Yeah, that’s what I thought. I have taken and passed college-level stats, have a Master’s degree in Psych, have taken and passed 2 semesters of psych testing, and taught it. I guess you’d have to take my word for that.
You are apparently neither educated, nor informed. You do have, of course, a right to your opinion. I notice that most of the White Supremicists are, by any objective standards you would care to name, underachievers. This is, of course, anecdotal, and does not prove that they cling to simplistic beliefs about their own innate superiority to other races, say, blacks, as a way of compensating for their own lack of ability or achievement.
Sociology could help you understand, possibly, why you cling to these beliefs.
Before the Second World War it was widely recognized that racial differences existed and that they were important.
Even Bertrand Russell wrote, “In extreme cases there can be little doubt of the superiority of one race to another[…] It seems on the whole fair to regard Negroes as on the average inferior to white men, although for work in the tropics they are indispensable, so that their extermination (apart from the question of humanity) would be highly undesirable.[15].”
After the Second World War he wrote, “It is sometimes maintained that racial mixture is biologically undesirable. There is no evidence whatever for this view. Nor is there, apparently, any reason to think that Negroes are congenitally less intelligent than white people, but as to that it will be difficult to judge until they have equal scope and equally good social conditions.”
Blacks do not have “equally good social conditions,” but that can be attributed to the culture they create for themselves. They do have equal rights. It is interesting that in his second statement Russell is leaving open the possibility that “Negroes are congenitally less intelligent than white people.” He is receptive to evidence. Many liberals are not and have made a dogma of congenital racial equality.
Because you cannot refute my arguments you defame me as an individual.
Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A’s claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Aw, there there. Just get out your Einsatzgruppen action figures (pull their strings - “We were only following orders! Leave no witnesses! The Ukrainians did it!”) and soon you’ll forget all about those big old meanies on the SDMB.
This conflation of public ignorance with “truths” does nothing of course to establish the validity of said “truths”. But your formulation is so hopelessly imprecise that it doesn’t matter anyway. Moving on…
Well, the assertions of an intellectual in a field for which he was not even trained, let alone acknowledged as an expert, are not quite what most of us would consider compelling scientific evidence. Anyway…
Ah, so you agree - it is down to culture, not genetics. Perhaps there’s hope for you yet.
Or more like blacks are stupid because NDD once fell deeply in love with a beautiful black woman who did not return his affections, thus setting into motion the mind of the demented little bastard we see before us.
I did not defame you. I asked you your background regarding the sciences. There are many areas about which I am woefully ignorant. It is good to have a general sense of where your strengths and weaknesses lie, and a realistic sense of the limits of your knowledge. You may have many strengths. The academic background to evaluate the merits of this argument do not appear to be among those strengths.
Your childish insults reveal what you are, not what I am.
I think it is probably the case that an inferior culture is the result of inferior genes. At any rate I do not see how whites are responsible for the social decadence of the black ghetto. In terms of crime and illegitimacy things have gotten worse there since the civil rights legislation was signed. This is what was predicted by those who opposed the legislation.
That’s real good. There are no questions about psychological testing or statistics on that quiz, so it is irrelevant, but still real good. Whatever your various expertises is (expertii?), you may be real knowledgeable.
In others, you have the appearance of being quite ignorant. The current debate would appear to be one of the latter areas. If kneejerk observations about contemporary culture seem to you to add a relevent dimension to this debate, that’s an opinion, not evidence.
If I take the test, and miss all of the questions about astronomy, it is still irrelevant. C’mon, man, I’m using small words here. Using this quiz to try to justify your beliefs is beyond stupid. It’s desperate.
And I already told you what you appear to be ignorant about, and you haven’t been able to counter it.
Well then tell me again. I may be ignorant of evidence that blacks behave and perform as well as whites. If you know something I don’t know, don’t keep it a secret.