No, that’s Idaho you’re thinking of there.
Brazil84 doesn't get what's wrong with the claim that majorities of sub-saharan africans are retards
The first actual cite you give is about illiteracy. A 6-second search finds two threads where you cite illiteracy:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8971546&postcount=44
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10329345&postcount=31
In both threads, your illiteracy claim is debunked.
Why did you pick the number three?
Oh right - you must have known this was only the third time you had used that same argument. Because clearly, only using a debunked argument three times is ok, but it’s the magical fourth time that it becomes an issue.
Sorry, brazil, but anyone with a half-functioning brain (this doesn’t include magellan) knows you’re a lying piece of racist shit. You should be banned, and the moderators should be ashamed they haven’t banned your hate-speech spewing ass.
Go ahead, I dare you to say you put me on your ignore list because I found your little “trap”.
So he’s consistently and repeatedly claimed that illiteracy demonstrates lack of intelligence while disregarding the relatively low educational opportunities in the third world?
That’s stupid.
Only if you think Tallahassee and Tampa are comparable.
It’s a joke, chuck.
I understood that, but we were left to wonder how much you believed your joke to be true.
Let’s see if I have this straight – according to you, every time I mention the issue of illiteracy, that’s a “cite,” even if I do not link to or reference any source. Not only that, but any time I mention illiteracy, it’s the “exact same cite.”
Of course that’s a ridiculous definition of the word “cite” which you obviously made up so that you wouldn’t have to admit that you were wrong.
Lol, you are the one claiming that I use the “exact same cites” in EVERY thread. It seems I don’t even make the exact same points or arguments in every thread.
Lol, a common fallback argument of a Leftard: “Racist!!”
Of course I will – you falsely claimed that I used the “exact same cites in every thread” To avoid admitting you were wrong, you pretended that just touching on an issue counts as a cite. And that doing it a few times counts as “every thread.”
Besides which, the fact is that there is a lot of illiteracy in Africa. One can debate about the significance of this fact, but it’s not a lie to point it out.
In an earlier thread, I simply stated “I haven’t checked the statistics, but I bet illiteracy and illegitimacy are higher [in South Africa] too”
In another, I stated “In my general experience, one symptom of low IQ is that the person has difficulty learning to read and write. Interestingly, the illiteracy rate in Ethiopia is very high”
According to you, both of these statements are “the exact same cite” and are lies.
You are a lying scumbag.
I do not engage with people who weasel, i.e. people who pretend that they said things different from what they actually said.
Goodbye, liar.
Welcome aboard, Karrius.
Karrius, I do kind of wonder whether you’re using the term “cite” correctly, tbh.
(A fellow member of Brazil84’s banned list…)
Originally I was going to find the stupid studies he constantly brings up, that tomndeb, bless his foolishly patient soul, corrects every, single, time, but scrolling through the thread I saw the illiteracy post and knew I had seen it before, so decided I’d rater just go with that because I knew any sort of effort would be absolutely wasted. Yes, I realize it’s an ‘argument’ and not a ‘cite’, especially because brazil doesn’t even supply the numbers on the illiteracy rates, but the point was to make a point to magellan - this isn’t about “being offended”, this is about a piece of scum posting white-supremacist bullshit over and over, that gets debunked every time, putting the people who debunk him on igo re and doing it all over again a few weeks later, ad nauseum. It’s fucking hate speech - I don’t see any way it can be taken to be otherwise, he’s not here to ‘debate’, he’s here to spread white supremacist propaganda.
megallan apparently things disliking this makes me an oversensative liberal, presumebly because he don’t think white supremacist hate speech is “being a jerk”.
I’m curious, how do you define hate speech? And how do you define “lie”? Can you provide actual definitions that you would be happy to live with regardless of whether you’re on the accusing or receiving end?
I believe brazil is knowingly posted information that has been sufficiently proven for any reasonable person to know it is false. If he is deluded enough to think it is true after constantly being proven it is wrong, I am still willing to call that a “lie”, albeit a lie of a disturbed individual.
I believe what brazil is posting is hate speech because it is for the sole purpose of attacking a group of people for no reason, with no point to be made. It is attempting to portray a group of people who are already severely ill-treated by society and the world at large as less than people outside of that group. He is honestly suggesting that the average IQ of African people is within the mentally retarded range. This has severe social consequences, and is being argued for no other purpose than to argue those people as inferior.
I’m not seeing a usable definition of "hate speech " here. Let me ask you, is the problem that looking at the IQs might put Blacks in a bad light? If there was a study that revealed that they were, in fact more intelligent than any other race, would that also be hate speech, but directed toward another group?
I went back to thread that sparked this pitting and read the first couple of pages. If you do so and read brazil84’s posts, I think he starts off in a place that many, including you, might side with him. He loses me with his claim that “illiteracy is evidence of low intelligence”, as I have no idea where it comes from, means, or what support there is for it, but his early posts seem very reasonable. Look at Page 1, his Posts 14,
Post #14
[QUOTE=brazil84]
[QUOTE=bita malt]
I’ve been following the debates regarding the “black-white iq gap” and whether it is hereditary or environmental and one confusing thing just recently occurred to me:
Those on the hereditary side always say that mixed race people (half black-white) have IQs that are midway between that of blacks and whites.
[/QUOTE]
Do they really all say that?
Perhaps what they say is that, all things being equal, one would expect the average IQ of half white/half blacks to be about half way between the average for blacks and whites.
