term used to describe local breeding populations, with a subspecies being used to describe a region with similar or identical defining traits. So if you consider Europeans, or Caucasians to be a subspecies, then you must consider those in an Isolated Amish town a separate race from all other 'Caucasians'.
    However, the article goes further to state:
    "Modern human genetic variation does not structure into phylogenetic subspecies (geographical 'races'), nor do the taxa from the most common racial classifications of classical anthropology qualify as 'races' (Box 1). The social or ethnoancestral groups of the US and Latin America are not 'races', and it has not been demonstrated that any human breeding population is sufficiently divergent to be taxonomically recognized by the standards of modern molecular systematics." - Nature Genetics, 2004
     Observable reality dismisses that incredible claim.    
    If you are to imply that differing physical appearances, or phenotypes, determine different genotypes, then you would be egregiously mistaken. This is given by the fact that our close animal relatives, despite looking very different from each other, are in fact very close to us genetically. Furthermore, we can see many cases of radically different phenotypes and extremely close genotypes, such as dogs for instance, who all look very different, but are in fact very different, and constitute the same sub-species. As a more personal example. Both my and my brother look quite different and most people don't believe(oftentimes refuse) that we are in fact related. Despite the fact that there are plenty of people I've meet who look more similar to me then my brother, I am still more closely related to him then any other person on the world. This is basic high school biology.
    Even medical researchers know that some human diseases are largely race specific.   Black male Africans have twice the rate of prostate cancer than white Europeans.     Asian men are infinitely more prone to die of SADS than any other race.    SADS (Sudden Adult Death Syndrome) is a disease in which perfectly healthy Asian males around 40 years of age just drop dead for no fathomable reason.     The most high profile victim of this almost race specific syndrome was martial arts actor Bruce Lee, an exceptionally fit man with no medical problems at all.  
    Diseases occur out of inbreeding of certain populations or mutations within a given population. A good example of this would be Ashkenazic Jews. Since Ashkenazic Jews descend from around 350 people, and today number around 11 million, with extremely small amounts of genetic overlap with other groups(until recently). For this reason, Ashkenazi Jews have developed a number of unique genetic diseases that are not present in virtually any other population. Despite this, Ashkenazi Jews are still extremely closely related to Sephardic(and other Jewish groups) Jews genetically speaking, and consequently have a negligible amount of genetic difference in comparison to other populations.
    Why is this example relevant?
    This example is relevant because it illustrates how a populations, can still split up and form their own unique groups and thus develop their own unique characteristics. Furthermore, certain genetic traits are expressed more and more greatly as populations split up and inbreed within themselves. This leads to differing appearances and more susceptibility to certain diseases. Thus leading to general distinguishable physical characteristics within populations, or 'races'.
  • BoganBogan 421 Pts   -  

    I am sure that you consider yourself to be intelligent?    Okay, then you are aware that throughout European history, scientists who spoke against the politically correct dictates of the church were persecuted and even murdered?    Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for simply proposing that the sun was a nearby star.     Galileo was taken to the Vatican and shown the instruments of torture for saying that the earth was not the center of the universe, and that not everything revolved around the earth.   He was told to recant, or the instruments would be used on him.  He did so, even though he could prove with his telescope that he was right.     Darwin wrote "Origin of Species", and then refused to publish it, even though he was urged to by his friends and fellow scholars to do so.    He feared the backlash from the still powerful church and the government.

     Okay, then since you are a supposedly an intelligent young man, then you know for certain that anyone who intimidates scientists into silence is a reprehensible scumbag, right?     You know then for certain, that they are the sorts of people who have no regard whatsoever for scientific research and discovery, right?    They are people who are trying to defend an intellectually indefensible ( and usually self serving) ideology from scientific examination, and that is about as low as you can go, right?    And far seeing intelligent liberals such as yourself will always fight against such stu-pidity, right?

     Okay, then when Nobel laureate James Watson, who was the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, made the offhand remark to a journalist to the effect that Africans could not advance socially because genetically, most of them were just not intelligent enough, this was enough to have him sacked as director of The Human Genome Project and tossed right out of his university.    His name was chiselled off every wall plaque dedicated to remembering his contribution to the advancement of science.   As an intelligent young man, can you see that things have not changed much?    You may not agree with what Watson said, but you know that scientists must never be intimidated into silence, right?

     If even our most eminent scientists tell the powers that be what they don't want to hear, they don't get burned at the stake or shown the instruments of torture anymore, they have their careers destroyed.    That is the intimidation of science.      And you are on the side of the intimidators and their intellectually bankrupt cause.       Destroying a scientists career as a means of social control over scientists, is something which even Putin or Ji Jinpeng would admire.     Watson is no more a crank than Bruno, Galileo, or Darwin, but he was treated in exactly the same way as every other scientific heretic to the prevailing orthodoxy in history.

     I think it was you who claimed that there was a scientific consensus that races did not exist.?    I dispute that.     The idea that genetics can be a major factor in human behaviour is opposed by every left wing nutcase who wants to believe that everybody is equal in every way possible, except prevalence to skin cancer, and they would deny that too if they could get away with it.   If genetics can be linked to behaviour and IQ, and certain ethnicities are always dysfunctional and a crime problem, then this has serious implications about race and the validity of their leftist ideology.    Which for socialists does not bear thinking about.    So socialists will do anything to shut science up.    And if you support people like that and their intellectually bankrupt ideology, you are either not real bright, or you are brainwashed.   

     IQ testing is a sub science of Psychology, and although the public are not aware of it, the new school of Psychology is "Evolutionary Psychology" which takes it for granted that human behaviour is a product of nature AND nurture.   That means that genetics plays a part in understanding human behaviour, and what that means to understanding why some races are always dysfunctional. is easy to comprehend. 

       "Evolutionary Psychology" is not some crank school of Psychology.    Today, it is the mainstream school.      It  has completely by-passed the old socialist inspired "Behavioural School" invented by BV Skinner, which like every socialist social theory, claimed that everybody was equal.    'Behaviourists" claimed that all behaviour is learned.    That genetics (or "instinct") plays absolutely no part in understanding human behaviour.   When this school of thought was invented in the early 20th century, it was obsessed with claiming that "class" did not exist.    That "class" was just a human construct and it meant nothing.    You could take an East End flower girl, put her in a nice dress, get Professor Doolittle to give her elocution lessons, take her to an aristocratic ball, and she would be indistinguishable from a Bohemian princess.

     Now they are trying to claim that "race" does not exist.   "Behaviourism" is as dead as a dodo in the scientific world of modern psychology today.    But it still has it's adherents in the so called "anti racist" movements in the west today.    But modern Psychologists know it is just rubbish, and so do criminologists, and so do cognitive metricians, and so do geneticists.      Genetics today are so advanced that they can not only prove that genetics and behaviour are linked, they can probably even point to which particular combination of genes causes what behaviour.   But the public do not know that,  because geneticists have to keep it to themselves.    They know what happened to Nobel laureate geneticist James Watson.     They have become like the scientists in Galileo's time, who exchanged letters with each other all the time, talking about things which would get them executed or tortured, if they said them in public.

     Today, genetic conferences are held in camera with the press pointedly excluded.     One conference which stated it's purpose was to invite scientists to discuss genetics and crime, had to be cancelled because of a bomb threat.   Behaviourist Psychologists were fully supportive of US government programs to increase African IQ through programs such as "Headstart" because they really did believe that the education of kindergarten aged minority children by talented and committed teachers could raise IQ.    But every program failed.    You yourself know that if a branch of science claims it knows something, then sets up a series of  experiments to prove their thesis, and they fail, over and over again, then their ideology needs some work.    The Educational Psychologist who reviewed these programs told the government that the programs had failed miserably.    But when he suggested that Genetics MIGHT have been the reason, the screeching philistines who had always tried to shut science up went after him like they went after Watson.

     I claim that the idea that race, IQ, and criminal behaviour, is already fully accepted by science, by geneticists, criminologists, cognitive metricians, and modern psychologists, but they just do not advertise it.    Like Galileo and Kepler, they keep it too themselves.    They know what will happen to their careers if they blurt out what the powers-that-be today don't want the public to know.    But facts are stubborn things, and how long governments can keep shutting up the scientists is any bodies guess?  

     But just as it was for the Creationists, who's ideology became increasingly into disrepute, as fossil, after fossil, after fossil, was discovered and classified, the idea that races either do not exist, and if they do exist then they are all absolutely equal, and that genetics has no part to play in human behaviour, is becoming increasingly harder to justify, as knowledge about genetics marches on.    Already psychologists have petitioned the American Psychological Association's board to publically proclaim that genetics is linked to behaviour, regardless of what the philistines demand.  With what geneticists, criminologists, cognitive metricians, and psychologists now know about human behaviour, the prestigious APA can't keep pretending forever that it is just not true.

     In the meantime, US geneticists have stopped trying to get their scientific papers linking genetics to behaviour (and by implication, to race) published in US scientific journals.    In the USA, it is just too radioactive because of the US governments attempts to maintain social harmony in a country which is coming apart though identity politics.           So US geneticists are now publishing them in British scientific journals, where politically incorrect pure science is still considered acceptable, and the screeching US neo-Marxists who will not tolerate science contradicting their holy ideology, can't prevent publication.

     If you support the screeching socialists and the science intimidators in their pretense that science supports their ideological view, and those scientists who don't support it had better , then I would suggest that you are not thinking straight.      The science intimidators have used a very well known marketing tool which marketers use to sell products, to sell their ideology to young people.      Just tell young people, over and over again, that "smart" people KNOW that races do not exist, that genetics have no part to play in understanding human behaviour.    And that anybody who says different is a cretin.     Repeat add infinitum.   Young people will then embrace your ideology because it is the supposedly "smart" thing to do.

     Before I stopped being an anti racist, and became a racist, I went through a transition period where I was not sure who was right or wrong?    I bought and read the book of a prominent anti racist, Paul Breggin.     The book was "The War Against Children".  I bought the book because I really wanted to see what scientific arguments Breggin would use to counter the already convincing scientific arguments of the so called "racists".    He didn't.  His entire book was about virtue signalling and blaming the dysfunctional behaviour of minorities on drug companies like Eli Lilly.   The only reference to science that he had, was to brag about how the NAACP had lobbied the US Congress to not give any research funding to any geneticist who wanted to examine the link between race, genetics, and crime.

      That was the "tipping point" for me.     I consider any organisation or ideology, which openly brags about shutting up science, to be both intellectually bankrupt and their adherents to be complete mo-rons.    And I hope that you can realise that supporting these science deniers is not what smart people are supposed to do?    Turn away from the Dark Side and get on the side of science.   Because like so many topical scientific discoveries, the conservatives who want to science and intimidate researchers, can not manage it forever.

  • @Bogan
     Okay, then when Nobel laureate James Watson, who was the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, made the offhand remark to a journalist to the effect that Africans could not advance socially because genetically, most of them were just not intelligent enough, this was enough to have him sacked as director of The Human Genome Project and tossed right out of his university.
    I do agree that ousting people out of jobs for inaccurate isolated statements is unnecessary. But this does not change the fact that his remark was, as you well put it, an off-handed remark with little evidence to support his assertions. And the blatant inaccuracy of his remark should be criticized appropriately. As piles of studies and modern evidence continue to demonstrate, race is nothing more than an arbitrary concept with little to no scientific backing.
     If genetics can be linked to behavior and IQ, and certain ethnicities are always dysfunctional and a crime problem,
    The key word is can, there has been no real genetic evidence to suggest that there is a genetically proven link between racial groups and IQ. There is only at most a correlation between the two factors, but importantly, not causation.
     I claim that the idea that race, IQ, and criminal behavior, is already fully accepted by science, geneticists, criminologists, cognitive metricians, and modern psychologists, but they just do not advertise it.
    The idea of race, as stated previously, is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific institution created for the purpose of justifying slavery and racial discrimination in the United States. As stated in the article I posted above, modern variations of human genotypes do not structure into subspecies, geographically tied breeding populations, or races.
     In the meantime, US geneticists have stopped trying to get their scientific papers linking genetics to behavior (and by implication, to race) published in US scientific journals.
    The majority of American biologists and anthropologists do have a concession regarding race, and the consensus is that race has virtually no effect on the behavior and intelligence of different people or groups of people. Here specifically is a statement by the American Association of Biological Anthropologists, or AABA(formerly known as the AAPA):
    "Physical, cultural, and social environments influence the behavioral differences among individuals in society. Although heredity influences the behavioral variability of individuals within a given population, it doesn't affect the ability of any such population to function in a given social setting/ The genetic capacity for intellectual development is on of the biological traits of our species essential for its survival. This genetic capacity is known to appear to possess equal biological potential for assimilating any human culture. Racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations."
    Before I stopped being an anti racist, and became a racist,
    At least you have admitted that you harbor racial prejudices. Therefore, any further conversation with you will likely result in an unintellectual discussion as you are already predisposed to a certain belief system that would affect your ability to understand my argument.



