No. I just don’t like to try to “convince” white supremacists that non-whites should be treated as people, too. Talking to you would be a waste of time - you are either so racist you think it’s OK to assume black people are on average mentally retarded, or so biased you are willing to side with nazis as long as they’re opposing liberals. Either way, talking to you is not worthwhile.
Unlike you, who apparently gets his ideas from Stormfront.
Why are all the conservatives on this board such giant scum? I seriously don’t get it. You’d think there would be at least one who wasn’t utterly, completely disgusting as a person, like white supremacist magellan here.
Please define “reasonably smart” and show proof of your claim.
What kind of help are you talking about and why not?
Also, please answer my question from before:
Since you use the phrase “start to fall apart,” can I take it you agree that there is some average national IQ where one would expect things to be functional but functioning poorly?
Lol, I know enough to do a Google search. Which I did for “botsana” “operation” “electricity” “contract.” And found this:
(my bolding). This is on the web site of the China National Electric Engineering Company.
And this from the web site of APR Energy, a company out of Jacksonville Florida:
Well what did you mean by “normalized IQ” when you asserted that “there are no countries in the world where the normalized IQ isn’t 100”?
Remember when I said he seizes on tiny semantic arguments in hopes of validating the 99% of his argument that has been shown to be idiotic? This is the sort of thing I meant.
Go on, Dissonance - get yourself ignored. You’ll feel better for it.
Without redirecting the thread, I’m not sure that’s a full enough characterization of their position. And I don’t say that he agree with either of them 100%. To be honest, I don’t have the level of interest to dive into the subject as deeply as they have, nor to defend their position as my own. As I think I stated, we see clear outward physical differences among the races. We see that some inward differences, like musculature, it’s effect in sports that require a high degree of innate ability as a starting point, e.g., sprinting. I see these differences and accept them, as they are factual. So when the discussion moves to the brain, I don’t start with an opinion either way. Well, actually, I think my starting point would be that there would be no cognitive differences, simply because on the overwhelming weight of evidence concerning similarities and differences, the similarities FAR outweigh the differences. We each have two eyes, ten fingers, etc., a million things the same. But I would not be surprised if among the differences that do exist some might be found in the brain and it’s functioning. As a white mail I am not threatened by the a supposed "superiority of the Asian brain. On average, it might very well be a better tool. But that doesn’t mean that the smartest person in the world might be white, or black, nor that I’m not smarter than any Asian I might meet. So, it’s a merely a clinical theory to me. I see many on the left of the mind that THIS CANNOT BE!!! So, the group who claims to hold science on high, tries their hardest to discredit and shut down those who take a clinical look at things, namely Chen and **Pedant Chief. ** In the end, they may very well be wrong. There might be new information that comes to light that pulls the floor out from every aspect of their arguments. Conversely, some new piece of evidence may give great support to their ideas.
From the reading I’ve done of these threads, which has been a fair amount (a few of which I’ve actively participated in in the past) I do not see their thoughts as racist in the least. (Racial, naturally, but not racist.) I also haven’t seem arguments to counter them that are fully convincing. I think the truth is that we (humans) simply don’t know enough yet to come to a final conclusion.
I didn’t ask you to convince me of anything. I asked you to first supply a couple of definitions so I’d better understand your claims. You failed to provide them. I then posted the actual words from the thread in question by the person you find so vile, asking you to point out what was so hateful. Instead of helping communication and backing up your blustery accusations, you look for an excuse to run away. Based on that I feel confident in concluding that you are all mouth.
Haha, that’s it try to find an excuse to run away. Much easier than standing up for what you say. I love the scope of the possibility you allow for—I must necessarily be a super racist or prefer nazis over liberals. Such brilliance, mental dexterity… The question I’m left with is if you’re either too stupid to be able to do so or smart enough to not try, knowing that all you got is mouth.
You’re a funny one. Been to Stormfront once, when it was mentioned on these boards. But I just must be an evil nazi-loving super racist. That way you don’t have to think and can continue to run your mouth.
Honey, there’s soooo much you don’t get.
Bu thanks for throwing in the aside to the crowd, looking for strength. There is no surer sign of a weak mind. So, thanks for including it, as unsurprising as it was.
But let me, if I may, correct your mischaracterization of what I believe concerning that particular claim. As I stated in a post to you, I don’t understand what he meant by the claim. So, it’s impossible for me to agree or disagree with it, even though it sounds ridiculous. Now, how about you try being a little more honest. Just for giggles. And how about you reply to my post in which I posted the quotes from brazil84 and asked you to point to the “hateful ones”.
and while you’re at it, I’m still waiting for the Karrius the Mouth’s definition of “hate speech” and “lie”. Since you seem to like to use the phrases so much, I’m sure you can provide definitions that would benefit me. And possibly others!
I explained why I thought my characterization of his posts was accurate. You ignored them, and instead wanted specific, precise definitions so you can play the same game brazil was, with hunting and pecking for specifics. No, I’m not going to give an exact definition of “hate speech” - why should I? I said why I thought what he said was hate speech, I don’t need to define the term, I just need to say why what brazil does falls within my personal gauge of it. Why don’t you give a definition, and explain why you think brazil’s stuff isn’t hate speech, or explain why my definition is wrong? Answer: Because you like to use the same debate tactics brazil does.
