SDMB Bigoted Asshole Omnibus Thread

[Gagundathar]

You make assertions with little or no evidence in place. Your 2005 paper has been found to be flawed. You assert that the construct known as 'race' is of genetic origin when it is not. Race is a social construct. The genetic diversity of our species is very wide. In fact, recent studies indicate that each of us is quite genetically unique. This bodes poorly for all-purpose genetic therapies, but on the other hand, it is a rather telling piece of evidence that supports the thesis that race is not a genetically determinable value.

But, I am quite aware that presenting contrary and scientifically supported ideas to your chosen set of beliefs will only result in your dismissal of such. This is to be expected from one who obviously suffers from serious cognitive dysfunction. May I suggest therapy?

Oh, and since we are in the Pit (a place where I rarely post) may I also suggest you kindly go fuck yourself. The 21st century has no need for atavistic assholes like you.

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

It is common knowledge that the Bantu, from whom American blacks descended, never developed indigenous civilizations with writing and mathematics.

So much of this sentence is wrong:

American blacks descended from many ethnic groups, including Europeans, Bantus, other black sub-saharan African groups (not every "Black African" is of Bantu descent- remember [as you have ignored], the genetic diversity of Africa is far greater than the rest of the world combined), and native Americans (with a small contribution).

Some ancient sub-Saharan Africans developed intricate mathematical systems, and writing systems like Ge'ez script and Nsibidi.

So there. It's not common knowledge- because it's incorrect. And your implication that all black Africans are "Bantu" is laughable.

[Harmonix]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

If it is not genetic, why do Orientals have low crime rates and high average IQs everywhere in the world that they live?

The fact that orientals typically have low rates of criminal behavior and high IQ, does not necessarily imply a genetic reason. You can not claim that because this is true, there must be a genetic reason.

You're confusing sufficiency, with necessity. A genetic reason may be Sufficient to explain the difference, but it is not NECESSARY to explain the difference.

To prove a causative relationship in science you need to prove necessity.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So the burden is on you. As a graduate level scientist, I can tell you that your 'evidence' does not rise to the level of nessecary to prove your claim.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Harmonix

The fact that orientals typically have low rates of criminal behavior and high IQ, does not necessarily imply a genetic reason. You can not claim that because this is true, there must be a genetic reason.

You're confusing sufficiency, with necessity. A genetic reason may be Sufficient to explain the difference, but it is not NECESSARY to explain the difference.

To prove a causative relationship in science you need to prove necessity.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So the burden is on you. As a graduate level scientist, I can tell you that your 'evidence' does not rise to the level of nessecary to prove your claim.

Even scientists have emotions that prevent them from accepting some realities. Anything involving people arouses emotions.

The only thing that remains to prove conclusively that genes effect different IQs and crime rates is the discovery of genes for these propensities. Because genes have already been discovered for medical problems, lactose tolerance, and blue eyes I am confident that they will be discovered for IQ and crime. In each case it will not be a single gene, but a constellation of genes.

[Paranoid Randroid]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

If it is not genetic, why do Orientals have low crime rates and high average IQs everywhere in the world that they live?

That’s not necessarily true and depends, particularly, on the nature of the crimes in question; violent crime in (say) Bangkok may not be high but crimes such as pickpocketing may be more common than elsewhere. Mean IQ is relatively low in Thailand as well: 87, according to this site, which provides its own citations. Corruption and bribery seems more likely in China.

But even to the extent that it’s true, how can you make a causal argument? It’s undeniable — beyond obvious — that factors beyond genetics affect how one scores in IQ tests. The argument that average IQ among American blacks hasn’t significantly increased since the advent of civil rights legislation ignores all sorts of variables: continuing racism; persistent generational poverty (poverty is sticky); social pressures from within ethnic groups as well as from without; even changes in the way IQ is measured.

I’m not trying to grasp at straws here; these are genuine confounding factors that you simply can’t ignore or wave away. “Forty years should’ve been enough!” just won’t cut it for a causal argument, particularly one whose outcome has very significant policy implications.

From an eyeball comparison of lists of countries by homicide rate and by the proportion of English speakers, I suspect I could find a correlation between speaking English and rates of violent crime. Assume that I did; would that be a good causal argument? I could point out that even among developed nations English-speaking countries — especially the US, but also Israel, Canada, the UK — see proportionately more homicides than France, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, Germany …

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

If it is not genetic, why do Orientals have low crime rates and high average IQs everywhere in the world that they live?