    All in all, it seems that you are running away from my arguments and trying to lead this discussion into other topics, it appears that you are unwilling or unable to contest my arguments that race does not logically exist, and even if it did, the arbitrarily defined racial categories would not affect intelligence. There is a scientific consensus on race, and that it is an archaic and pseudo-scientific term, that was used for generations as a poor excuse for the degradation and maltreatment of human beings. While the consensus 100 years ago was that race did exist, and fundamentally affected all aspects of one's life and identity, the consensus today appears to be that race is an outdated taxonomical category, at least in regard to the most commonly applied use of the term for humans. And I have supported this with numerous scientific papers and data.

    It should also be noted that you have not provided any causative evidence that races cause different intelligence. Furthermore, you have not responded to many of the important specifics in my argumentation, and only addressed broad themes of my claim.
    Nomenclature
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @MineSubCraftStarved




    All in all, it seems that you are running away from my arguments and trying to lead this discussion into other topics, it appears that you are unwilling or unable to contest my arguments that race does not logically exist, and even if it did, the arbitrarily defined racial categories would not affect intelligence


    Let's beat your own argument with your own argument from the debate on truth .......

     It should be acknowledged that our own system of logic is ultimately founded on arbitrary and irrational forms of axioms and beliefs, and thus logic should logically be disregarded as a system purely based on belief. For that reason, anyone can make their own system of logic and beliefs, and who are we to say that they are wrong? Whilst they may not live well, who's to say that our goal is even to live well in the first place?

    So who are you to say he is wrong?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    MineSubCraftStarved said:

    At least you have admitted that you harbor racial prejudices. Therefore, any further conversation with you will likely result in an unintellectual discussion as you are already predisposed to a certain belief system that would affect your ability to understand my argument.
    Let me pick on this point. The idea that someone having a certain position makes it unlikely for them to be able to discuss this position intellectually, if accepted, invalidates virtually all conversations. Say I hold a belief according to which the Sun is going to rise every morning - according to this idea, any conversation with me on any astrophysical topic involving the sun is going to be unintellectual, for I have accepted a certain belief system and it affects my ability to understand others' arguments. If someone proposes the idea according to which the Sun has a non-zero probability to not rise tomorrow, I will be biased against that idea.

    One can hold a certain position and still be open to alternatives, or, at least, be willing to intellectually debate them. Bogan is pretty stubborn when it comes to this topic, but you cannot say that his position is not at all thought out, and just because he holds certain views that you find to be despicable does not imply that he cannot debate them intellectually. 
  • BoganBogan 421 Pts   -  

    MSCS quote    I do agree that ousting people out of jobs for inaccurate isolated statements is unnecessary. But this does not change the fact that his remark was, as you well put it, an off-handed remark with little evidence to support his assertions.

     James Watson is a giant in the field of genetic research.    He and his friend Francis Crick were both awarded the Nobel Prize for Science for discovering the double helix structure of DNA.   Because he is such a giant in genetic research, he was selected as the Director of the prestigious Human Genome Project.   So, a recognised expert in genetic research tells the world that genetics and IQ are linked, and you claim that his expert knowledge is "inaccurate" and has "little evidence to support his assertions."     I would have thought that expert knowledge in a particular field of science could be regarded as evidentiary?

     

    MSCS quote      And the blatant inaccuracy of his remark should be criticized appropriately.

     Those in political power who have a supposedly humanitarian ideology that they do not want questioned, need to sh-ut up the scientific experts like Watson  who can prove them wrong.   

     

    MSCS     As piles of studies and modern evidence continue to demonstrate, race is nothing more than an arbitrary concept with little to no scientific backing.

     If these "piles" of scientific evidence even exist, then they are clearly wrong.    The scientific terms for both definitions of "race" are "species" and "sub species."     The only reason why we don't use those terms in everyday speech is because they are words recently coined by scientists to describe something scientifically, which has been previously described in everyday speech for thousands of years.    In the modern world, science is the ultimate authority in what is considered objectively correct.     That is why the ideologues need to pretend that their ideology is science, and so they need to intimidate those expert scientists who oppose their potty ideas into silence.   Which appears to be working.     And the ideological cause of the science intimidators is the cause that you support?    If you really are intelligent, I would have thought that such a scenario alone would have raised a red flag for you?

     

    MSCS      The key word is can, there has been no real genetic evidence to suggest that there is a genetically proven link between racial groups and IQ.

     That is exactly like saying that humans were created by God from dust and Adam's rib, because there is no evidence to believe otherwise.     But as hominid fossil, after hominid fossil, after hominid fossil, continued to be unearthed, that premise became more and more untenable.      But today the ideologues who have a new self seeking ideology to promote, have a new tactic.   They pretend that they are scientists themselves, or get house trained "scientists"  to create "piles" of  obviously nonsensical "scientific evidence".   And most importantly, they use their political power to intimidate scientists, especially those who are experts and widely respected, to shut them up.     And though you may not agree with their methods, you still support the ideology of these science intimidators? 

     I claim that the fact that IQ and genetics are linked is already known and widely appreciated by those scientists who's job it is to examine human behaviour.     Psychologists, cognitive metricians, criminologists, and geneticists already know this, and just like the scientists of a bygone eras, they exchange information among themselves without making their research data public.     This is why conferences on genetics are held in camera, by invitation only, with the press and the public pointedly excluded.        Like so many scientists in the past, they live in a world where telling those in authority, who control the purse strings that they need to survive, what those in authority do not want the public to know, is dangerous.     But facts are stubborn things, and how long the self seeking forces of darkness can continue to suppress scientific thought and discovery, is anybodies guess?

     

    MSCS     There is only at most a correlation between the two factors, but importantly, not causation.

     Most people would agree that people who act like id-iots probably are id-iots.     Low IQ exists in all human races and the idea that people only have low IQ because of sub standard education and poor diet is, if you ever thought about it, preposterous.     Intelligent people have been known to exist in primitive societies who are entirely illiterate.    And in the field of human conflict alone, intelligent leaders of primitive tribes on a battlefield have often run rings around advanced enemy forces led by educated id-iots.    One Boer leader made it an offence, punishable by death, for any Boer soldier to shoot a British general.     German general Ludendorff  once famously said "The British soldier fights like a lion, but is led by donkeys."


     MSCS quote    The idea of race, as stated previously, is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific institution created for the purpose of justifying slavery and racial discrimination in the United States.

     The idea of race has been around for thousands of years.     Plutarch spoke of human races in his book, "the Life of Caesar", which I am sure that you have read.   The racist name that the Romans gave to the British is "Britanculi", literally in Latin, "wretched little Brits."   Your claim that racism is a recent construct invented by US slave owners is exactly the sort of just too silly historical fabrication invented by modern day, white hating ideologues, who would air brush history to support their racist attacks on the white race, that they wish to use as scapegoats for minority dysfunction.

     

    MSCS quote    As stated in the article I posted above, modern variations of human genotypes do not structure into subspecies, geographically tied breeding populations, or races.   

     That genetic mixing of sub species which is going on, right now, does not alter the fact that human sub species exist.

     

    MSCS quote    The majority of American biologists and anthropologists do have a concession regarding race, and the consensus is that race has virtually no effect on the behaviour and intelligence of different people or groups of people.

     I am not really certain of what you are trying to say here by claiming that "biologists and anthropologists" have a "concession".       Are you saying that these scientific disciples have a "concession" to recognise race?     Oh yair?  And who grants "concessions" to scientists to recognise an objective reality that those in authority do not normally want recognised?    It sounds a lot like the "indulgences" that the Catholic church sold to paying customers?    You know, sin as much as you like as long as you give us cash.   We will then fix it with "The Big Guy" (no, not Joe Biden) in heaven.    So that you can still go to heaven, even though you are a thieving, murdering, and whoring low life.   It sound like the politically correct have given biologists and anthropologists an "indulgence" to keep using racial terms because their scientific discipline depends upon it.   In return, these scientists should just keep it amongst themselves, not herald it to the public.    Only people like Bogan can see the clear contradiction, anyway.

     

    MSCS          Here specifically is a statement by the American Association of Biological Anthropologists, or AABA(formerly known as the AAPA):

    We know from history, and even from recent events in China, that totalitarian governments routinely use science to justify their own particular Party ideology, and they ruthlessly intimidate any academic who disagrees with it.    That is not supposed to happen in a free, democratic society, but I have already given you examples that clearly display that this is being done.

     There are three ways that ideologically driven governments can corrupt science.    1.   They intimidate scientists by destroying their careers, or they tolerate ideological brown shirts directly intimidating scientists with death threats, shouting them down, invading their classrooms, disrupting their lectures, damaging their cars, or hounding them right out of their universities.     2.   They co opt entire scientific associations to agreeing with their ideology by making it clear to them that anything but agreeing to the Party line is unacceptable to the government.    3.   By corrupting these self same institutions from the inside, ensuring that only those who are politically correct will rise to power within that organisation, while those that disagree are either sacked or left on the shelf.   

     Let us look at the statement itself?    It looks to me to be a prime example of "Diseased English."     Diseased English is the art of saying something which is completely meaningless in such an authoritative way, that it intimidates the reader into thinking that the statement must be right.  

     

    "Physical, cultural, and social environments influence the behavioral differences among individuals in society.

     Nurture can be a factor in understanding human behaviour.   Okay, so far, so good.

     

    Although heredity influences the behavioral variability of individuals within a given population, it doesn't affect the ability of any such population to function in a given social setting/

       A meaningless statement.   It admits that genetics can influence an individuals behaviour, but that the genetic influence on an individuals behaviour does not affect the ability of an entire population to function in a given social setting.    Whatever that means.     It is classic diseased English.    Say something meaningless in an authoritative way, and the people who do not have the capacity to figure out that you are pulling the wool over their eyes, will be intimidated onto thinking it is something profound..

     

     The genetic capacity for intellectual development is one of the biological traits of our species essential for its survival.

      What this statement means is that people can get smarter over time.   I agree.   But what that time frame is that they are talking about, the statement conveniently did not enlighten us with.   it is a half truth.   And a half truth is a complete lie.       

     

     This genetic capacity is known to appear to possess equal biological potential for assimilating any human culture. 

        I agree, over a long period of time, education, and being forced to live within an advanced society where IQ is crucial to social advancement, will cause entire sub species demographics,  to become smarter.    In who knows, 500 years? African blacks may achieve IQ rates commensurate with the average IQ's of whites and Asians today?   But we are examining the here and now, not what will probably happen 500 or more years in the future.   

     

    Racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations."

     And they could have added "because if we say that they do have foundation, we will get our government research funding stopped, and a horde of wild eyed neo Marxist brown shirts will invade our campuses issuing death threats, clearing our lecture halls with bomb threats, invading our classrooms and shouting us down, or parading our professors around campuses in dunce's hats like the Red Guard students of Mao's era routinely did."  

     

     MSCS quote    At least you have admitted that you harbor racial prejudices.

