You’re not getting how this works, sister.
Does their being “white” support his thesis ? Then that’s what they are, regardless of any inconvenient facts. Who are you going to believe: him, or your lying eyes ?
The woman is chilha of the south I think.
You can also google the wife of the King of Morocco, she is Berber, Tarifite - the Berber of the rif mountains of the North. She is ginger and pale like a English.
Not to preach to the choir but his definitions are completely arbitrary and inconsistent and are also fairly self-serving.
He claims Barack Obama isn’t really black but is “half-white and half-black” while claiming that “blacks” dominate sports.
Yes, most players in the NBA and the NFL are African-Americans, but like Obama, most have European ancestors so they should not be classified as blacks.
Moreover, we have no idea how much of their success at those sports is genetic and how much is cultural.
“Whites” may dominate Lacrosse, wrestling, and the shot put, but I suspect most people would agree that there are cultural rather than genetic reasons for this.
I don’t expect any logical or coherent answer from him. I just want to see what he says. Or if he just ignores it again.
It takes a great deal of intelligence to play professional ice hockey.
Psst. #372 ;). I’m trying. I have no idea why, but I’m still trying. Let no man say I was shredding him in the Pit without giving the man a patient chance.
Making up stuff that you choose to believe has no bearing on what Rushton has published.
You are (apparently deliberately) ignoring what Rushton has actually said. Rushton explicitly links penis size and intelligence. Rushton does not care whether a woman is “satisfied.” That is nothing more than you engaged in wishful thinking.
In other words, when Rushton publishes nonsense that supports your views, you rush to quote him, but when we point out that his nonsense includes and depends on other stuff that makes you uncomfortable, you make excuses and pretend that the topic is something different.
It is rather like your claims regarding evolution that you routinely get wrong, then abandon in the hope that no one will notice your errors.
Agreed Tom, but at this point it’s pretty clear that his beliefs aren’t consistent or even coherent.
After all, the guy insists that Berbers, including those darker than most residents of Harlem, are “white”, while claiming that NBA players lighter than said Berbers are “black”.
I’m tempted to ask him about Bangladeshis or Pakistanis, but suspect Id get four paragraphs worth of google vomit in response.
I do not agree with Rushton on everything. I did find a website that seems to confirm his comments about racial differences in penis size. I did not post it, because I think this is a fairly silly side issue.
Where I think Rushton is most mistaken is in his belief that living in a cold climate caused whites and Orientals to evolve higher intelligence than Negroes who remained in Africa. What is most obviously wrong about that is that the Neanderthals lived in Europe for several hundred thousand years during several ice ages, and they were less intelligent than the modern humans who were evolving in Africa from 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
The 10,000 Year Explosion provides a more convincing explanation. The authors say that agriculture and urban living place more population pressure on superior intelligence than hunting and gathering. Whites began agriculture over ten thousand years ago. Orientals began perhaps eight thousand years ago in what is now China. The Bantu began about 3,000 years ago. White civilizations began 5,000 years ago. The first Chinese dynasty began perhaps 4,000 years ago.
I have communicated with the authors of The 10,000 Year Explosion, and they also disagree with Professor Rushton on the evolutionary advantages of living in a cold climate. Modern humans developed in Africa. They did not develop in Europe, although once they got there they evolved faster.
Sweet, a new cite.
Oh wait…the same source as was discredited pages ago..
Too bad this idea is just so obvious that credible sources just don’t bother to write it up I guess.
NDD What Haplogroup are you claiming are the smart city dwellers?
And which ones are the dumb criminal country folk?
Do you know your own Haplogroup?
Wrong.
Brown people began agriculture in the Middle East over 10,000 years ago. Other brown people began agriculture in the Americas around the same time.
White people, that is Europeans, began to practice agriculture several thousand years later. This was no doubt due to their innate intellectual inferiority to brown people.
You have to at least underline 10,000 years or we can’t drink.
Side issue? It is at the core of Rushton’s thesis. Pretending that it is a side issue indicates that you are willing to quote Rushton, (when you can find a snipped quote with which you agree), while pretending that his overall thesis is different than his own statements for over thirty years.
Then how did the “Orientals” get to have supposedly higher "IQ"s than the “whites”?
Which is a pretty good summation of the nature of the various definitions and characterization of “race” in general, when you get right down to it. They’re arbitrary, inconsistent, and can generally be traced back to the self interest, ego, or hatred of some person or culture. Not based on any sort of objective evidence the way NDD and others want to claim.
Let’s follow along, folks–it’s through testing, testing, testing. (Which, according to the OP, is a side-effect of his philosophy, in that he wants to use his race theories to end NCLB’s testing testing testing).
As I understand it, white people used to be smarter, but then the dumber Orientals came up with a really difficult test which allowed the smartest Orientals to have more babies, so they bootstrapped themselves up and over white people. Respect!
First of all they are not “supposedly higher.” They are higher. This can be verified by tests that were designed for whites of European ancestry, so the tests cannot be blamed for cultural biases.
The higher average IQs of the Orientals is not explained by Professor Rushton or the authors of The 10,000 Year Explosion.
I attribute the superior average intelligence to the Chinese to the imperial exam system, and the superior average intelligence of the Chinese, the Koreans, and the Japanese to the fact that these countries did not experience a dark age, like what happened after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. In addition the Oriental countries did not have a priesthood that attracted intelligent poor boys and then forbade them to have children.
They experienced several regressive episides
The Western European Dark Age is a myth. Progress was continuous.
You know nothing about monastic Buddhism, I take it?
Really? If I administer a Weschler in English to a representative sample of Chinese people, their measured IQ will be on average higher than 100? That’s remarkable! Can you refer me to a description of this having been done?
Nor about the love affair Imperial China had with castration, for that matter.