The Japanese Yakuza are so numerous, so ingrained in the fabric of Japan's government that the police are afraid of locking them up. Not afraid that they're going to get shot by Yakuzas in retaliation, you understand. Afraid they'll get fired for it.
There is almost nothing in Japan that doesn't involve Yakuzas on some level or kicking them something back. The Japanese government, throwing its hands up, has resorted to making it a crime to pay them protection money (which of course stiffs the victim thrice - once when they pay up to not get kneecapped, once when they pay the fine, and a third time when they don't have any more money to pay the protection racket, having spent it on the fine).

Of course, when there are no arrests, no prosecutions and no investigations, crime stats are going to be on the low side.

As for our side of the big water, Asian communities in Western nations are, very generally speaking, insular and distrustful of local authorities (for good reasons, considering recent history), preferring to solve their issues and disputes among themselves whenever they can.
There once again, low crime stats are to be expected.

I would also note that it's established fact that criminal sentencing in the US is heavily skewed against black people in particular (e.g. possession of crack cocaine and powder cocaine landing different jail sentences by a factor of 10 ; juries more likely to convict blacks than whites on similar charges with similar evidence, etc...), and the majority of blacks are trapped in horrible socio-economic situations through no shortage of discrimination, so your using racist policies that result in racially charged results to support the kind of racist theories & attitudes that are at the root of said racist policies in the first place seems somewhat... well, I was going to say disingenuous, but I think I'm going to go ahead with shameful shit instead.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Paranoid Randroid

I’m not trying to grasp at straws here; these are genuine confounding factors that you simply can’t ignore or wave away. “Forty years should’ve been enough!” just won’t cut it for a causal argument, particularly one whose outcome has very significant policy implications.

If forty years is not enough to erase racial differences it ought to have reduced them somewhat if they are environmental.

In this chart of SAT scores beginning during the school year 1990-91 you can see what while Orientals have improved significantly in both mathematics and reading ability, blacks have hardly improved at all, and the gap between them and whites has grown.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171

[Harmonix]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Even scientists have emotions that prevent them from accepting some realities. Anything involving people arouses emotions.

The only thing that remains to prove conclusively that genes effect different IQs and crime rates is the discovery of genes for these propensities. Because genes have already been discovered for medical problems, lactose tolerance, and blue eyes I am confident that they will be discovered for IQ and crime. In each case it will not be a single gene, but a constellation of genes.

Why are you assigning emotion to me? I am stating my disagreement with your data . I have no dog in this fight. Should science one day show that one race as a whole is any more intelligent than another. Then so be it.

And are you some emotionless pillar of reasoning? Cause, you certainly do not come off as such.

I accept the possibility that any some subgroup may have lower intelligence. I have evaluated your evidence with a scientific eye, and concluded that there is not enough evidence to support your claim. You seem to AGREE with this, but yet still continue on with assuming it is true?

No man. You're the emotional zealot here.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

If forty years is not enough to erase racial differences it ought to have reduced them somewhat if they are environmental.

Not if the environment hasn't changed significantly.

[iiandyiiii]

New Deal Democrat,

All you've got is test scores, and they don't say anything about genes or biology. Every other claim you've made has been thoroughly (and sometimes hilariously) debunked, in this thread or the others- whether it's about Bantus (not all black Africans are Bantus!), technology (there were indeed indigenous writing systems and mathematical systems in ancient sub-Saharan Africa, and in many technologies, like iron smelting, forging steel, and brick architecture, some black African populations were way ahead of Asians and Europeans), or race and genetics (you continually and absurdly claim that "Negro" is a race comparable to "Caucasian" or "Oriental", when Africa contains more genetic diversity than the rest of the world combined).

Have you considered that maybe your own biases and prejudices are coloring your views?

[Harmonix]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

If forty years is not enough to erase racial differences it ought to have reduced them somewhat if they are environmental.

In this chart of SAT scores beginning during the school year 1990-91 you can see what while Orientals have improved significantly in both mathematics and reading ability, blacks have hardly improved at all, and the gap between them and whites has grown.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171

was bored...

I used excel to do an ANOVA analysis on the year to year improvements within the groups and found no statistically significant difference in the improvement rates.

I'm not too great at statistics, so i'm not 100% sure I did it right.

[Bridget Burke]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

If forty years is not enough to erase racial differences it ought to have reduced them somewhat if they are environmental.