     Hahaha.   I would put that statement into historical context by re phrasing it to a previous time.   To Galileo and Darwin you would have said " At least you have admitted that you harbor heretical prejudices."  Yeah, I do.   Like Galileo and Darwin, I work on the most sacred scientific principle of "Let the truth be told, though the heavens may fall."

     

    MSCS quote    Therefore, any further conversation with you will likely result in an unintellectual discussion as you are already predisposed to a certain belief system that would affect your ability to understand my argument.

     I could tell you to look in the mirror.      But unlike you, who I suspect is finding out that trying to do all sorts of mental gymnastics in order to justify a false position, is a real strain?    I only need to tell the truth,  which is a much easier task.   So I am enjoying myself, and I am quite comfortable pointing out the fallacies in your reasoning, and trying to destroy the culturally inserted virus infecting your brain, which is preventing your brain from functioning correctly.

     

    MSCS quote     All in all, it seems that you are running away from my arguments and trying to lead this discussion into other topics, it appears that you are unwilling or unable to contest my arguments that race does not logically exist, and even if it did, the arbitrarily defined racial categories would not affect intelligence.

     I have addressed your silly premise that race does not exist, I just get sick and tired of repeating my same explanations, over, and over, and over again, just to have you come right back and keep claiming that race does not exist, as if you had not even bothered reading what I had written.   So I do find other ways to get through that mental barrier which has been inserted into your neuronal circuitry, and try to get you to think straight.

     

    MSCS quote    There is a scientific consensus on race, and that it is an archaic and pseudo-scientific term, that was used for generations as a poor excuse for the degradation and maltreatment of human beings.

     That is what the so called "anti racists" want you to believe.    How do you know it is correct?    Did you personally conduct an anonymous poll of all the scientists who have a scientific interest in this subject?     I suspect that you just read somewhere that scientists all agree that race does not exist, and because it told you what you wanted to hear, you just accepted it without question?

     

    MSCS quote       While the consensus 100 years ago was that race did exist, and fundamentally affected all aspects of one's life and identity, the consensus today appears to be that race is an outdated taxonomical category, at least in regard to the most commonly applied use of the term for humans. And I have supported this with numerous scientific papers and data.

     Since it can be proven that scientists today are being intimidated, and either being told to agree with the Party line or , I don't put any credence on "scientific" papers which support the contemporary western government ideology, that all races are equal in every way except in skin solar protection.   And that everything that ever went wrong with the human race was caused by that disgusting race of white people.   Who's race does not even exist because we say that race does not exist.  Even though we recognise that white people are the worst race on earth because they are all racists.    And if we can't prove that they are all racists, it must be because the whole race are "unconscious racists."

     

    MSCS     It should also be noted that you have not provided any causative evidence that races cause different intelligence.

     GAAAAHH!    See what I mean?    I submit to you that there exists a book called "The Bell Curve" that statistically examines 70 years of US IQ testing, which had a chapter examining the connection between race and IQ, and then you come out with a completely false statement like that.    It's like talking to a brick wall.  

     

    MSCS    Furthermore, you have not responded to many of the important specifics in my argumentation, and only addressed broad themes of my claim.

     Not true.   .    I have addressed every single point that you have raised, often sentence by sentence, or at least paragraph by paragraph, not with sneery one liners, but with long reasoned arguments explaining why you are wrong, and I am right.    I probably write 10 words to your one, becase I know my subject and I can cross connect concepts.  All you have is wishful thinking, a few slogans, and a sincere belief that people who claim that everybody is equal are the far seeing, intelligent, liberals, while those who oppose that idea are cretinous Nazis.     You really did think that you could put a cretinous racist like me in my place quickly, and you are surprised to see that your opponent can run rings around you.    Your ideology taught you that such a thing could never happen.  But your ideology was wrong about everything.  

  • Interesting how an anti-racist would grow up to be something that is considered infantile such as racism. There we go; that is where this comment belongs.




  • Interesting how an anti-racist would grow up to be something that is considered infantile such as racism. There we go; that is where this comment belongs.
    Then again, there are countless of examples of people being radicalized into extremist views.




  • Interesting how an anti-racist would grow up to be something that is considered infantile such as racism. There we go; that is where this comment belongs.
    Then again, there are countless of examples of people being radicalized into extremist views


    Yes, that is true. I mean William Lane Craig has actually had many successes in reasoning several people into a weak-based epistemological system.




  • @Bogan
     If these "piles" of scientific evidence even exist, then they are clearly wrong.
    Please demonstrate how qualified biologists and anthropologists with doctorates, are somehow incorrect, while your assertion that they are wrong is somehow right.
     That is exactly like saying that humans were created by God from dust and Adam's rib because there is no evidence to believe otherwise.
    How on earth is it related to that? Thus far, there has been no evidence to describe any sort of causation between race and IQ, if you wish to cite The Bell Curve, then that book only pertains to the statistical relations of IQ when compared to race and social status. The fact of the matter is that you have yet to provide any causative evidence how the genetics of African Americans usually predispose them to a lower intelligence when compared to other 'races'.
    I claim that the fact that IQ and genetics are linked is already known and widely appreciated by those scientists who's job it is to examine human behaviour.
    It would be very reliving if you could finally provide some causation for your claims, thus far you have only demonstrated correlation between IQ and genetics, and a weak one at that. If IQ and genetics are causatively linked, then please, source a link and demonstrate the causation.
     Most people would agree that people who act like id-iots probably are id-iots.
    Most people would also agree that 1000 years ago, the average person living in Europe was significantly less intelligent than the current average person presiding in Europe. In fact, a person living a thousand years ago in Europe would by today's standards likely be considered an id-iot. This is because of the lack of basic education in Europe a thousand years ago, at least when compared to today's standards. Why does this matter? This matters because it demonstrates how intelligence is fluid and changing, rather than being rigid, as it would be if intelligence was completely or mostly hereditable, which is what you appear to be suggesting. Instead, intelligence is based more off the environment on which a person grows up in, specifically the level of education a person recieves.
     The idea of race has been around for thousands of years.     Plutarch spoke of human races in his book, "the Life of Caesar", which I am sure that you have read.   The racist name that the Romans gave to the British is "Britanculi", literally in Latin, "wretched little Brits."
    This is a factually incorrect statement. Formal theories behind race only began to appear around the 1850s, and today are largely disregarded as pseudo-scientific nonsense. While there were informal classifications of race prior to 1850, those were not based on any basis, and were simply based on the simple mentality of "us and them". The idea of formal classifications of humans into different taxonomical groups had not yet reached any formulation prior to 1850, and thus the idea of race as you describe it did not exist yet. Furthermore, the idea of 'race' as a whole is clouded with issues, and has been by an large rejected by scientists, for example, a study by the NIH in 2013 concluded that traits such as skin color, cannot be used to determine human racial groups, as they are simply adaptive traits in a response to a different environment which happens as populations of a species move to different areas that have different temperatures. Skin color and other physiological methods cannot be used to determine race since there is no scientific criteria for choosing one adaptive trait over another to define human races, or sub-species. Thus, there is no such thing as race among homo sapiens.
    Furthermore, the definition of race is fraught with holes. Since I am genetically distinguishable from everyone else, am I my own race? If race can then only be defined by groups of people, both my and my sibling would constitute the same race as we share common DNA and share a common ancestry and thus we are our own unique race. Therefore, can race be broken down into divisions of family units? What defines one group of people as a race, and another group of people as another race? Why can't they be the same race, or instead of being simply two different ones, perhaps a dozen different races? Race is ultimately an extremely flimsy term, and so dividing people intro groups of race will not achieve anything.
     That genetic mixing of subspecies which is going on, right now, does not alter the fact that human subspecies exist.
    I will requote the scientific article that I sourced and from which it is disproven that humans can be classified into subspecies or 'races':
    "Modern human genetic variation does not structure into phylogenetic subspecies (geographical 'races'), nor do the taxa from the most common racial classifications of classical anthropology qualify as 'races' (Box 1). The social or ethnoancestral groups of the US and Latin America are not 'races', and it has not been demonstrated that any human breeding population is sufficiently divergent to be taxonomically recognized by the standards of modern molecular systematics." - Nature Genetics, 2004
    The article above demonstrates that it has been proven by geneticists in modern times that there exist no valid human subspecies. The article also dismisses old racial divisions(which would be independent of inter-breeding) to qualify as unique races, or subspecies.
    You, on the other hand, have been unable to prove to any level of accuracy that human sub-species do infact exist. While I have clearly demonstrated that sub-species, infact, do not exist for humans. Thus you have the burden of proof for your claims.
    I am not really certain of what you are trying to say here by claiming that "biologists and anthropologists" have a "concession".
    It was clear that I mistyped concession in replace of consensus. This was seen by the fact that I mentioned the consensus again just a few words later. If you don't believe my reasoning, what would concession have meant in that sentence?
    We know from history, and even from recent events in China, that totalitarian governments routinely use science to justify their own particular Party ideology, and they ruthlessly intimidate any academic who disagrees with it.    That is not supposed to happen in a free, democratic society, but I have already given you examples that clearly display that this is being done.
    The AABA is an international association of biological anthropologists, and although it is based in the United States, it is independent of any one government as it is a private organization and run internationally. Furthermore, I'm not entirely sure how the repression of the idea of race is some sort of a government conspiracy as you suggest. If anything, shouldn't governments be supporting the idea of race? After all, it creates deep divisions in society that thus allows people to be easier controlled and manipulated. What would be the incentive of any government, of trying to corrupt science, and repress scientific racism, which is what you are advocating for?
     GAAAAHH!    See what I mean?    I submit to you that there exists a book called "The Bell Curve" that statistically examines 70 years of US IQ testing
    All the bell curve does is statistically correlate race with intelligence levels. This has been the essence of your argument thus far. Whenever I try bringing it up, you state that I am misusing the fallacy, which becomes very arduous to deal with. I cannot argue with someone who does not address the fallacies in his argument and thus does not fix it.
     Not true.   .    I have addressed every single point that you have raised, often sentence by sentence, or at least paragraph by paragraph, not with sneery one liners, but with long reasoned arguments explaining why you are wrong, and I am right.
    You did not address a single on of my points in the argument I posted on January the 23rd, including:
    1. The comparison between Laos and China.
    The comparison here is that if race is a key factor in intelligence, why do countries of the same race have such widely differing IQ levels? If their race would be the same, then by your own logic the IQ levels between the countries on average should be negligible, however, this has not been the case. - Although you did attempt to counter this by claiming that those in China consider those in Indonesia a fundamentally different 'race', this response ultimately leads into my second issue.
    2. The second issue of my argument was the flimsy definition of race itself, to which you agreed on previously. Race is defined as "any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry". When you imply Indonesians are a separate race from Chinese people, you are entering into a slippering slope argument. Why? Because if we are to divide race up based on national lines, why not on geographical lines as well? Why can't those on Sumatra, and those on Batavia(Indonesian islands) be considered different races? After all, their average genomes are slightly different, and thus they have slightly different physical appearances and thus constitute their own race. Then why don't we break it down into cities, and then we break race down into smaller and smaller populations, until we ultimately get to family groups. Thus, every family group constitutes it's own race. Even then, we can take it one step further and define every single living person on the planet as their own race, as they have their own physical appearances and different genetic make-ups.
    3. Another issue I brought up was the cultural and historical situations that have lead to differing situations for those of Jewish and those of African descent in America. Specifically regarding income and IQ.
    4. You also did not address the fact that phenotype doesn't necessarily denote genotype of a given organism.
    5. You also did not address my argument regarding the evolution and origin of different human populations. And how genetically similar populations can have unique diseases and characteristics attributed to them. And that 'races' having unique genetic diseases does not prove much of anything as they have been mixing independently with each other, and thus have created unique diseases and general characteristics in their populations due to inbreeding.
    I probably write 10 words to your one,
    Quantity does not equate quality bud. If you go on and on writing a wall of text to support your assertions with a small amount of evidence, then your argument is meaningless as it has no factual data to support it.
    ZeusAres42
  • BoganBogan 421 Pts   -  

    MSCS quote.     Please demonstrate how qualified biologists and anthropologists with doctorates, are somehow incorrect, while your assertion that they are wrong is somehow right.

