Haven’t you been paying attention? It’s because it would be liking calling him a nigger!
Just typing that out makes the baby Martin Luther King cry.
Let me fight your ignorance.
A “racial group” is simply a man-made subjective way to classify people. Therefore, humans can be classified into a number of racial groups from 1 to the number of humans that have ever existed (inclusive) depending on how you define “racial group” and who is doing the classifying.
Actually that’s a population group.
You’re trying maintain the viability of the failed concept of race by redefining it.
Back to the old “Rand Rover doesn’t toe the party line and therefore must have an evil motive.” Meh. Boring.
That you have an ability to fall for crackpot conspiracy theories, is the usual boring conclusion. Scientific matters are in reality an alien concept to you.
Trust me, I have no ignorance to fight on the issue of scientific racism. In fact, I’ve spent a fair amount of time and energy learning about the history of it over the years.
Thanks for answering my question, though. You, therefore, don’t subscribe to one of those 3/4/5/6 races theories that divide humans into specific, theoretically well-defined groups.
That assumes that those conclusions were arrived at scientifically and that they were replicated scientifically.
Anyone have a literature review citing replication of those conclusions?
One book does not science nor a philosophy make. Despite the insistence of “true believers”.
Because no useful discussion will occur if posters are simply hurling insults at each other. If you are unable to actually discuss or refute the ideas that a poster presents without resorting to name-calling, take it up in The BBQ Pit.
Again, if you feel that the only way you can “win” an argument is to resort to name-calling, then you need to do it in a different forum.
I am pretty sure that if we sifted through all of each of your posts, we could find positions that other posters found absurd or ludicrous or contemptible. We are not going to allow those posters to call you names, here, and we will not allow you to get away with such behavior either.
If you feel an absolute need to defend name-calling outside The BBQ Pit, then open a thread to discuss it in the About This Message Board forum, the forum set aside for such discussion.
[ /Moderating ]
ETA: Sorry, I followed a second link and thought this was in Great Debates. The name-calling is appropriate, here, if you feel some need to do so. In rgards to Great Debates, my comments stand.
I don’t know what you mean exactly about “subscribing” to a theory. I do acknowledge the fact that people have performed studies where the number between 1 and whatever that they picked was 3/4/5/6 and they showed how the racial group a person is in lines up with other characteristics about that person (such as their IQ). I don’t take the existence of those studies as an affront to all that is good and holy. I don’t think they simply must be wrong because they reach the wrong result.
However, such “racial groups” that have already been identified, (with the internal inconsistency of changing among three to six different groups–the lumpers cannot even agree on who should be in any given group), have no meaning outside the mind of the person making that classification. Identifying any of those “racial groups” tells us only one thing about the people within it: where their ancestors lived in the most general terms. It says nothing about size, shape, athleticism, intelligence, beauty, morals, or any other category of human interest, because none of those “racial groups” are sufficiently consistent to permit any such declaration to be made with any accuracy.
They are nothing more than convenient ways to lump people together without thought to impose social conditions on them.
This is the BBQ Pit. The GD thread is a-thattaway ---->
Wait, what? If that was sly innuendo I am apparently so clever that even I can’t recognize my cleverness. I was just giggling at someone’s typo/error for “Pedant”.
They’re talking about what is and isn’t appropriate for the GD thread.
Well, that’s all true once you hand-wave away and refuse the consider the studies that do show a link between IQ and racial group.
And that is what I see so far, that there is evidence of differences in IQ, that is clear, the fact is that if one does take the crackpot conclusions that some reach at face value is silly.
Even if one does accept those dubious ideas, that leaves still a huge number of blacks and other minorities that are as intelligent or more than even the average white person, virtually all the claims and “solutions” by the crackpots avoid dealing with this and that is betrayed by all the encompassing platitudes seen here.
They are indeed prejudging people.
Actually, first one has to demonstrate that IQ means anything, (you would call that hand-waving while I would point out that it has never been shown to have meaning beyond scoring tests), but then you have to actually demonstrate it genuinely applies to the entirety of the purported “racial groups,” something that has not been done.
The “race” and “IQ” claims are all smoke and mirrors at both levels.
Classy.
But as their status as a group rose, their IQ scores relative to other groups did not. As I said, this is an indication that there is something going on that is not related to the part of the environmental changes.
The tool didn’t reveal anything incorrect. Irish and Italians and Ashkenazi Jews, on average, exhibited lower scores than other groups.
The question before us is why black folks did not do the same.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re really stacking up the ignorance here, bub. You seem to be unaware of the studies that show a correlation with socioeconomic status and IQ.
One should clarify here:
By crackpot I’m not referring to many researchers that publish first in scientific journals, it seems that crackpots prefer to go for the easier “I will publish a book method” first, what I can infer from most serious researchers is that even the ones that look for evidence of differences in intelligence would spit on many of the “solutions” or conclusions made by the crackpots that use their research.
Thanks! I try.
Except, of course, that there wasn’t a parallel change in status. Irish and Italian ancestry are no longer considered to make a person not “white”; black people are still not considered “white”. (That’s why we call them “black”, you see.)
Well, if your claim is that IQ testing reveals inherent disparities in intelligence, than either it was incorrect then or incorrect now. Or else a large inherent disparity in intelligence disappeared over a time period too short to be explained by evolution. Perhaps God decided to step down from the heavens and remove the yoke of dumbassery from the previously-benighted Italians and Irishmen?