Also, while you’re at it, can you please specify if you’re more of a nazi kind of person, or a KKK kind of person? Please don’t evade this question. Don’t run away, magellan! Don’t run away!
Also, I am going to remember this thread the next time someone whines how those damn african americans are biased towards democrats. The fact that conservatives are honestly arguing they’re all mentally retarded and see nothing wrong with that can’t have anything to do with it…
Understandable. I think it is a cosmic law of nature that if there’s a GD thread on the subject, there is always an associated pit thread, where the same damn arguments are made in both.
Defining of terms is helpful in communications. It seems like a very simple and fair request. Especially when you hurl accusations so easily. The reason I supplied those quotes was to see if there was something in there that looked like what I would characterize as hate speech. I didn’t. I provided the actual quotes to you because you, oddly, refused to define the term you used, so I was hoping you could simply point to the specific quote and say "Here. What he says right here, these words, that’s hate speech. What did you do in response, you ran away. So, why not go back to that post and point to that hateful speech? Whataya say, Mouth?
I do appreciate a kick-ass uniform. And I do like consecutive strike outs. Does that help?
Cite? Can you please point to conservatives arguing all African-Americans are mentally retarded. Please be specific, with actual quotes, lest I, and possibly others, come to the conclusion that you are full of shit and can’t control your big yap. I’m sure you wouldn’t want that.
There is no single quote. It’s the repeated insistence - that he’s always disputed, told why what he’s saying is wrong, and his response is to put the person telling him he’s wrong on ignore, and continue is claims, over, and over, and over. It’s hate speech because it is trying to portray an entire group of people as “less than” - as savages, as unable to hold up a culture, of being unintelligent to the point of being as stupid as the stupidest “normal people” (in his eyes). I really don’t see how it’s not hate speech - it is the consistent, repeated attempt to portray a group one people as so lesser that they would be totally unable to function in society.
I’m not going to hold your hand. Read the damn thread, read the other threads brazil has participated in. If that’s not enough for you, then we will not see eye to eye no matter what.
As much as it pains me to support magellan (and believe me, it pains me), the population segment that is being characterized as having mentally-disabled-level IQ is subsaharan Africans, not African-Americans. I agree that putting AAs in the middle position between that 70IQ SSA segment and the 100IQ “normal white person” segment is a false equivalence, but it’s not that 85IQ AA segment that ends up being regarded as “retarded” if we believe IQs mean anything across cultural lines.
So magellan is right (and this may be the only time you ever see that phrase attributed to me in sincerity) that brazil84 isn’t saying that African-Americans have 70IQ. It’s SSAs he’s claiming that about.
Which doesn’t apply to what you quoted, I was intentionally using a vague “groups” and such, it only applies to my glib quote about conservatives whining that they don’t get the black vote, which wasn’t meant to be 100% scrutinized in a pain in the ass Bricker way while ignoring the obvious giant racist elephant (no pun intended).
The supposed sprinting advantage is not so clearly innate as you might think. And even if it is innate, only at the highest echelons are the statistical differences so stark. Assuming it is so, if the very very best genes for sprinting happen to occur more often in people of west african descent, this says little about average people or even the population as a whole. Olympic sprinters may be more likely to be black, but at the high school level (for example), we see race-winners of every background.
And these differences may well exist, and they may well be genetic. I have never denied this possibility. I have simply asked for decent evidence, which must include the genes. Not just for good science (though that’s reason enough), but because the history of such claims has been so closely associated with brutal repression.
I don’t think I’ve characterized CP as racist. I haven’t interacted with Chen much, because he doesn’t really interact… he tends to just buzz by to drop some “black people are inferior” links and then leaves.
And I haven’t come to any conclusion at all- I’ve largely just pointed out the weakness in their claims. Those claims are fundamentally set upon the idea that the disparate outcomes we see now, which are different than the disparate outcomes from 50 or 100 years ago (and those are different from the more distant past, and so on), just happen to perfectly reflect some sort of natural hierarchy. So when the Irish, or the Chines, or the Jews had lower test scores, or were in a worse economic situation on average, or more likely to be involved in crime, that was because of society and oppression. But now everything’s hunky-dory- and any groups that have lower test scores or other disparate, negative outcomes, are only in that position because of innate inferiority (on average) in some trait or another.
These are extraordinary claims! Why should NOW be so special? Why are disparate outcomes of the past dismissed because of social problems, but disparate outcomes today are magically “correct”? Are we supposed to believe that, after centuries of some of the most brutal kinds of oppression and dehumanization in human history (yes, American slavery and the subsequent institutionalized discrimination really was especially and unusually bad, and more importantly, it was quite recent), a few decades is enough to bring this group’s descendants into a fully equal position? This just doesn’t pass the sniff test. Sure, some groups might have a greater or lesser likelihood of genes for certain traits (including high or low intelligence), but to me, the idea of looking at social outcomes (test scores, crime stats, economics, etc) in the world we live in for data about the genes of the most fundamental qualities that make us human is ludicrous.
Ultimately, I don’t believe intelligence test scores for any groups at all, in today’s world, can give us any significant information about the genes for intelligence among that group. A great example is that the average of IQ test scores in Ireland 40 years ago was 87, and today it’s about 100. We can say with reasonable certainty that genetics had nothing to do with this change.