     Too easy.   We in the western world live in an age of self flagellating educated elitists who seem to have rediscovered Marxism, and contrary to history and logic, see Marxism once again as the answer to all of the world's problems.      This ideology has really become fashionable among the diplomaed elite who advocate for "equality" while looking down their noses at their working class inferiors.     They also think that they are morally superior to the business and managerial class, who are usually their long suffering parents.    Many of them are low IQ ethnic minority graduates who's worthless Artz diplomas will never get them a job outside of a "make work" government department.    So they support politicians who advocate for socialism, who will forgive their student loan depts, and give them a job.

     This is why universities today, with their useless "gender studies" and "black studies" courses have become such hotbeds of neo Marxism, where professors who will not toe the party line will get physically attacked and harassed.     The idea is to force academia conform to the Italian Marxist Philosopher Antonio Gramsky's idea that the best way to spread The Revolution was to ignore trying to get the loyalty of the working class, it was to take over the universities of higher learning where the devotees of socialist social theory could have more influence.   From there, they can even intimidate and revise science, to conform to their new socialist reality.

     In this they have been very successful, but like every socialist idea before it, it can't work because the more successful it becomes, the more of a shambles it makes of the communities it controls.   Examples, California, Cincinnati, Detroit, Chicago, and in Australia, Alice Springs.        Every leftist run community eventually becomes a basket case, holding out the begging bowl to any authority above it to bail them out of their economic and social stu-pidity.     Economically, neo Marxists can not run a chook raffle at the local school fete.   As for BLM, no cash bail, and "defund the police?    Hahaha.  What could go wrong?   You can only shake your head in pitying wonder at how educated ideologues can be so stu-pid.     The Greeks called stu-pidity based upon arrogance "Hubris."

     Directly answering your question as to why the new diplomaed scientific elites toe the party line, is because they know, in good old Soviet science style, that their careers, and especially their hopes of promotion, depend entirely upon their slavish allegiance to the Party and it's dictates.  So, revisionist science and revisionist history is all the rage in western universities today.    And, if any academic refuses to toe the Party line, they can always turn loose their Artz grad brown shirts mobs to burn down libraries, prevent right wing speakers from addressing students in public forums, and jostle those academics who are still free thinkers.             

     Once governments, universities, or brown shirt mobs start intimidating scientists by sacking them from their universities, destroying their careers, or forcing them to change address to avoid the howling mobs who support your own opinion, then any pretense to academic and scientific impartiality goes right out of the window.   

     

     MSCS quote    How on earth is it related to that? Thus far, there has been no evidence to describe any sort of causation between race and IQ, if you wish to cite The Bell Curve, then that book only pertains to the statistical relations of IQ when compared to race and social status. The fact of the matter is that you have yet to provide any causative evidence how the genetics of African Americans usually predispose them to a lower intelligence when compared to other 'races'.

     "The Bell Curve" is a serious work of science which gave (like Watson) the real reason why some races are dysfunctional.     In the complex modern western world where a certain level of IQ is absolutely essential to compete with others for social advancement, some ethnicities are not intelligent enough to compete.   All they do is become an endemic welfare and crime problem.    However, their low IQ makes them vulnerable to the empty promises of socialism, which promises them either equality or equity, if they just vote for a bunch of Elmer Gantry politicians, who just want to use them to get elected.    Then these crooked politicians can engage in influence peddling, or just reap the fruits of power and prestige.  

     I even gave you a perfect example of how easy it was to see that some ethnic groups, like Australian aborigines, obviously have very low intelligence.    All I had to do was show how they behaved in their own communities, where "white privilege" and "unconscious white racism" hardly applies.     That example was undeniable reality.     But denying reality is what neo Marxists need to do in order to promote their potty and always failing social theories, so you denied it.  

     

    MSCS quote   it would be very reliving if you could finally provide some causation for your claims, thus far you have only demonstrated correlation between IQ and genetics, and a weak one at that. If IQ and genetics are causatively linked, then please, source a link and demonstrate the causation.

     Already given.  First,  "The Bell Curve".   Second,  the fact that one of the world's leading geneticists agrees with me, and had his career destroyed for giving his expert opinion. Third, that Arthur Jenson was persecuted by brown shirt mobs who's opinions you agree with, for even suggesting that genetics MIGHT be responsible for the fact that government educational programs, which were supposed to raise minority IQ's, failed miserably.   Fourth, objective observation of minority behaviour.     Here is another link that I am sure you will not click on, because you do not want to see with your own eyes that your opinion is self evidently wrong.    Which you probably already know anyway.  

     CHICAGO ENGLEWOOD HOOD / INTERVIEW WITH NEIGHBORHOOD GANG/ YOUNG CHARLIE & KING DMOE - YouTube

     

    MSCS quote  Most people would also agree that 1000 years ago, the average person living in Europe was significantly less intelligent than the current average person presiding in Europe. In fact, a person living a thousand years ago in Europe would by today's standards likely be considered an id-iot. This is because of the lack of basic education in Europe a thousand years ago, at least when compared to today's standards. Why does this matter? This matters because it demonstrates how intelligence is fluid and changing, rather than being rigid, as it would be if intelligence was completely or mostly hereditable, which is what you appear to be suggesting. Instead, intelligence is based more off the environment on which a person grows up in, specifically the level of education a person recieves.

     Yes, I agree with that.    As I have written previously, group collective IQ can be related to the length of time a person lives in an advanced society.   Education can make people smarter over time.     Maybe in another 500 to 1000 years, those di-mwits in the Chicago Englewood hood will have a genome evolved enough to have average intelligence.   But what we are talking about on this topic, is the here and now.

     

    MSCS quote   This is a factually incorrect statement. Formal theories behind race only began to appear around the 1850s, and today are largely disregarded as pseudo-scientific nonsense.

     I would agree with part of that.    The 1800's were a time of unprecedented scientific discovery.    Most scientists could not be intimidated by governments and the church too much, because they were usually independently wealthy gentlemen.     But today, most scientists involved in the scientific examination of social issues, work directly for the government.  Because of that, science today is wide open to corruption by politicisation, in the same way as the US Justice Department and the US FBI has been corrupted by politicisation.    Scientists in the 1800's had no social or political restrictions on them from researching topics which are these days considered taboo.     Inferences could be made about race without electorally significant minority groups screaming their heads off and demanding that research on certain subjects by scientists be banned.      As for 18th century pseudo science, some of the theories that scientists of the day examined ( like Phrenology) were bunkum, but it was science itself that decided whether a scientific claim was valid, or not.       Today, science is the captive of governments who decide who gets the research funding.      Scientists must support whatever false narrative that governments want to use to control populations, and great woe shall betide them if they don't toe the government line.

     

    MSCS quote     While there were informal classifications of race prior to 1850, those were not based on any basis, and were simply based on the simple mentality of "us and them". The idea of formal classifications of humans into different taxonomical groups had not yet reached any formulation prior to 1850, and thus the idea of race as you describe it did not exist yet.

     As already explained, the 19th century was a time of unprecedented scientific research and discovery.   Sooner or later, the same biologists who were discovering and classifying new species and sub species every day, got around to looking at the human species and it's sub species.   And then they started classifying the sub species of humans in the same way that they classified sub species of animals.   You seem to think that this was insidious?    I say it was logical, understandable, and normal.    

     

    MSCS quote     Furthermore, the idea of 'race' as a whole is clouded with issues, and has been by an large rejected by scientists, for example, a study by the NIH in 2013 concluded that traits such as skin color, cannot be used to determine human racial groups, as they are simply adaptive traits in a response to a different environment which happens as populations of a species move to different areas that have different temperatures.

     I get the idea that you are cutting and pasting this?    No matter.    At least I got you doing some homework, and I can pick apart pseudo science logic as well a I can pick apart yours.   Your brain  might grow some unbiased neuronal pathways yet.

     

    MSCS quote    Skin color and other physiological methods cannot be used to determine race since there is no scientific criteria for choosing one adaptive trait over another to define human races, or sub-species. Thus, there is no such thing as race among homo sapiens.

     Gee, that's funny.   We can see that Grizzly Bears are just brown bears that are smaller, have a "grizzled" coat of fur, and that they are much more aggressive than brown bears.  And we can use our brains to figure out it was their adaption to their particular environment that made them differ from brown bears and become a sub species.    How is it that genetic adaptation to different environments can cause brown bears to evolve into something identically different, with a different diet, and a different personality, but exactly the same factors can not work with humans?   I don't know who wrote this rubbish that impresses you so much, but it was written to impress people who want to BELIEVE, not people who know how to think critically.    

     

     MSCS  quote  (or cut and pasted)       Furthermore, the definition of race is fraught with holes. Since I am genetically distinguishable from everyone else, am I my own race? If race can then only be defined by groups of people, both my and my sibling would constitute the same race as we share common DNA and share a common ancestry and thus we are our own unique race.    Therefore, can race be broken down into divisions of family units?  

     Even a 13 year old would not be impressed with such "logic".   If I was you, I would have been too embarrassed to post up an argument like that to support my premise.    But I suppose as a politically correct wokeist, you have to go with whatever scant "logic" that you have got?

     

     MSCS cut and pasted     What defines one group of people as a race, and another group of people as another race?

     Too easy.    Pure bred sub species of humans are as identifiably different to each other as brown bears are to Grizzly bears, or are to Kodiak bears.     Who wrote this rubbish?

     

    MSCS cut and pasted      Why can't they be the same race, or instead of being simply two different ones, perhaps a dozen different races?

     Jesus, I think that the guy who wrote this rubbish just listened to John Lennon singing "Imagine" and he decided that he could make scientific facts fit his social wishful thinking?   All he had to do was a little pushing and shoving of the inconvenient facts.

     

    NSCS cut and pasted       Race is ultimately an extremely flimsy term,

     Yet it is used in everyday speech.     It is like saying that "flock, herd, gaggle, or school, are "flimsy terms"  because they are not numerically specific.

     

    NSCS      and so dividing people intro groups of race will not achieve anything.

     It won't achieve the sort of race blind utopia which the dreamers dream for, that's for sure.    Because human beings are tribal and territorial.   Any ideology which has to muddy the water, massage the facts, and intimidate scientists, is the ideology of people who are down in the garden, dancing with the fairies, and listening to "Imagine."   

     

    NSCS quote    I will requote the scientific article that I sourced and from which it is disproven that humans can be classified into subspecies or 'races':

     Fair enough.   Submitting cut and pasted articles is acceptable, so long as it is not done all of the time.    I want you to use your brain to think up your own premises.   Who knows?  I might even get your brain's critical analysis circuit to start functioning normally?

     

    NSCS cut and paste    "Modern human genetic variation does not structure into phylogenetic subspecies (geographical 'races'), nor do the taxa from the most common racial classifications of classical anthropology qualify as 'races' (Box 1).

     What we have here is a classic example of revisionist thinking by a member of the diplomaed elite.   It is an example of the "Taxonomy War" now raging in biology departments, where devotees of neo  socialism try to suborn science, in good old Soviet and CCP style,  to give their wacky ideology some scientific credibility.    It  equates with the "History Wars" now raging in university history departments, where revisionist neo Marxists "historians" try to air brush history to conform to their new narrative, in good old Soviet and CCP style.

     

     MSCS cut and paste.      The social or ethnoancestral groups of the US and Latin America are not 'races', and it has not been demonstrated that any human breeding population is sufficiently divergent to be taxonomically recognized by the standards of modern molecular systematics." - Nature Genetics, 2004

     Okay, you have a "scientific" paper which supports your view.    But just because you have posted one side of a scientific dispute, does not make it the unbiased, objective truth.      At best, it can be considered one side of a scientific debate.    At it's worst, it is just Marxist ideology dressed up as science. 

     

    MSCS cut and paste      The article above demonstrates that it has been proven by geneticists in modern times that there exist no valid human subspecies.