In this chart of SAT scores beginning during the school year 1990-91 you can see what while Orientals have improved significantly in both mathematics and reading ability, blacks have hardly improved at all, and the gap between them and whites has grown.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171

This isn't Great Debates. We aren't here to respectfully examine your cockamamie theories & then give well-reasoned responses. (Not that I've seen many respecting you in GD.)

This is a Pit thread, set up for those of us who wish to call you an idiotic, annoying racist.

You're an idiot; do you think you're going to convince anybody here?

You're annoying; why must you demean the phrase "New Deal Democrat"?

You're a racist.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Bridget Burke

This isn't Great Debates. We aren't here to respectfully examine your cockamamie theories & then give well-reasoned responses. (Not that I've seen many respecting you in GD.)

This is a Pit thread, set up for those of us who wish to call you an idiotic, annoying racist.

You're an idiot; do you think you're going to convince anybody here?

You're annoying; why must you demean the phrase "New Deal Democrat"?

You're a racist.

You are a fool who is incapable of rational debate.

[Smeghead]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

You are a fool who is incapable of rational debate.

Sir, you wouldn't recognize "rational debate" if it stripped naked, painted "rational debate" on its chest in dayglo purple, and danced on top of your piano singing "rational debate is here again!"

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Harmonix

was bored...

I used excel to do an ANOVA analysis on the year to year improvements within the groups and found no statistically significant difference in the improvement rates.

I'm not too great at statistics, so i'm not 100% sure I did it right.

From the school years of 1990-91 to 2009-10 Oriental averages increased by 67 points; white averages increased by 33 points; black averages increased by 11 points.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Smeghead

Sir, you wouldn't recognize "rational debate" if it stripped naked, painted "rational debate" on its chest in dayglo purple, and danced on top of your piano singing "rational debate is here again!"

With a response like that you illustrate my point. My arguments are fact based and logical.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

If that's all you can do, you have lost the argument.

Once again: a child doodling on the wall with a turd shouldn't assume the speechless stares are proof of his brilliance.

[silenus]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

With a response like that you illustrate my point. My arguments are fact based and logical.

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

[Truman Burbank]

NDD, before I even try to reason with you, I'd like to ascertain the educational level I am addressing. What degrees do you hold, and from where? Have you ever taken and passed a statistics class? What biology and anthropology classes?
Does the statement "correlation does not imply causation" mean anything to you?
Why did the people of the New Hebrides come to the belief that lice bring good health?
(I think it was the New Hebrides...memory chip may be acting up again)

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by silenus

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

Again I ask: if racial differences are environmental, why has the race gap in SAT scores between blacks and whites ncreased since 1990-91?

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171

That is what I mean by fact based. I document my assertions. In this case I ask a reasonable question that cannot be logocally answered in ways that deny the importance of genetics in explaining the race gap.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

I don't mean to sound racist, but there has to be more to this than the social environment. I refuse to believe that society is the only factor that can explain the idiocy of New Deal Democrat. Just look at the test scores. Liberals will deny that they mean anything and point out that the tests are unreadable because he keeps drooling on the ScanTron, but doesn't that in itself speak to an undeniable difference?

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Truman Burbank

Why did the people of the New Hebrides come to the belief that lice bring good health?
(I think it was the New Hebrides...memory chip may be acting up again)

Yup.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Truman Burbank

NDD, before I even try to reason with you, I'd like to ascertain the educational level I am addressing. What degrees do you hold, and from where? Have you ever taken and passed a statistics class? What biology and anthropology classes?
Does the statement "correlation does not imply causation" mean anything to you?
Why did the people of the New Hebrides come to the belief that lice bring good health?
(I think it was the New Hebrides...memory chip may be acting up again)

Anyone on an internet forum can claim any identity. I am obviously well informed. Most of those who dispute me are just as obviously not. Many are abusive and adolescent.

"Correlation does not imply causation," can be and often is used to deny any causal relationship one does not want to believe.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

That is what I mean by fact based. I document my assertions.

You make wild, unsupported assertions from an insufficient body of facts, you mean. As well as JAQing off in public.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

You make wild, unsupported assertions from an insufficient body of facts, you mean. As well as JAQing off in public.

Just because you dislike my conclusions does not mean that they are illogical.

[silenus]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Anyone on an internet forum can claim any identity. I am obviously well informed. Most of those who dispute me are just as obviously not. Many are abusive and adolescent.