[QUOTE=bita malt]
Now my question is: Then why is the average IQ of African Americans 85 instead of a number much closer to the purported black African average of 70 since African Americans are genetically about 80% black?
[/QUOTE]
I would guess it’s because African-Americans have the advantage of growing up in a country with far better nutrition; education; and sanitation than that of most black Africans.
[QUOTE=bita malt]
In other words, wouldn’t an IQ average of 85 (which is exactly midway between 70 and 100) make more sense if African Americans were literally a mulatto race, which they are not?
[/QUOTE]
If everywhere in the world had basically the same sanitation; education; nutrition; etc., then yes it would.
[/QUOTE]
Post #52
[QUOTE=brazil84]
[QUOTE=even sven]
Whoever claimed Africans are, on average, borderline mentally disabled has either never been to Africa or was the subject of some kind of elaborate joke by their subjects.
[/QUOTE]
What would one see in Africa which refutes such a claim?
[/QUOTE]
Post #66
[QUOTE=brazil84]
[QUOTE=Bob’s Zombie]
Are you implying that they don’t have brainpower to learn to read, or are you just conflating illiteracy with low IQ?
[/QUOTE]
I am questioning the claim that a visit to Africa, combined with simple observation of Africans, will reveal “fairly ordinary people” and refute the claim that there is a relatively low average IQ there.
[/QUOTE]
Post #89
[QUOTE=brazil84]
[QUOTE=even sven]
It is absolutely normal in situations where there are weak school systems.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, so I guess your answer is “yes,” i.e. in your view widespread illiteracy is “fairly ordinary.”
If so, I would like to know your definition of “fairly ordinary” so that I can scrutinize your argument that simple observation of Africans effectively refutes any claim that they have very low average intelligence.
Please tell me your definition so that I can understand your argument.
[QUOTE=even sven]
Look at your own map- are you arguing, for example, that Laos is an island of genetic stupidity in a sea of genetically intelligent Asians?
[/QUOTE]
No, I am questioning your claim that simple observation of Africans conclusively refutes any claim that they have very low average intelligence.
Your argument seems to be as follows:
-
Anyone who visits Africa will see, just from simple observation, that the people there are “fairly ordinary”
-
It is impossible for a group of people who are “fairly ordinary” to have very low average intelligence.
-
Therefore simple observation conclusively refutes any claim that Africans have very low average intelligence.
In order to understand and respond to this argument, I need to know what you mean by “fairly ordinary.” (Apparently it includes widespread illiteracy.)
I realize that my argument is likely to be misconstrued to be an argument that widespread illiteracy in Africa demonstrates very low average intelligence, but that’s not my argument.
[/QUOTE]
Post #92
[QUOTE=brazil84]
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I’m reminded of how in the early days of IQ testing, the tests were used to “prove” that the French were stupid because immigrants from France did poorly on IQ tests…written in English.
[/QUOTE]
There is a difference between proof and evidence. I’m certainly not arguing that widespread illiteracy in Africa is proof of very low average intelligence there.
I’m simply challenging even sven’s argument that simple observation of Africans is all that is necessary to conclusively refute any claim that they have low average intelligence.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve had very little if any interaction with brazil84, so I don’t have a feeling about his POV one way or the other. I do think that Chief Pendant and Chen019 have the best handle on the whole Race/IQ issue. I tend to agree with them simply because it would be completely unsurprising that the differences that manifest themselves in different races visibly, would do so in ways that would not be so apparent, as well. And when you look at things like running speed and upper body strength, it argues strongly that there are genetic components that benefit certain athletic endeavors that align with race. For those not afraid to use the term, anyway.
Back to brazil84, wold you characterize those posts as hate speech? Hateful? I don’t see either. I do see him being wrong about the whole IQ/Illiteracy thing. But then, I really don’t understand what his point actually is.
The CP/Chen argument essentially boils down to tautology- the best explanation for disparate outcomes is that test scores (and other outcomes) are disparate between the groups/races/ethnicities. It’s a profoundly weak argument- it says “because there have been paltry efforts for a few decades to make up for centuries of oppression, the outcomes of the present (but not the different outcomes of the past) somehow perfectly align with a natural genetic hierarchy of intelligence”. For their genetic explanation, only genetic evidence can confirm it. And this is especially true considering the massive effects that we already know “nurture” can have on these outcomes.
Yeah, I think I’m done here.
I’m tempted to say that his point is that “black people are genetically inferior” but of course he never says that. Instead, he presents random data points as if they made whatever argument he’s hinting at for him, despite them not meaning what he thinks they mean. He’s not even “Just Asking Questions”, he’s “Just Saying”.
But then his whole shtick is to get into one of these arguments and when 99% of his argument is demolished seize onto some tiny irrelevant semantic point as if it re-validated everything else he’d said, refuse to let it go and then declare his opponent a “liar”, add them to his list and announce that he’s “Winning!”. I’m sure it’s all very gratifying for him.
Then you’re a dumb shit.
That was up for “debate”? I thought that had already been firmly established, with the only uncertainty being “two flusher” or “two flusher with plunger deployment” …
Well, ever since magellan got gay-married, he doesn’t have as much time for research.
magellan01 was more sincere when he used to copy paste his screeds against immigrants from racist sources from fairus, VDARE and others. :rolleyes:
That he now sees Chen019 and the Chief as having “the best handle on the whole Race/IQ issue” after all they clearly reused discredited information is just confirmation once again that magellan01 still has no clue on how to identify rotten sources and posters that should not be supported.