     It only proves that like in every other university department in the western world, there are left wing academics who support a particular world view, and like the "historians" in Australian universities, they have no qualms in massaging the facts to conform to their new, supposedly world saving, ideology.

     

    MSCS quote     The article also dismisses old racial divisions(which would be independent of inter-breeding) to qualify as unique races, or subspecies.

     Soviet and Communist Chinese "scientists" did the same thing.     Have a problem with science?    Then use political power to promote some house trained politically correct mouthpieces to say that science has changed it's mind.  It now agrees with the party.

     

    MSCS quote      You, on the other hand, have been unable to prove to any level of accuracy that human sub-species do infact exist. While I have clearly demonstrated that sub-species, infact, do not exist for humans. Thus you have the burden of proof for your claims.

     Complete rot.      I have proven that science has recognised the concept of race since Linnaues first created the taxonomic system of genus, species, and sub species classification.    All you can do is to claim that the neo-Marxist revisionist concept of science is now the real science.

     

     MSCS quote      The AABA is an international association of biological anthropologists, and although it is based in the United States, it is independent of any one government as it is a private organization and run internationally.

     The question begs, who finances it?     Who pays the piper?     George Soros?

     

    MSCS quote    Furthermore, I'm not entirely sure how the repression of the idea of race is some sort of a government conspiracy as you suggest.

     Then you are not thinking very hard.

     One of the world's leading geneticists had his career destroyed, Galileo style, for giving his expert scientific opinion about race and IQ, and he was sacked from his government job.     All over the western world, historians, geneticists, and scientists are being intimidated into silence, and left wing governments are either sacking scientists themselves, or are conspicuous in their absence in defending academic freedom.    If you can't see it, then try looking over your ideological blinkers.

     

    MSCS quote   All the bell curve does is statistically correlate race with intelligence levels. This has been the essence of your argument thus far. Whenever I try bringing it up, you state that I am misusing the fallacy, which becomes very arduous to deal with. I cannot argue with someone who does not address the fallacies in his argument and thus does not fix it.

     Which is another way of saying, "I don't care what proof you offer, I don't care how many reasoned arguments that make sense you submit, and I refuse to acknowledge your self evident facts.   I believe in something which will SAVE THE WORLD, and get the continued admiration of my peer group of diplomaed Brahmans, and that trumps anything you say."

     

    MSCS quote    If anything, shouldn't governments be supporting the idea of race?     After all, it creates deep divisions in society that thus allows people to be easier controlled and manipulated. What would be the incentive of any government, of trying to corrupt science, and repress scientific racism, which is what you are advocating for?  

     You got the logic backward, as per usual. 

      Australian governments of the right and the left were once creditably racist.      They correctly realised that as politicians, their primary duty was to protect Australians, not adopt the increasingly fashionable cosmopolitan view that all races were equal.    Which just happens to be the formula for social self suicide.     Both left and right supported the White Australia Policy.    But over time, the socialist side realised that importing crime and welfare prone ethnic groups was be a real bonus to their hopes to stay in power forever.( just like the Dems in the USA realise it today)        They could divide and conquer the country with identity politics.   And the importation of dysfunctional ethnic groups would create massive job opportunities in the public service, who are one of the Left's main voting demographics.    The more crime and welfare prone ethnicities, the more social security officers, the more social security fraud investigators, the more social workers, the more police, the more government defence lawyers, the more courts, the more translators in every government department, and the more prisons, and prison officers.

     When one professor at Macquarie University warned the socialist government of the time that the importation of Africans into Australia would create a serious crime problem, surprise, surprise, he was sacked from his university as a "racist."     Surprise, surprise, he was in time proven right.  

     Sudanese migrants to Australia are so du-mb and violent that it is almost impossible to find a job for them outside of government employment.    And surprise, surprise, even though Sudanese only comprise 0.16% of the total population of the state of Victoria, Sudanese-born offenders made up 7% of individuals charged in home invasions, 6% of those in car theft offenses, and 14% of individuals charged with aggravated robbery offenses in 2016. Australians born in Sudan also had the highest imprisonment rate of any immigrant group in Australia, with imprisonment rates at nearly three times the Australian average in 2014. Only last week the news reported the case that a 13 year old Sudanese boy in Victoria had finally been remanded in custody awaiting trial for 181 offences.   Another 13 year old Sudanese boy has been charged with murder.       One Sudanese man got 17 years jail for raping 6 Australian women within 4 days of arriving in Australia. 

     Please explain how "unconscious racism" or white discrimination" was responsible for that?   I DEMAND THAT YOU ANSWER THAT FERKING QUESTION? 

       Anyone with the capacity for reasoned thought can easily see what the problem is.   As James Watson told the reporter, and as The Bell Curve rightfully explained, some races have very low intelligence and they are extremely violent.   They are not the sort of people you would want to allow to immigrate into an advanced society.    And to underline that point, in a very rare case of political impartiality, the main left and right political parties in Australia both agreed that they just can not keep importing Sudanese people into Australia.    They are too much of a problem, and no amount of moral posturing and anti racist virtue signalling can deny that.    Nor can politically correct police officials fiddling the statistics to conform to the ideals of multiculturalism, do it either.         Sudanese people are now banned from immigrating into Australia by political consensus.     Is that racism?  You bet it is.   And it is also common sense based upon self evident objective reality.     Like Darwin, Watson was right.

     

    MSCS quote      You did not address a single on of my points in the argument I posted on January the 23rd, including:1. The comparison between Laos and China. 

     You submitted a document supposedly listing the different IQ's levels of the populations of nations around the world.    And you were not bright enough to realise that you just destroyed your own premise that everybody is biologically equal, with identical Bell curves of IQ's   

     

     MSCS    The comparison here is that if race is a key factor in intelligence, why do countries of the same race have such widely differing IQ levels?  

      Either everyone is biologically the same race with identical IQ's, or they are not?   You can't have it both ways.      You posted up a link which destroyed your own egalitarian ideology.   Thank you for that.  I didn't know that you had switched sides?    Welcome to the racist club.   

     

     MSCS quote    If their race would be the same, then by your own logic the IQ levels between the countries on average should be negligible, however, this has not been the case. - Although you did attempt to counter this by claiming that those in China consider those in Indonesia a fundamentally different 'race', this response ultimately leads into my second issue.

     I pointed out the fallacy of your link by telling you it was obviously preposterous because it listed Israel second last in it's list of nations ranking nations to IQ levels.    I also pointed out that Asians themselves do not even consider themselves one race.    We lump them all together as "Asians" for convenience, but Indonesians and Philippines are a hybrid sub species of blacks and Asians.     As for the Chinese, they consider themselves a separate race from every other race.    And as I wrote to you before, that must be true because Chinese scientists agree with the CCP.    And since you don't think that science can be corrupted or intimidated by governments, even though I have given you examples of them doing just that, then it must be true.    Please stop skimming my replies and then claiming I did not answer your points.

     

    MSCS quote   2. The second issue of my argument was the flimsy definition of race itself, to which you agreed on previously. Race is defined as "any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry". When you imply Indonesians are a separate race from Chinese people, you are entering into a slippering slope argument. Why? Because if we are to divide race up based on national lines, why not on geographical lines as well?

     They normally are.    Since sub species of humans change their appearance to conform to local environmental conditions, sub species are usually connected to particular geographical areas.

     

    MSCS quote.     Why can't those on Sumatra, and those on Batavia(Indonesian islands) be considered different races?

     Another reductionist add absurdum premise that any 13 year old would laugh at.  

     

     MSCS quote    After all, their average genomes are slightly different, and thus they have slightly different physical appearances and thus constitute their own race.

     If they are identifiably different from each other, then they themselves would consider themselves different races.     In Australia, "indigenous" means both "aboriginal" and "Torres Straight Islanders"    Both of these races consider themselves different races.    Torres Straight Islanders flat out refused to be lumped together with "aboriginals" as one race, much to the dismay of the politically correct.         

     

    MSCS quote    Then why don't we break it down into cities, and then we break race down into smaller and smaller populations, until we ultimately get to family groups. Thus, every family group constitutes it's own race. Even then, we can take it one step further and define every single living person on the planet as their own race, as they have their own physical appearances and different genetic make-ups.

     Another reductionist ad absurdum premise that you should be too embarrassed to even submit.

     

     MSCS quote   3. Another issue I brought up was the cultural and historical situations that have lead to differing situations for those of Jewish and those of African descent in America. Specifically regarding income and IQ.

     Sorry, I don't remember that.   I am presently dealing with two ideologues on two topics on DebateIsland at the same time, and I genuinely can't remember everything thing I have addressed to both of you.     But post it up again and I will tear it to shreds, like I always do.

     

    MSCS    4. You also did not address the fact that phenotype doesn't necessarily denote genotype of a given organism.

     I didn't, because you did not bother to explain how such esoteric biological terms are germane to this topic?    It looks like the old Australian Army truism, "baffle them with bullsheet."

     

    MSCS     5 You also did not address my argument regarding the evolution and origin of different human populations. And how genetically similar populations can have unique diseases and characteristics attributed to them.    And that 'races' having unique genetic diseases does not prove much of anything as they have been mixing independently with each other, and thus have created unique diseases and general characteristics in their populations due to inbreeding.

     Once again, you just destroyed your own premise that races do not exist, because everybody is equal.    The existence of race specific diseases like SADS in Asian men proves conclusively that races of people are not biologically identical.  This is what happens when you just cherry pick random facts from "scientific" papers without a general understanding of how these facts should fit into your false narrative.

     

    MSCS quote.    Quantity does not equate quality bud. If you go on and on writing a wall of text to support your assertions with a small amount of evidence, then your argument is meaningless as it has no factual data to support it.

     Quantity is indicative of the fact that I know my subject and I can fully support my premises with even lengthy reasoned arguments, giving easily understandable examples, bud-dy.     That must confound you.    You were conditioned to believe that those who oppose socialist social theory were just deplorable cretins, and you are surprised that even a lowly electrician like me can easily throw your crazy leftist ideology back on the garbage pile of history, where it belongs. 

    MineSubCraftStarved
  • BoganBogan 421 Pts   -  
    a1.png 350.4K
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @Bogan