See my previous comment and find a dictionary.

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Anyone on an internet forum can claim any identity. I am obviously well informed.

You are poorly informed, as I showed in post #160. You're basing your claims on false information that you repeat over and over again.

[Harmonix]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Just because you dislike my conclusions does not mean that they are illogical.

Your conclusions are illogical.

I neither dislike or like them.

[Harmonix]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

From the school years of 1990-91 to 2009-10 Oriental averages increased by 67 points; white averages increased by 33 points; black averages increased by 11 points.

I was looking at year over year rate of change.

in anycase, this data would be meaningful if environmental factors can be shown to have significantly improved. The fact that civil rights laws have passed, does not necessarily mean the environment/culture has improved.

[Harmonix]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

"Correlation does not imply causation," can be and often is used to deny any causal relationship one does not want to believe.

Right back at ya.


to Mods: I apologize for the multiposts. I'm doing this while multitasking.

[Blaster Master]

Here's what I don't get. Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that we can meaningfully determine some set of races and we can determine some sort of meaningful statistics about how they perform on some sorts of standardized tests in various types of abilities and that there are some differences. I'm not sure what sort of conclusions we're supposed to draw from it.

For instance, say race X scores a few IQ points higher than race Y on average. What conclusions do we draw from that? If we try to cause that there's a causal relationship there that gives race X an advantage or race Y a disadvantage, I don't think we can say that statistically since there are countless other variables involved with race that are not statistically independent, particularly culture and socioeconomic pressures. So maybe it's a combination of things.

But let's take it a step further, let's even say that we can control for all of those other variables and can say that there actually is some sort of meaningful difference between races, even if it's slight... so what? Are we supposed to treat individuals of one race differently because of that? Are we supposed to create social programs or policies to account for these differences?

Let's compare it to sex, where there absolutely is a genetic basis for the differences in the sexes. For instance, on average, a man is stronger than a woman... so what? If I have a task that needs to get done that requires a certain amount of strength and I have a set of several people of both sexes willing to do it, I should pick someone that's strong enough independent of that person's sex. To automatically reject a woman would be sexist because she may be strong enough to do it even if statistically an average woman may not be able to; similarly, to automatically choose a man would be sexist because he may not be strong enough even if statistically an average man could. All that statistic tells me is how likely I am to have someone able to do it, it doesn't tell me the reality of the choices I'm faced with, and it's the very definition of sexism to come to a conclusion about a person based just on their sex, even if that conclusion is based on some sort of real statistic.

So really, even if you can meaningfully say that blacks aren't as smart as whites... so what? It's one thing if you're talking about a difference in a way that can be useful in helping people, like I believe some racial groups are at higher risk of heart disease, so it can save lives to do an extra screening on groups that are identified as being at risk. But when you're talking about intelligence, and just saying one group is dumber than another, how is that really meaningfully useful other than at an individual level where coming to a conclusion that someone is dumber just because of their race is, by definition, racist. So, don't you see that without knowing what your motivation is behind why you're so interested in it, why it comes off as being motivated by racism and why so many people are offended by it? And it's only made worse that the arguments for it aren't nearly as convincing as you think they are.

So, maybe you can illuminate us on your motivation behind these discussions?

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

You are poorly informed, as I showed in post #160. You're basing your claims on false information that you repeat over and over again.

Post #160 made this claim that is preposterously untrue:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

in many technologies, like iron smelting, forging steel, and brick architecture, some black African populations were way ahead of Asians and Europeans).

What is false about this information?

SAT scores from 1990-91 to 2009-2010:
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171

Black and white murder rates:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm

International school performance - predominantly black countries are not listed, but the only countries that outperform the U.S. have populations that are nearly all white or all Oriental:
http://siteselection.com/ssinsider/s...t/sf011210.htm

International murder rates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Blaster Master

Here's what I don't get. Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that we can meaningfully determine some set of races and we can determine some sort of meaningful statistics about how they perform on some sorts of standardized tests in various types of abilities and that there are some differences. I'm not sure what sort of conclusions we're supposed to draw from it.

For instance, say race X scores a few IQ points higher than race Y on average. What conclusions do we draw from that? If we try to cause that there's a causal relationship there that gives race X an advantage or race Y a disadvantage, I don't think we can say that statistically since there are countless other variables involved with race that are not statistically independent, particularly culture and socioeconomic pressures. So maybe it's a combination of things.

