Oh. Well, I’m sure we can blame The Blacks for that, then.
You love knowledge like a rapist loves women.
The irony is so blinding it makes Malcom X look white.
Who the hell is saying black criminals aren’t responsible for their crimes? Guilty is guilty.
On the other hand, where were you when innocent black people were getting lynched and viciously murdered all up and down this country by white supremacists, not nearly 2 or 3 generations ago.
What is wrong with you?
This would only have been true if Africa had been allowed to develop independently and without interference. Given that all of sub-Saharan Africa was subjected to colonial powers who created artificial lands by joining competing societies or by dividing homogeneous societies and who routinely denied the people of those lands even the rudimentary education that was granted to blacks in the U.S., your claim is utterly ludicrous and demonstrates either a shocking ignorance of history or a willfull desire to ignore it.
And that is even before getting to the point that most of Lynn’s "IQ"s are inventions that are unsupported by scientific data.
From what I’ve had the misfortune to witness, the overwhelming majority of your posts on this board have been about race, and specifically about the (alleged) inferiority of blacks. Either your “love of knowledge” is painfully limited—more of a fetish than a love—or you’ve really been holding out on us. Or are you one of those Renaissance men who master one discipline at a time, and you’re struggling with this one?
There’s so much tragic stupidity in this post, every time I read it new and ever more stoopid jumps out at me.
“We have simply had it with black crime, and with the attitude that black criminals are not responsible for their crimes; non blacks who obey the law are responsible.”
Who’s this “we” and what will this “we” do about your inaccuracies.
Also, “non blacks who obey the law are responsible”? Seriously? What other nugget of wisdom can you share? Perhaps, “Obvious things are obvious?” You’re like a moronic racist, rolled up in a tautology, wrapped in logical fallacies, marinated in a God Complex and deep fried in smug hate.
How 'bout this: “Anyone who obeys the law is responsible.” What the hell does complexion have to do with it?
Are you deliberately misunderstanding me, or did you not read the citatoin? My citation discusses the fact that what you’re calling “different human breeds” is a result of arbitrary, often wildly wrong decisions about who is related to whom. The idea that there is any group one could call “blacks” or “Africans” that has some more closely shared inheritance than different subset of that group have with other groups you don’t lump into “blacks” or “Africans” is what’s wrong-headed, NOT the idea that things are un-inheritable. You’re knocking down an argument I did not make.
To use your own example–
– what you’re really doing is finding some left-handed people who have no freckles, and some right-handed people, and lumping those groups into “left-handed people with freckles,” and then telling everyone “See? Left handed people with freckles…” I’m saying, “Dude, those people aren’t, in fact, all left-handed or all freckled, they’re not as related as you assume they are, and other people can see that. Your conclusions are wildly off base because you’re not, for some reason, seeing that.”
It’s even funnier than you imagine. “Love of knowledge” is a common slogan in the Nation of Gods and Earths - an organization which I’m pretty sure would disagree with NDD’s views.
I am so stealing that.
Rapists are motivated by sexual desire, contrary to liberal dogma.
I agree that the European colonialists caused problems “by joining competing societies or by dividing homogeneous societies.” Nevertheless, before I agree that European colonialism is responsible for Africa’s current problems someone will need to demonstrate that sub Saharan Africa was flourishing before European colonialism, and that conditions have improved since independence.
The European colonialists were not motivate by altruism. Nevertheless, they built schools, hospitals, and roads. They also suppressed cannibalism, human sacrifice, and slavery. Unfortunately they did not do much to put an end to female genital mutilation.
IQ and the Wealth of Nations, by Richard Lynn (Author), Tatu Vanhanen
Lynn and Vanhanen test the hypothesis on the causal relationship between the average national intelligence (IQ) and the gap between rich and poor countries by empirical evidence. Based on an extensive survey of national IQ tests, the results of their work challenge the previous theories of economic development and provide a new basis to evaluate the prospects of economic development throughout the world.
They begin by reviewing and evaluating some major previous theories. The concept of intelligence is then described and intelligence quotient (IQ) introduced. Next they show that intelligence is a significant determinant of earnings within nations, and they connect intelligence with various economic and social phenomena. The sociology of intelligence at the level of sub-populations in nations is examined, and the independent (national IQ) and dependent (various measures of per capita income and economic growth rates) variables are defined and described. They then provide empirical analyses starting from the 81 countries for which direct evidence of national IQs is available; the analysis is then extended to the world group of 185 countries. The hypothesis is tested by the methods of correlation and regression analyses. The results of statistical analyses support the hypothesis strongly. The results of the analyses and various means to reduce the gap between rich and poor countries are discussed. A provocative analysis that all scholars, students, and researchers involved with economic development need to confront.
Lynn had IQ data for less than half of the countries he wrote about- and much of the data he did have was out-of-date, of poor quality, or of a particularly small sample size. Why should we take his “estimates” seriously?
I started out angry, then I was shocked, then I was amused, and now… I’m just sad.
I agree, but what’s more interesting to me is the thought process at work in creating analogies like this. The real problem with your argument is that it’s hurtful, not that it’s incorrect. For Leftists (or anti-racists if you prefer), it’s all about emotions.
It is both hurtful and it is incorrect. Emotions are not the hindrance to rational thought that many imagine them to be. On the contrary, the ability to feel emotion is pretty central to the ability to reason.
Well if we can’t take just any rot pseudo-science that confirms our pre-established biases seriously, what else is there ? Surely you can’t be expecting scientific rigour or punctilious methodology. That’d be totally unfair !
Very nice, but you’re going to fail the Turing test if you keep spitting out random aphorisms based on words you happen to recognize.
You forgot blindness; we’re all blind too.
I have difficulty understanding the liberal dogma that rapists are not motivated by sexual desire. They are aware that rape is evil. Perhaps they dislike acknowledging that male sexuality is frequently exploitative and violent. They want to believe that sexuality is fun and harmless.