You probably made him look stupid. That seems to be the common thread in his “bannings”. Lately, he’s made to look stupid so often that I think he changed his criteria, so now he only puts you on his fake-ignore list if you make him look profoundly stupid.
Brazil84 doesn't get what's wrong with the claim that majorities of sub-saharan africans are retards
I’m sorry, but I kind of lost your string of argument in there.
Can you distill it down for me? Here’s what I see: your claim that:
Now I see you saying that despite this claim, it doesn’t apply to English people in the 14th century.
I don’t understand why it doesn’t. Can you explain just this point?
For those who have been living blissfully unaware, you should know that brazil has been dancing on this line of bullshit for years. He’s not necessarily stupid - I think it takes some brains to avoid crossing the line into banning territory - but he’s one of the nastiest, most disgusting individuals I’ve run across.
I think I’m on his stupid “list” too. He used to maintain a blog listing everyone he’s “banned” and why. It’s rather hilarious.
Here’s the original post about illiteracy, if you’re interested in the context.
Fair warning: this Pit thread doesn’t do justice to the level of inanity on display.
ETA: Oh, and here’s his original claim that widespread illiteracy among average people was evidence of low IQ (and hence intelligence)
Yet again, Brazil84 has been taken out of context. I suggest you quote where he said the thing you said he said or start writing him a personal apology. Else you’ll be joining the rest of us on The List.
Srsly? That’s so fucking psychotic it’s actually funny. You must find this blog and share it with the rest of us.
It’s still there though he hasn’t done anything with it for a few years. No one would talk to him it seems. Or he banned them all for violating his rules of debate.
And what’s with all this talk about Franco-American spaghetti being dead? Of course, it’s dead. It’s in a can. How could it be…
What’s that? Francisco Franco? Well, that’s different.
Never mind.
The key point is that your observations were “simple”, ie, the product of a clearly inferior mind. Conversation, reasoning, observation of function are more than enough to ascertain the relative intelligence of a group of people. The fact that you admit that you would be unable to draw plain and logical conclusions leaves us with the notion that you’re below average intelligence, perhaps at the level of the disabled. How you manage to string simple declarative sentences together is quite admirable.
Done:
Honey, you were looking for them in the wrong place.
How much time have you spent observing the people of 14th century England? How much time have you spent observing sub-Saharan Africans? It’s pretty obvious that literacy is not a valid indicator of anything for either group*. So what other factors would you base your conclusion on? What factors do you think even sven based her conclusions on which allowed you to dismiss them?
*14th century English people had no access to books, the printing press having yet to be invented, and no leisure time to appreciate them anyway; sub-Saharan Africans have no access to books and no leisure time either.
Here’s the page. The comments on his “Rules of Debate” are him denoting who he’s ignored and why. It’s hilarious.
I think it’s worth mentioning IQ of 85, which I believe was the topic of the thread in question, wouldn’t typically indicate someone is a “retard.” Traditionally you start seeing people that would be considered “retarded” at 70 and below IQ. An IQ of 85 is one standard deviation below the average, and in various studies it has been presented as an average IQ for persons who are unskilled workers. Basically below average intelligence, not retarded.
As for the point made about 14th-century English consider:
-
Due to the lack of education, few people would be expected to learn to read as no one would be teaching them. It is definitely true that in an OECD country with literacy rates of 95-99%+ someone who was born/raised in that country and is illiterate probably has some issue. It could be an intellectual disability for sure, but it could be something else too. But in a society devoid of educational opportunities a specialized skill like literacy isn’t much of an indication of anything.
-
It’s easy to tell English of the 14th century are roughly as intelligent as modern day English. Just look at what they do day-to-day. You’re going to see them engage in various types of skilled and semi-skilled labor. They probably know techniques for butchering/preserving meat, cooking, making their own clothes, making repairs to their homes etc. They also will show basic problem solving skills and self-sufficiency that are hallmarks of things people of normal intellect can do but persons with intellectual disabilities very rarely can, and typically only with significant training and help from a support system.
Wow, I hadn’t seen that. That’s some first class crazy there.
<Jamie>Well, there’s your problem.</Jamie>
The 85 is supposedly for African-Americans. This thread is talking about Brazil84’s claims of 70 IQ for sub-Saharan Africans in Africa.
More like <Adam> I reject your reality and substitute my own. </Adam>
Yep, that is the one, as I pointed before: whoever posted in his blog stopped doing so in 2010, now it is just cobwebs so even in his nowhere-man territory he is not getting any attention, the poor thing does not even have a Ringo to take him somewhere.
Per the other thread, that was the assumed IQ for African Americans, after interbreeding with white people. Subsaharan Africans who had not interbred with white people were supposed to have an IQ of 70.
That’s fucking mental.
At the rate that he’s adding people to his “banned” list, it’s a miracle he’s not just talking to himself at this point.
Or maybe he is.