But let's take it a step further, let's even say that we can control for all of those other variables and can say that there actually is some sort of meaningful difference between races, even if it's slight... so what? Are we supposed to treat individuals of one race differently because of that? Are we supposed to create social programs or policies to account for these differences?

Let's compare it to sex, where there absolutely is a genetic basis for the differences in the sexes. For instance, on average, a man is stronger than a woman... so what? If I have a task that needs to get done that requires a certain amount of strength and I have a set of several people of both sexes willing to do it, I should pick someone that's strong enough independent of that person's sex. To automatically reject a woman would be sexist because she may be strong enough to do it even if statistically an average woman may not be able to; similarly, to automatically choose a man would be sexist because he may not be strong enough even if statistically an average man could. All that statistic tells me is how likely I am to have someone able to do it, it doesn't tell me the reality of the choices I'm faced with, and it's the very definition of sexism to come to a conclusion about a person based just on their sex, even if that conclusion is based on some sort of real statistic.

So really, even if you can meaningfully say that blacks aren't as smart as whites... so what? It's one thing if you're talking about a difference in a way that can be useful in helping people, like I believe some racial groups are at higher risk of heart disease, so it can save lives to do an extra screening on groups that are identified as being at risk. But when you're talking about intelligence, and just saying one group is dumber than another, how is that really meaningfully useful other than at an individual level where coming to a conclusion that someone is dumber just because of their race is, by definition, racist. So, don't you see that without knowing what your motivation is behind why you're so interested in it, why it comes off as being motivated by racism and why so many people are offended by it? And it's only made worse that the arguments for it aren't nearly as convincing as you think they are.

So, maybe you can illuminate us on your motivation behind these discussions?

I do not think that blacks should be discriminated against. I do not think they should be discriminated in favor of.

[drew870mitchell]

I don't know what I expected.

Originally Posted by brazil84

I'm not sure what you mean by "inferior," but assuming you mean differences in intelligence,

You know damn well what I meant by "inferior," but you know that that's negative language that had to be discarded after the civil rights movement, so you started with that. Don't run away from your position. It makes you look like a coward, especially when the next thing you do is re-assert your claim that different races have different intelligence, with not even any correction or nuance.

Originally Posted by brazil84

for the most part it was my learning how to think critically, i.e. learning how to think rationally about issues without letting my own wishes and emotions color my judgment.

As I learned how to think critically, it became clear that the ridiculous explanations I had been taught for the various racial gaps were just that -- ridiculous.

You should also know that this is deeply unsatisfying. "I took my position when I learned how to think right." Please read my questions again and try to speak in more specific terms. You should be able to explain any number of things you read, thoughts you had, maybe places you visited.

I'm so nice and bored that I'll give you an example: I subscribe to the big bang theory. I grew up in a small town in the South, so we didn't really cover it at all in school, but my church also wasn't inerrant Word so we didn't pay much attention to Genesis either. I just got the very basic gist of each creation story trickled down through friends and probably media. When I was a kid, for my birthday, my parents bought me a telescope. I didn't have enough attention span for finding stars unaided, so at Christmas, I got some stargazing books to help. In 4th grade I checked out a book from my library about astronomical structures like galaxies and black holes which really sparked my interest in space, and I started reading about astronauts, and keeping up with stuff like meteor showers, eclipses, etc. On a recommendation in 11th grade I read "The First Three Minutes" by Steven Weinberg, which recounts that cosmology in plain English with a little history of the field mixed in. It (plus probably some outside reading) gave a convincing account of the beginning of the universe including certain experiments and discoveries which led us to that account, for example, the cosmic microwave background. That was when I "bought in" to the Big Bang.

That's what I am looking for, brazil84 - how you got interested in racial theories, what your background was, and what led you to where you are today.

You actually bothered to reply, so I'll do you the same:

Originally Posted by brazil84

Now I have a couple questions for you:

First, do you believe in the egalitarian hypothesis?

Second, if the egalitarian hypothesis were false to a small but significant extent, how would the world be different from the way it is today?

Third, would you rather live in a world where the egalitarian hypothesis were true or false?

1. I've never heard that term before, but the way you described it elsewhere in the thread, yes. I have never been convinced of a large group-scale link between genetics and intelligence.
2. It's possible that it wouldn't be different at all, because you could conflate with the results of colonialism, poverty, and inequality. If it was false, I think the racial stratification would be much worse than it is now by social forces alone.
3. True. I grew up in the detritus of a society where legal discrimination was pervasive. The way it stunted individuals in the oppressed caste is well-documented, but it turned many in the oppressor caste irrationally hateful and narrow-minded. I would rather find out that all the cows I've been eating were sentient.