    Just out of interest, how many of your relatives were prosecuted at Nuremburg?
    MineSubCraftStarved
  • @Bogan
     Once governments, universities, or brown-shirt mobs start intimidating scientists by sacking them from their universities, destroying their careers, or forcing them to change their address to avoid the howling mobs who support your own opinion, then any pretense to academic and scientific impartiality goes right out of the window.   
    Unless you demonstrate evidence of systematic intimidation of scientists regarding race, your argument is mute. If anything, today's culture promotes racism, including the scientific culture. For example, if you were to claim as a scientist that white Americans are more pre-disposed to whiteness, and thus act more privileged and discriminatory, then that would be accepted today as a rational opinion, rather than it being disregarded as the inaccurate opinion it actually is. Our culture today in the past decade has become more acceptant of racism, so to claim that our governments are regularly intimidating and funding against racism is rather bogus.
     "The Bell Curve" is a serious work of science which gave (like Watson) the real reason why some races are dysfunctional.     In the complex modern western world where a certain level of IQ is absolutely essential to compete with others for social advancement, some ethnicities are not intelligent enough to compete.   All they do is become an endemic welfare and crime problem.    However, their low IQ makes them vulnerable to the empty promises of socialism, which promises them either equality or equity, if they just vote for a bunch of Elmer Gantry politicians, who just want to use them to get elected.    Then these crooked politicians can engage in influence peddling, or just reap the fruits of power and prestige.  
    I'm not denying the validity of The Bell Curve, although it should also be noted that the book was never peer-reviewed, the book does not prove causation, only correlation. I'm not sure why this concept has been hard to grasp. I've tried explaining it multiple times for you, anyways, here are the definitions of correlation and causality.
    The definition of correlation: "A relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone."
    The definition of causality: "The relation between a cause and its effect." 
    The bell curve only manages to acknowledge a correlative relationship between race and IQ through a statistical analysis of a bell curve. Meanwhile, it does not prove a causal relationship between these two variables, such causality can only be supported through genetic testing, rather than IQ tests. Wherein significantly lower or higher scores may be the result of other factors, such as education and culture. Mind you, it should also be noted that the fact that different cultures have different levels of ethics regarding studying and education leads to different testing results. And that isn't the result of hereditary aspects, rather, it's a reflection of the local needs and traditions created by their local environment.
    First,  "The Bell Curve".   Second,  the fact that one of the world's leading geneticists agrees with me,
    As stated above, The Bell Curve does not constitute a work that demonstrates causation. Secondly, the fact that the world's leading geneticists made an off-handed comment regarding race is not causative evidence as to whether or not race affects IQ. He did not cite any source or credited scientific paper when making this claim. His statement is akin to a leading geologist stating the world is flat or a leading physicist saying gravity doesn't exist. These two statements, like the statement by Watson, shouldn't be accepted as scientific fact simply because they are authority figures on this subject. Rather, it needs to be demonstrated analytically, you are committing a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of authority.
    Fourth, objective observation of minority behavior.  
    CHICAGO ENGLEWOOD HOOD / INTERVIEW WITH NEIGHBORHOOD GANG/ YOUNG CHARLIE & KING DMOE - YouTube
    The attitudes of the persons in this video are a result of the current gang culture that has arisen in Chicago. This is due to the fact that in the eastside of the city, where the majority of African Americans live, there is a deficit of police, businesses, and good schooling, thus leading to young man like those in video turning to gangs as a an occupation.
    As I have written previously, group collective IQ can be related to the length of time a person lives in an advanced society.   Education can make people smarter over time.     Maybe in another 500 to 1000 years, those di-mwits in the Chicago Englewood hood will have a genome evolved enough to have average intelligence.   But what we are talking about on this topic, is the here and now.
    But the hereditary aspects of intelligence remain relatively stable and shouldn't change, especially over such an evolutionarily small time of around a thousand years.
    As for 18th century pseudo science, some of the theories that scientists of the day examined ( like Phrenology) were bunkum, but it was science itself that decided whether a scientific claim was valid, or not.       Today, science is the captive of governments who decide who gets the research funding.      Scientists must support whatever false narrative that governments want to use to control populations, and great woe shall betide them if they don't toe the government line.
    Your argument essentially boils down to, "science agrees with me, but scientists who disagree with my statement as simply tools of the government." In the free world, biologists and anthropologists, have, as I have demonstrated, come to a common consensus that race doesn't exist among humans, humans share very similar genetic structures, and that arbitrarily defined races based purely on phenotypical differences does not effect the behavior and intelligence of a human. And in the free world, scientists are able to publish most any research document regarding race. There has been no evidence to suggest that the government pressures the vast majority of biologists and anthropologists to adhere to certain views regarding race. Nor does the grant money given to scientific institutions necessitate extortion regarding these aspects, as money doesn't necessarily have to come from the government.
    And then they started classifying the sub species of humans in the same way that they classified sub species of animals.   You seem to think that this was insidious?    I say it was logical, understandable, and normal.    
    It is scientifically inaccurate to define humans into subspecies, there simply hasn't been enough time for extensive genetic variation to take place among human population groups.
    Here are two more sources, making a grand total of 6 sources disregarding the idea of human sub-species or races:
    https://askabiologist.asu.edu/questions/human-races
    According to Arizona State University, human beings have not existed long enough to develop different enough DNA structures, unlike other species. Furthermore, what traits do we use to determine one's race? What observable characteristics of humans defines races? Is it skin color, nose shape, height, hair type? Which one can be used to define and distinguish races?
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Homo-sapiens-sapiens
    Furthermore, according to Britannica, the only widely accepted subspecies of the genus Homo Sapien, is Homo Sapien Sapien, essentially modern human beings. Therefore all of us are the same sub-species.
    For reference, here are the four other sources disregarding race that I was referring to:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/ng1455
    https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/people-and-culture/2018/04/theres-no-scientific-basis-for-race-its-a-made-up-label
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23684745/
    https://web.archive.org/web/20040723195029/http://www.virginia.edu/woodson/courses/aas102%20(spring%2001)/articles/AAPA_race.pdf
    The articles above are from credited associations or individuals or groups of individual biologists and anthropologists, and should be treated as valid scientific papers.
    And we can use our brains to figure out it was their adaption to their particular environment that made them differ from brown bears and become a sub species.    How is it that genetic adaptation to different environments can cause brown bears to evolve into something identically different, with a different diet, and a different personality, but exactly the same factors can not work with humans? 
    Adaptive traits, such as skin color and nose shape, are simply traits that occur as a result as the environmental factors like temperature and sunlight. It is not to be used a variable for genetic differentiation. Furthermore, there has been no consensus on a specified adaptive trait that defines different human sub-species or races, and you still yourself have to define what differentiates one race specifically from another. What physical characteristic determines race, and what gives that determinant credence in a biological, zoological, and anthropological sense?
    Even a 13 year old would not be impressed with such "logic".   If I was you, I would have been too embarrassed to post up an argument like that to support my premise.    But I suppose as a politically correct wokeist, you have to go with whatever scant "logic" that you have got?
    If a thirteen year old would not be impressed with my logic, perhaps you would care to point out where my logic fails, and adequately rebut my statement?
    Pure bred sub species of humans are as identifiably different to each other as brown bears are to Grizzly bears, or are to Kodiak bears.
    What defines one 'pure-bred' human sub species from another? Both you and I are identifiably different from everyone else in the world, are we both our own pure-bred subspecies?
    Furthermore, there is no such thing as a 'pure-bred' human at this point. No human population has ever been truly 'fixed' or isolated for a substantial period of time, and no group of people has ever been phenotypically or biologically homogenous, or 'pure'.
     Okay, you have a "scientific" paper which supports your view.    But just because you have posted one side of a scientific dispute, does not make it the unbiased, objective truth.
    I have at this point posted 6 sources that support the view that the concept of race doesn't exist. You have thus far provided no source to support the idea of race among modern humans. The only source you have posted in the entire debate is only regarding correlation of IQ and race, not causation. 
    I have proven that science has recognised the concept of race since Linnaues first created the taxonomic system of genus, species, and sub species classification.
    Race does exist in taxonomy, but it is on a level lower than sub-species, and today refers mainly to individual breeding populations rather than sub-species.
     The question begs, who finances it?     Who pays the piper?     George Soros?
    The official website does not mention it's source of funding as far as I saw, but given that it's simply an association of anthropologists it likely requires little to no funding apart from grants to students and scientists.
    MSCS quote   All the bell curve does is statistically correlate race with intelligence levels. This has been the essence of your argument thus far. Whenever I try bringing it up, you state that I am misusing the fallacy, which becomes very arduous to deal with. I cannot argue with someone who does not address the fallacies in his argument and thus does not fix it.

     Which is another way of saying, "I don't care what proof you offer, I don't care how many reasoned arguments that make sense you submit, and I refuse to acknowledge your self evident facts."
    I can't care, or can care of your proof of causation as you haven't offered a single hint of it. Your argument revolves around that races are not equal since race is a determinant in IQ, you have only proven correlation through The Bell Curve regarding race, however you have importantly omitted causation between the two factors. Self-evident facts that are derived from a logical fallacy are fallacious, and should be regarded. Causation regarding this aspect would require a scientific paper genetically linking hereditary intelligence with race, however you have not given this. The fallacy of causation based on correlation should not be this difficult to grasp.
     Please explain how "unconscious racism" or white discrimination" was responsible for that?   I DEMAND THAT YOU ANSWER THAT FERKING QUESTION? 
    The crimes committed by immigrants from many countries can be accounted by cultural differences between them. For example, Arab culture, which is prevalent in Sudan, promotes a tribal culture of revenge. Oftentimes in the Arab world, if one house offends or infringes on another house, there is conflict and oftentimes bloodshed between them. This overall promotes a rather violent culture, and this culture has existed in the Arabian peninsula since ancient times. So when people from Sudan, an Arabic speaking country and a member of the Arab league, come to a country which doesn't have the same culture, they might behave in the way they might've behaved in Sudan, disregarding Australian culture. Additionally, the murder rate in Sudan is around four times larger than Australia, indicating that the policing in Sudan is worse than Australia, so when people from Sudan come to Australia, they might believe that if they hurt people they can get away with it as they might in Sudan since there is far less of a police culture in Sudan..
     But over time, the socialist side realized that importing crime and welfare prone ethnic groups was be a real bonus to their hopes to stay in power forever.( just like the Dems in the USA realize it today)        They could divide and conquer the country with identity politics.
    Identity politics derives from your argument. Why? Because identity politics is defined as politics in which groups of people having a particular racial identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group. Thus, identity politics is built off of the alleged distinctions and differences between 'races', and since your argument encourages such divisions, your argument serves to increase identity politics of which you encourage the "Neo-Marxist, Leftist, Wokist, Socialist"(as you often refer to it) government of doing.
     You submitted a document supposedly listing the different IQ's levels of the populations of nations around the world.    And you were not bright enough to realise that you just destroyed your own premise that everybody is biologically equal, with identical Bell curves of IQ's
    I never claimed that every country has identical curves of IQ, I simply said that IQ levels of countries can be attributed most to education and wealth, rather than race. This was proven by the fact that countries of the same 'race' have widely differing IQ levels, thus eliminating race as a determinant in IQ. (I've had to repeat this to you around three to four times now at this point)
     I pointed out the fallacy of your link by telling you it was obviously preposterous because it listed Israel second last in it's list of nations ranking nations to IQ levels.
    I have already explained in a previous post that it clearly listed Israel as the 49th most intelligent country, out of 199 countries tested in total. Israel is definitely not the second lowest country in IQ and if you actually tried looking at the link and paying attention to what was said you would've realized that. Please pay more attention when you are looking over sources.
    We lump them all together as "Asians" for convenience, but Indonesians and Philippines are a hybrid sub species of blacks and Asians.     As for the Chinese, they consider themselves a separate race from every other race.    And as I wrote to you before, that must be true because Chinese scientists agree with the CCP.    And since you don't think that science can be corrupted or intimidated by governments, even though I have given you examples of them doing just that, then it must be true.    Please stop skimming my replies and then claiming I did not answer your points.
    *Sighs* Firstly, both Asians and Africans are not their own sub-species, or much less their own species, thus, those in Indonesia cannot be a 'hybrid subspecies'. Furthermore, there has been no genetic evidence to suggest that there is significant genetic African admixture among the populations of Indonesia(the Philippines isn't relevant). Furthermore, even assuming that there is genetic admixture between East Asian and African populations in Indonesia, it does not account for Laos. Laos is very close to China, both genetically and geographically, as both have strong presences of common East Asian haplogroups and are neighbors of each other. So then if they are the same 'race', why don't they perform similarly on IQ tests? After all, if race is a major determinant in IQ, shouldn't those of one race perform similarly highly or similarly lowly on IQ tests? I also have met a large amount of people who were born in China, or their parents or grandparents were born in China, and they refer to themselves as "Asian," not as a "Chinese race".
     They normally are.    Since sub species of humans change their appearance to conform to local environmental conditions, sub species are usually connected to particular geographical areas.
    Untrue, humans have been know to be relatively nomadic organisms, with large and rapid periods of migration throughout evolutionary history. Humans have never been known to stay in a long time evolutionarily speaking. And again, you still have to prove from a genetic standpoint that humans constitute different sub-species, rather than separate populations with similar adaptive characteristics. The fact of the matter is, humans are too closely related and have been separated geographically for too short of a time period for use to be separated into geographically distinct races, or subspecies.
    If they are identifiably different from each other,
    What defines identifiable differentiation among human populations? To what objective measures do you determine if someone is a different race from another person, or if one group of people constitutes their own race? I am identifiably different from you, am I my own race?
     Another reductionist ad absurdum premise that any 13 year old would laugh at.  
    Indeed, why not take it to that level of absurdity? If individual humans cannot be considered their own race, then what amount of people are required to be considered to be their own race? And to what level of phenotypical or genotypical distinction must be achieved?
    The existence of race specific diseases like SADS in Asian men proves conclusively that races of people are not biologically identical. 
    I never claimed that people are biologically identical, this is a strawman fallacy. Instead, I simply said that people are genetically close enough that race among human populations should be disregarded as pseudo-science. Most often, genetic disease occur out of inbreeding in populations
    I didn't, because you did not bother to explain how such esoteric biological terms are germane to this topic?
    These terms are relevant because you said that observation dismisses the fact that humans are all nearly identical. However this is contrary to biology which relies on genetic testing and make up to determine the similarity of one human to another, rather than simply observing how they look.