About #2: Most importantly, if the EH was false, it would be a slam dunk for some up and coming geneticist to consistently classify races and prove a direct link between their different genes and intelligence, get it peer reviewed, and get it published in a respectable academic journal. There's no indication that the scientific community is too broken to accept something with proof behind it. The big bang theory itself caused a lot of resistance, because it overturned a prior steady-state universe model, but the evidence accumulated, and then people followed.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Just because you dislike my conclusions does not mean that they are illogical.

Observed fact, therefore genetics is not good science.
Social program doesn't produce meaningful effects, therefore genetics is not good science.
Genetic explanation in one context, therefore genetic explanation in a wildly different one and absent any supporting evidence is not good science, not good logic, it's barely fucking coherent.

As for the arguments you made in the other thread, and my debunking thereof which you've conveniently ignored, they're just as ill-informed, badly conceived, poorly thought through and just... just overwhelmingly bad. Terrible, in fact. You are not a misunderstood genius. You are not a persecuted truth teller. You are not a gagged prophet. We are not "afraid" to agree with your conclusions. They simply make no sense, internally or externally.
But I have a compelling theory to explain that.

You, sir, are an idiot. A walking, talking, singing (but not chewing gum at the same time) demonstration and exemplar of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Literally lacking the mental tools to even realize how broken your "arguments" are, the tools to plumb the depths of your dim bulbosity, the means to assess the breadth of your prejudices, or even the self-awareness to acknowledge your own wilful ignorance.

So you kinda suck, dude.

But there is hope yet, for negros and orientals and caucasians everywhere ! Because you'll die soon enough. Alone. Unloved. Unmourned. And the whole world will rejoice at the dramatic, precipitous increase of the average IQ.

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Post #160 made this claim that is preposterously untrue:

WRONG. I'll repeat what I posted in one of the GD threads: The Bura culture (in 1500 BC), around modern-day Niger, was one of the first cultures on Earth to have an iron-smelting industry. Kush, a black sub-Saharan African kingdom, conquered and ruled mighty Egypt for a hundred years. The Haya people of Tanzania were the first to forge carbon steel, centuries before Europe. Nubians developed more advanced brick and quartzite buildings than Egypt. Ancient Nigerians developed some of the earliest canoes more than 8000 years ago.

You're simply ignoring information, like the achievements of the remarkable Haya people, that doesn't mesh with your views. That's not science. Your views came first, then you tried to find information to support them.

[Gagundathar]

New Deal Democrat, in failing to provide any substantiation of your expertise in statistics, and based upon your obvious inability to understand the subject at hand, I find that it is very easy to merely dismiss your ravings as the result of a delusional belief in the superiority of your own 'race'. I therefore must categorize you as a racist asshole who should be socially ostracized. Since the stocks, the pillory and the late unlamented pranger are considered by most cultures to be cruel and unusual punishment, I suggest that being pitted here is the best method of heaping opprobrium upon your virtual head.

May you reap the harvest of your hatred.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Gagundathar

New Deal Democrat, in failing to provide any substantiation of your expertise in statistics, and based upon your obvious inability to understand the subject at hand, I find that it is very easy to merely dismiss your ravings as the result of a delusional belief in the superiority of your own 'race'. I therefore must categorize you as a racist asshole who should be socially ostracized. Since the stocks, the pillory and the late unlamented pranger are considered by most cultures to be cruel and unusual punishment, I suggest that being pitted here is the best method of heaping opprobrium upon your virtual head.

May you reap the harvest of your hatred.

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html

I provide evidence for my claims. You seem to want me to think you are a statistician, but you give no evidence of being one. You say that I am unable to "to understand the subject at hand," but you do not explain how I am not. Then you end by becoming emotional and abusive.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html

I provide evidence for my claims. You seem to want me to think you are a statistician, but you give no evidence of being one.

Misrepresenting the evidence is how you got here, affirming that you got it right when even many researchers report that their research should not be used for stupid ideas like yours does demonstrate something alright, you are not an expert, and you continue to misrepresent the research you cite, Gagundathar and many others are correct about you.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

WRONG. I'll repeat what I posted in one of the GD threads: The Bura culture (in 1500 BC), around modern-day Niger, was one of the first cultures on Earth to have an iron-smelting industry. Kush, a black sub-Saharan African kingdom, conquered and ruled mighty Egypt for a hundred years. The Haya people of Tanzania were the first to forge carbon steel, centuries before Europe. Nubians developed more advanced brick and quartzite buildings than Egypt. Ancient Nigerians developed some of the earliest canoes more than 8000 years ago.

You're simply ignoring information, like the achievements of the remarkable Haya people, that doesn't mesh with your views. That's not science. Your views came first, then you tried to find information to support them.

This is what I got from your first link:

Inhabitants at Termit, in eastern Niger became the first iron smelting people in West Africa and among the first in the world around 1500 BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_in...Saharan_Africa

Everything else I have read about the beginning of the iron age agrees with this:

Modern archaeological evidence identifies the start of iron production as taking place in Anatolia around 1200 BC...

Sub-Saharan Africa has produced very early instances of carbon steel found to be in production around 2000 years before present.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age

"years before present" means "years ago." What I have read is that the Bantu learned the use of iron from the Nubians about 500 BC, who learned it from Egypt.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

Misrepresenting the evidence is how you got here, affirming that you got it right when even many researchers report that their research should not be used for stupid ideas like yours does demonstrate something alright, you are not an expert, and you continue to misrepresent the research you cite, Gagundathar and many others are correct about you.

"Gagundather and many others" do not do much but should insults at me.

Now, how do I misrepresent the evidence?"

[Vinyl Turnip]

N/M

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Gagundathar

Oh, and since we are in the Pit (a place where I rarely post) may I also suggest you kindly go fuck yourself. The 21st century has no need for atavistic assholes like you.

The 21st century has need of people who recognize facts and draw logical conclusions from them.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

You do realize the two statements are not contradictory, don't you? Still feeling around for the bottom, here...

If iron age technology began 1200 BC in Anatolia, it did not begin earlier in sub Saharan Africa.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Gagundathar

But, I am quite aware that presenting contrary and scientifically supported ideas to your chosen set of beliefs will only result in your dismissal of such.

Presenting scientifically supported ideas that are contrary to my beliefs would mean presenting evidence that blacks behave and perform as well as well as whites.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

"Gagundather and many others" do not do much but should insults at me.

Now, how do I misrepresent the evidence?"

By claiming that means it's genetic. Again, no one has a problem with the idea that there are differences, just that they are inherent, built into the genetics. We all believe they are social and economic, and we've provided citations.

Again, something is blinding you to this obvious conclusion. You are a smart guy, but for some reason you seem unable to let this go.

And racism is one of those things people are generally blind to, since no one wants to admit to themselves that they are a racist.

[Jack Batty]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Presenting scientifically supported ideas that are contrary to my beliefs would mean presenting evidence that blacks behave and perform as well as well as whites.

We have a black man as president of the country. Have you ever been president of the country? I don't think so.

Mods -- close this fucker up!

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by BigT

By claiming that means it's genetic. Again, no one has a problem with the idea that there are differences, just that they are inherent, built into the genetics. We all believe they are social and economic, and we've provided citations.

Again, something is blinding you to this obvious conclusion. You are a smart guy, but for some reason you seem unable to let this go.

And racism is one of those things people are generally blind to, since no one wants to admit to themselves that they are a racist.

As I have pointed out several times before, if the differences were environmental they would be more flexible.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

"Gagundather and many others" do not do much but should insults at me.

Now, how do I misrepresent the evidence?"

Like if we did not had this conversation before, must be your memory genes that continually fail.

As this is the pit, let me remind you that I found many times that researchers in the cites many times pointed out that they do not support your "solutions" or using their research in the ways you claim, mostly it is applicable to specific medical issues and not intelligence.

Continuing to "forget" about those details are indeed showing all that besides misrepresenting the researchers you do indeed think that many forget how stupid you showed to be just recently.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...602928&page=10

Starting on post #454 my point still stands, "where are your cites showing the scientists you linked supporting your solutions or verdicts? Where are the organizations like the Hoover Institute supporting your solutions based on your ideas?

Your voices are silent, and not only because of the facts, but because you clearly are so pathetic that you are not even capable of noticing how unlikely is that the people in power would give you even the time of the day."

[Who_me?]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

The 21st century has need of people who recognize facts and draw logical conclusions from them.

Can you point one out? It sure ain't you.