    Here is another link that I am sure you will not click on, because you do not want to see with your own eyes that your opinion is self evidently wrong.    Which you probably already know anyway.
    Your brain  might grow some unbiased neuronal pathways yet.
    If I was you, I would have been too embarrassed to post up an argument like that to support my premise.
    Even a 13 year old would not be impressed with such "logic".
    Who wrote this rubbish?
    Jesus, I think that the guy who wrote this rubbish just listened to John Lennon singing "Imagine" and he decided that he could make scientific facts fit his social wishful thinking?   All he had to do was a little pushing and shoving of the inconvenient facts.
    I want you to use your brain to think up your own premises.   Who knows?  I might even get your brain's critical analysis circuit to start functioning normally?
    Complete rot.
    Then you are not thinking very hard.
    You got the logic backward, as per usual. 
    I DEMAND THAT YOU ANSWER THAT FERKING QUESTION? 
    And you were not bright enough to realise that you just destroyed your own premise
    Thank you for that.  I didn't know that you had switched sides?    Welcome to the racist club.   
    premise that any 13 year old would laugh at.  
    you should be too embarrassed to even submit.
    But post it up again and I will tear it to shreds, like I always do.
    That must confound you. 
    I can see you're getting upset. Debating can make anyone upset, and it's understandable, however repeated assumptions and insults of myself constitutes a logical fallacy of ad hominem, and focuses on me as a person, rather than the arguments I put forward. This is not a civil war to debate and exchange ideas.  Perhaps you ought to take one or two days off to calm down?
  • BoganBogan 421 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42 ;    Interesting how an anti-racist would grow up to be something that is considered infantile such as racism. There we go; that is where this comment belongs.

    Anytime that you can find the courage to cross swords with me on this topic, Zues, you know where to find me.   Keyboards at thirty paces at high noon?    Or is heckling all you can manage? 
  • BoganBogan 421 Pts   -  

    MSCS quote  Unless you demonstrate evidence of systematic intimidation of scientists regarding race, your argument is mute. If anything, today's culture promotes racism, including the scientific culture

      Do you have an English comprehension problem?     Are you dyslectic?     I have already told you the sad tale of how Nobel Laureate James Watson was sacked for daring to give his expert opinion that Africans in general had a low IQ.    I have recounted the hounding of Arthur Jenson for daring to opine that the 15 point differences in IQ between US whites and blacks could had not been closed by the special programs, which the various state and Federal governments had set up, because the problem MIGHT be genetic.  In my last post I recounted the tale of the Macquarie University professor who sent a letter to the Australian PM warning him that the importation of African immigrants would cause yet another surge in ethnic crime.   And he was sacked for saying what eventually was prophetically true.     Lastly, I told you that I had read prominent ant racist Paul Breggins book "The War on Children", where he blurted out that the US NAACP had successfully lobbied the US government to stop any scientific research into funding into genetics and crime.

     Now, have you got it?   Read it again and internalise it.    Remember it.    I don't want to have to keep repeating, over and over again, that science is being intimidated into silence, just to have you come back two posts later and demand that I prove it again. 

     

    MSCS  For example, if you were to claim as a scientist that white Americans are more pre-disposed to whiteness, and thus act more privileged and discriminatory, then that would be accepted today as a rational opinion, rather than it being disregarded as the inaccurate opinion it actually is. Our culture today in the past decade has become more acceptant of racism, so to claim that our governments are regularly intimidating and funding against racism is rather bogus.

     All branches of science are being intimidated and corrupted, for the reasons I have already stated.   Only this week, the Chairman of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, Michael McCaul, and a former US National Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien  slammed the supposedly respected medical research journal "Lancet" for censoring any information about the possibility of COVID-19 having originated in the Wuhan lab.    The Lancet did this by blocking dissenting voices, accepting the narrative of the CCP, and even accusing people of (wait for it, wait for it) "racism" if they suggested that covid could be from a Chinese lab.  

     How about climate science?    Here is a "Climategate" email.      "If you think that Siairs is in the Greenhouse sceptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted."

     Then there was professor Paul Ridd of Queensland University.    Ridd's "crime" was to criticise the scientific methodology used by marine biologists who claimed the anthropomorphic climate change was destroying the Great Barrier Reef, and he was sacked for it.

     This is how science gets intimidated and corrupted.   If you really do consider yourself as a liberal, you should be appalled by this.   But you are not.  You want to believe that scientific dissenters are just cranks who oppose your sacred ideology, so you don't care if they are sacked or intimidated into silence.

     

     MSCS quote   I'm not denying the validity of The Bell Curve, although it should also be noted that the book was never peer-reviewed.....

     I don't know if it was peer reviewed or not.    But I can understand why nobody would peer review it and agree with it, they would end up flipping burgers in McDonalds for a living like poor old Siairs,  Watson, Professor Paul Ridd of Queensland university, and that professor from Macquarie university.

     

     MSCS quote    The book does not prove causation, only correlation. I'm not sure why this concept has been hard to grasp. I've tried explaining it multiple times for you, anyways, here are the definitions of correlation and causality.

     70 years of IQ testing proved conclusively that races have different IQ's, and that accounts for their different economic outcomes.    Three times now I have asked you that if all races have equal intelligence, then why hasn't some smart little Liberal scientist proved, what should be easy to prove?   Three times you have dodged the question.  It is obvious that you are very uncomfortable trying to think up excuses to explain away factors which display that your thinking is plainly wrong.  

     

     MSCS quote    The definition of correlation: "A relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone."

    The definition of causality: "The relation between a cause and its effect."

     Oh, here we go.    What is this, the third time I have addressed your false premise?    I asked you that if Galton meant that all correlations are false, then would that not completely demolish the entire branch of mathematics called "statistical analysis"?     As usual, trying to find an excuse to explain away your illogical premise was too great of a challenge, so you dodged the question again.

     

    MSCS quote

     The bell curve only manages to acknowledge a correlative relationship between race and IQ through a statistical analysis of a bell curve. Meanwhile, it does not prove a causal relationship between these two variables, such causality can only be supported through genetic testing, rather than IQ tests. Wherein significantly lower or higher scores may be the result of other factors, such as education and culture. Mind you, it should also be noted that the fact that different cultures have different levels of ethics regarding studying and education leads to different testing results. And that isn't the result of hereditary aspects, rather, it's a reflection of the local needs and traditions created by their local environment.

     The idea that education affects IQ in any significant way in the short term was blown right out of the water by the failure of "bussing" and special educational programs aimed at US blacks and minorities that would supposedly raise their IQ levels.       This is what?  The third time I have explained this to you?  

     

     MSCS quote      The attitudes of the persons in this video are a result of the current gang culture that has arisen in Chicago. This is due to the fact that in the eastside of the city, where the majority of African Americans live, there is a deficit of police, businesses, and good schooling, thus leading to young man like those in video turning to gangs as a an occupation.

     The young black African men in the video obviously havea  very low IQ, and you don't need to be a psychiatrist to figure that out.    I am absolutely amazed by your ability to look at objective reality and pretend that you can't see what is right in front of your face.    Then you make up a lame excuse to deny the objective reality that you don't want to acknowledge.     How do you do that while thinking that you are an intelligent liberal?   The ghosts of Voltaire and Thomas Jefferson are looking askance at you.

     

    MSCS quote    But the hereditary aspects of intelligence remain relatively stable and shouldn't change, especially over such an evolutionarily small time of around a thousand years.

     You just crossed the Rubicon again.   You are admitting that intelligence can be hereditary.    Okay now, I am warning you.  I am going to cut and paste that in a file and you can't in future backslide and pretend that you didn't say it.     We have finally made some progress in deprogramming you.   

     In any case, your premise is wrong again.    As "The Bell Curve" explained, when IQ testing was first attempted, there was no scale to judge what was high, low, or average IQ.     So the scientists arbitrarily set the most common IQ score for working class white Americans at 100.   This was the standard upon which all other classes and races would be judged.    But over 70 years, white working class Americans now have a most common IQ score of 103, which proves that education and constantly needing to use your brain to live in a complex society, can, over the generations, slowly raise IQ.

     

    MSCS quote    Your argument essentially boils down to, "science agrees with me, but scientists who disagree with my statement as simply tools of the government."

     Yes.    Or just neo Marxists hankering for a totalitarian government where their Brahmin caste are the politburo and the upper level managers and oligarchs.  And you think that those who disagree with you are cranks.    Including a  Nobel laureate.

     

    MSCS quote   In the free world, biologists and anthropologists, have, as I have demonstrated, come to a common consensus that race doesn't exist among humans, humans share very similar genetic structures, and that arbitrarily defined races based purely on phenotypical differences does not effect the behavior and intelligence of a human.

     They do not have a consensus at all.     Academics have always had a fascination with Marxism, probably because they dream of a totalitarian state where the "intelligent", university Brahman caste are the new aristocrats, who tell the dumb proles and the greedy business class, what is what.     University departments today seem to be divided between neo Marxists revisionists and traditionalists, and that is causing serious schisms in science and history departments.    

     

    MSCS    It is scientifically inaccurate to define humans into subspecies, there simply hasn't been enough time for extensive genetic variation to take place among human population groups.

     That depends upon who's "science" you think is right?    Objective reality says that the side which is intimidating the other side to is the one which has something to hide.     Which side do you think that is?   Hmmmmm?

     

    MSCS   And in the free world, scientists are able to publish most any research document regarding race.

     James Watson simply gave an opinion about that and he was sacked from his job.   So, the question begs again, if it can be easily proven that the side who says that races are not equal get sacked, then who is going to be enough to write a paper  agreeing with what lost one of the world's leading geneticists his career?      Same for Ridd, Jenson, and "Siairs".   If you have any capacity for reasoned thought, then you must admit that the side that you support are the science intimidators.     That fact alone should make you think again.

     

    MSCS    There has been no evidence to suggest that the government pressures the vast majority of biologists and anthropologists to adhere to certain views regarding race. Nor does the grant money given to scientific institutions necessitate extortion regarding these aspects, as money doesn't necessarily have to come from the government.

     Bul-lsheet!    How many times do I have to disprove that before you admit I am right?     Your mind is like a cracked record.  It is sitting in a groove, going round and round, and it just can't jump onto the next track, no matter how many times you try to make it realise that it is stuck.

     

    MSCS quote     Adaptive traits, such as skin color and nose shape, are simply traits that occur as a result as the environmental factors like temperature and sunlight. It is not to be used a variable for genetic differentiation. Furthermore, there has been no consensus on a specified adaptive trait that defines different human sub-species or races, and you still yourself have to define what differentiates one race specifically from another. What physical characteristic determines race, and what gives that determinant credence in a biological, zoological, and anthropological sense?

     That is a half truth.  And a half truth is a complete lie.    Science said that human sub species existed for a hundred and thirty years.    And then came the politicalisation of science.     Neo Marxists in science, history, teaching, and linguistics,are attempting to create a new reality which supports their egalitarian neo-Marxist worldview.  They are using the authority of science to say the most potty things, like that males can be females if they just want to be.

     This is exactly what President Eisenhower warned the US public about in his farewell speech.

     Excerpt from that speech.   

     

    The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

     

    MSCS quote   What defines one 'pure-bred' human sub species from another?

     Geographic isolation for a very long period which creates a characteristic appearance.   The same as for every other sub species on planet earth. 

     

    MSCS     Both you and I are identifiably different from everyone else in the world, are we both our own pure-bred subspecies?

     No.

     

    MSCS quote    Furthermore, there is no such thing as a 'pure-bred' human at this point.

     Using that reductionist add absurdum logic, there is no such thing as a pure bred Kodiak or Grizzly bear, or any other sub species of any organism on the planet.

     

    MSCS quote  No human population has ever been truly 'fixed' or isolated for a substantial period of time, and no group of people has ever been phenotypically or biologically homogenous, or 'pure'.

     They have been fixed and isolated for such long periods of time that sub species of human beings are as identifiably different from each other as a rainbow lorikeet is from a scaly breasted lorikeet.

     

    MSCS quote    I have at this point posted 6 sources that support the view that the concept of race doesn't exist. You have thus far provided no source to support the idea of race among modern humans. The only source you have posted in the entire debate is only regarding correlation of IQ and race, not causation. 

     And I have explained to you that traditional science does recognise race and it always has.    I suppose you can get find some neo Marxist 'science" reports which claim that there are 187 genders, too?     Not only that, I have given you three undeniable examples that some races of people have very low intelligence, which you need to deny objective reality to pretend it isn't so.    The reason why I am all over you like a rash, is that I do not need to deny objective reality to conform to some politically invented new way of "scientific" thinking.

     

    MSCS quote   Race does exist in taxonomy, but it is on a level lower than sub-species, and today refers mainly to individual breeding populations rather than sub-species.

     Last I heard about the "taxonomy wars", the neo Marxists are busy trying to air brush away  that inconvenient science too.

     

    MSCS quote     The official website does not mention it's source of funding as far as I saw, but given that it's simply an association of anthropologists it likely requires little to no funding apart from grants to students and scientists.

     If even such formerly prestigious publications such as "Lancet" are now infested with the politically correct, then I don't trust them either.

     

    MSCS quote   I can't care, or can care of your proof of causation as you haven't offered a single hint of it. Your argument revolves around that races are not equal since race is a determinant in IQ, you have only proven correlation through The Bell Curve regarding race, however you have importantly omitted causation between the two factors. Self-evident facts that are derived from a logical fallacy are fallacious, and should be regarded. Causation regarding this aspect would require a scientific paper genetically linking hereditary intelligence with race, however you have not given this. The fallacy of causation based on correlation should not be this difficult to grasp.

     Yeah, and I have a dome a great job of proving it too.    But no amount of reasoned argument can shift an ideologue from his wishful thinking.   I have always been amazed at how similar wokeism is to a non deity religion.

     

    MSCS quote  The crimes committed by immigrants from many countries can be accounted by cultural differences between them. For example, Arab culture, which is prevalent in Sudan, promotes a tribal culture of revenge. Oftentimes in the Arab world, if one house offends or infringes on another house, there is conflict and oftentimes bloodshed between them. This overall promotes a rather violent culture, and this culture has existed in the Arabian peninsula since ancient times. So when people from Sudan, an Arabic speaking country and a member of the Arab league, come to a country which doesn't have the same culture, they might behave in the way they might've behaved in Sudan, disregarding Australian culture. Additionally, the murder rate in Sudan is around four times larger than Australia, indicating that the policing in Sudan is worse than Australia, so when people from Sudan come to Australia, they might believe that if they hurt people they can get away with it as they might in Sudan since there is far less of a police culture in Sudan..

     I thought that the explanation was more prosaic.    If you can breed dogs that are dumb and dogs that are violent, then environmental conditions can do the same thing.     Whether you like it or not, The Bell Curve proved that some races have very low IQ.    And criminal behaviour and low IQ can be hereditary, which means that it is genetic.     So, the simple and easily explained reason for minority dysfunction is that most of them are as dumb as dogs-hit, which is why they inhabit the lowest level of western society, regardless of which western society that is.    And they are very disproportionately represented in serious (violent) criminal behaviour, which is why they are very disproportionately represented in incarceration rates.    

     

    MSCS quote    identity politics derives from your argument. Why? Because identity politics is defined as politics in which groups of people having a particular racial identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group. Thus, identity politics is built off of the alleged distinctions and differences between 'races', and since your argument encourages such divisions, your argument serves to increase identity politics of which you encourage the "Neo-Marxist, Leftist, Wokist, Socialist"(as you often refer to it) government of doing.

     That is where your "logic" falls flat on it's face.     Leftards never stop claiming that races do not exist, but they can see them as plain as day whenever they have their begging bowls out demanding "equity" for races that they scream don't even exist.     Australia is the only country in the world with a government department especially set up to cater for the welfare of two apparently non existent races. 

     Your position is a contradiction.  Either races exist or they do not exist.    Your side can not claim that race does not exist when you think it is convenient, and then claim that is does exist when you are trying to figure out why that a particular race should be more equal than others, and get preferential treatment.

     

    MSCS quote  I never claimed that every country has identical curves of IQ, I simply said that IQ levels of countries can be attributed most to education and wealth, rather than race. This was proven by the fact that countries of the same 'race' have widely differing IQ levels, thus eliminating race as a determinant in IQ. (I've had to repeat this to you around three to four times now at this point)

     Education can only make marginal improvements to IQ over generations, which once again proves that IQ is genetic.   

     

    MSCS quote   I have already explained in a previous post that it clearly listed Israel as the 49th most intelligent country, out of 199 countries tested in total. Israel is definitely not the second lowest country in IQ and if you actually tried looking at the link and paying attention to what was said you would've realized that. Please pay more attention when you are looking over sources.

     Yet Jews make up only 3% of the US population, and they make up 27% of US Nobel prize winners.    The reason?    Jews are the smartest race in the USA, as confirmed by IQ testing.   And it is alsoconfirmed by the fact that they are very disproportionally represented as students and graduates from places of higher learning.    They don't need "Affirmative Action" to get special treatment.  And like all smart races, their proneness to criminal behaviour, especially violent criminal behaviour, is very low.    Which is more than you can say for African blacks.

     

    MSCS quote   *Sighs* Firstly, both Asians and Africans are not their own sub-species, or much less their own species, thus, those in Indonesia cannot be a 'hybrid subspecies'.

     Indonesians are a hybrid sub species of a east Asians and the indigenous black tribes who very genetically akin to south west pacific blacks.     Same for Phillipinoes.     That is why they look identifiably different from Asians.     Western people lump them all together as "Asians" as a shorthand.

     

    MSCS quote    Furthermore, there has been no genetic evidence to suggest that there is significant genetic African admixture among the populations of Indonesia(the Philippines isn't relevant).

     Wrong.   Most people do not know that there are even dark skinned Taiwanese, and the Japanese even have dark skinned Japanese living on the north of Hokkaido.  Like Australia, much of Asia was populated by dark skinned people who were displaced by the Asian race, or races.    Remnants of these dark skinned races still exist.

     

    MSCS quote  Furthermore, even assuming that there is genetic admixture between East Asian and African populations in Indonesia, it does not account for Laos. Laos is very close to China, both genetically and geographically, as both have strong presences of common East Asian haplogroups and are neighbors of each other. So then if they are the same 'race', why don't they perform similarly on IQ tests? After all, if race is a major determinant in IQ, shouldn't those of one race perform similarly highly or similarly lowly on IQ tests? I also have met a large amount of people who were born in China, or their parents or grandparents were born in China, and they refer to themselves as "Asian," not as a "Chinese race".

    They may not.   But the official policy of the CCP, taught in their schools, is that the Chinese race evolved separately from every other race in China.

     And I will say something for the Asians.  They must be smart because they re not du-mb enough to import Africans into their countries.    In China, it is an offense for a Chinese female to have sex with an African.   The Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Koreans must be laughing their heads off at how stu-pid the western world has become, importing Africans.    And they must be laughing at all the trouble we are having because of our stubborn refusal to recognise reality.  I loved it when Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone said that America was once a great country, but now there were just too many Africans, Hispanics, and Puerto Rican's buggering the place up.     A lot of people agreed with him.  The smart people..  

     

    MSCS quote    Untrue, humans have been know to be relatively nomadic organisms, with large and rapid periods of migration throughout evolutionary history. Humans have never been known to stay in a long time evolutionarily speaking.

     How you come to that conclusion is beyond me.   

     

    MSCS quote   And again, you still have to prove from a genetic standpoint that humans constitute different sub-species, rather than separate populations with similar adaptive characteristics.

     Already proven.     For the second time.  DNA researchers can tell a person's ethnology from a single drop of blood.  Anthopologists can recognise a person's race from their skeleton.   Race specific diseases exist.    West Africans usually take all the Olympic medals for running, but they can't swim for sheet.    Asians can't digest milk.    African Bantu have a natural residence to malaria.    African blacks can't live in cold climates without vitamin D supplements.    Whites, and especially Celts, are prone to skin cancer.   It is just amazing how you can deny that races exist, when the evidence is right in front of you that they do, and they re different to each other.   The reason was  because they evolved separately in different environments.    How can you deny self evident reality?    How do you do it?    I really would love to know that?  

     

    MSCS quote    The fact of the matter is, humans are too closely related and have been separated geographically for too short of a time period for use to be separated into geographically distinct races, or subspecies.

     Reality says different.  

     

    MSCS quote What defines identifiable differentiation among human populations? 

     Your lying eyes.

     

    MSCS quote   To what objective measures do you determine if someone is a different race from another person, or if one group of people constitutes their own race?

     Physical identity, physical ability, diet, proneness or resistence to desease , and IQ.

     

     MSCS quote   Indeed, why not take it to that level of absurdity?  

     Because taking any premise to it's most extreme position is simply a tactic to stifle debate not promote debate.     It even has a name reductio ad absurdum

     

    MSCS quote  I never claimed that people are biologically identical, this is a strawman fallacy.     Instead, I simply said that people are genetically close enough that race among human populations should be disregarded as pseudo-science. Most often, genetic disease occur out of inbreeding in populations

     Except for some neo Marxist "scientists" and some brain washed western youth, the rest of the world does not appear to agree with you on that?    Even so called "oppressed" races recognise their own race when they demand that their non existent race should be more equal than other non existent races.

     

    MSCS quote    These terms are relevant because you said that observation dismisses the fact that humans are all nearly identical. However this is contrary to biology which relies on genetic testing and make up to determine the similarity of one human to another, rather than simply observing how they look.

     So we need genetic testing to decide which race is which?  Well, you will be happy to know that aboriginal activist organisations agree with you.     With so many benefits being given to people in Australia who identify as being part of a pair of non existent races called "aborigines" and "Torres Straight Islanders", every man and his dog in Australia is clamouring to have their non existent race classified as one of these other two non existent races.       The sight of blond haired, blue eyed "aborigines" claiming that they are aborigines looks a bit susso to the average taxpayer.   With your mindset, I am sure you can't understand why?  Aboriginal activist organisations realise that the more non existent white race people who claim benefits, the less "their" non existent race of people get.    So, they are demanding that people who claim that they are part of their nonexistent race must have a DNA test to determine how much their non existent racial DNA matches their own non existent racial DNA.

     

    MSCS quote   I can see you're getting upset. Debating can make anyone upset, and it's understandable, however repeated assumptions and insults of myself constitutes a logical fallacy of ad hominem, and focuses on me as a person, rather than the arguments I put forward.

     No, pointing out that the other person must have something wrong with their cognitive abilities if they can not recognise simple connections, should allow any impartial audience member to work out which side is the fearless seeker of the truth, and which side is just the brain washed ideologue, more concerned with muddying the water and putting forward reductio ad absurdum premises, than debating in good faith.

     

    MSCS This is not a civil war to debate and exchange ideas.  Perhaps you ought to take one or two days off to calm down?

     You wish.   You may wish to destroy the civilization you choose to live in, but I prefer to fight for it.

    MineSubCraftStarved
  • BoganBogan 421 Pts   -  
    Yooo hooo MSCS!     Where aaaaarreeeee yooouuuuuu?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 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