I would call them post-judices, since I have made up my mind only after looking at the evidence.
Of course I have, and I have taken many advanced statistics classes.
Just talking to people for a few minutes (or longer), do you ever get a sense that they are smart, very smart, stupid, very stupid, etc.?
Ok, and yet I can tell through simple observation that 50 year old men are more likely to have heart attacks than 20 year old girls.
I can tell (and could have told 500 years ago) that men are inherently taller than women.
I can tell through simple observation that eating fried foods makes you fat.
So it’s clear that simple observation can cut it (sometimes) when studying complicated phenomena.
It was perfectly reasonable phrasing given that the sentence I was responding to mentioned other things besides you.
Most likely you didn’t read it carefully, if at all.
Lol, you are the one who is primarily hurling insults.
Not according to the Oxford Online Dictionary (first definition):
Anyway, if you had even the slightest bit of intellectual honesty, you would interpret my words in a reasonable way. But instead, you insist on your own interpretations just so you can accuse me of being wrong. Puerile indeed.
Oliver Sacks needs to study and write a book on whatever is going on inside brazil84’s head.
I don’t think it’s a big mystery… he’s probably got a group of bigot buddies, and because he may have actually read a book one time, they all think of him as the “smart guy” of their group. So he actually thinks of himself as intelligent. And somehow he’s learned that the way to win an argument is to find a nit that’s not important to the main thrust of the issue, and pick away at it.
What a pitiable existence it must be. Not just to be an idiot, but to walk around (assuming he lives in a relatively diverse place), full of disdain and hate for many of the people he sees even though he’s never spoken to most of them.
If those who oppose eugenics, the frequent use of capital punishment, and forced labor enforced by the whip could come up with decent arguments against them, they would behave decently.
Like I said, the “I’m rubber, you’re glue” response is puerile. But no surprise there.
[/QUOTE]
He stole that one from me (in one of those interminible global warming threads).
The Marshal Plan had to have something to work with. What it had to work with in West Germany was a talented, well educated, and industrious nation. This is why the occupation of Japan was also successful. Similar plans to uplift inferior nations have failed.
For example, during the American occupation of Haiti that began in 1915:
The occupation greatly improved some of Haiti’s infrastructure[2] and centralized power in Port-au-Prince. Infrastructure improvements were particularly impressive: 1700 km of roads were made usable, 189 bridges were built, many irrigation canals were rehabilitated, hospitals, schools, and public buildings were constructed, and drinking water was brought to the main cities. Port-au-Prince became the first Latin American city to have an available phone service with automatic dialing. Agricultural education was organized with a central school of agriculture and 69 farms in the country.[14]
All of this fell apart after the occupation ended in 1934.
For nationalistic reasons the occupation of Haiti was resented by many Haitians. Nevertheless, one cannot argue that it was bad for the standard of living for most of them.
Clearly state your assertions regarding each of these items (i.e., “I favor X, because Y; I favor A, because B, etc.”) first.
During the history of civilization the criminal justice systems of civilized nations have removed those with criminal inclinations from the gene pool. That is why populations with long histories of urban civilization have lower crime rates than populations that are closer to the stone age.
In order to continue this biologically beneficial process we should combine the frequent use of capital punishment with the massive use of forced labor enforced by the whip. Dangerous people who are not executed should spend their reproductive years performing hard labor in prison so that they cannot spread their bad genes. That is the only way to get any value out of them.
Society would be better off if criminals had not been born. Criminals have done nothing to earn remedial education, job training, and recreational opportunities. They have debts to pay society.
Bwah?!
Leaving your horrific ideals on imprisonment, capital punishment and forced labor aside, even supposing criminal behavior is largely hereditary, what’s to prevent criminals from reproducing before they commit a crime or get caught?
Minority Report was not a documentary.
Yes, it’s funny how US occupation of high IQ countries has a positive effect and occupation of low IQ countries has a negative effect.
If you were to actually use Occam’s Razor, you might start to think that it’s not the occupation but something else at play. But of course it’s a lot more acceptable to use Occam’s Butterknife.
There’s no evidence (that I’ve seen) that at any point in history, those imprisoned for crimes had fewer offspring then the rest of society. Do you have such evidence, or are you making yet another thing up?
It should be obvious that those who are in prison or who have been executed cannot have children.
What is obvious is that populations with long histories of civilization have lower crime rates.
I do not think that the U.S. occupation of low IQ countries has a negative effect. Ending the occupation has the negative effect. Negroes have never demonstrated that they are able to create and maintain modern, thriving societies without white governance. Even with white governance - I am thinking of Caribbean countries in the British Commonwealth - those societies do not compare with societies with very few Negroes.
I do sometimes get a sense of someone’s intelligence through conversation, but I do not make categorical assertions about the average intelligence of a “race” through these individual observations. For one, the sample size is neither significant nor unbiased.
I agree, I was just paraphrasing the position advanced by the “anti-racists.”
Second, the means of ascertaining other individuals’ intelligence is hardly rigorous.
This is just your last-ditch effort to somehow convey that “blacks” are less intelligent than “whites” now that NDD’s argument about races and intelligence has been sunk given that the “races” he spoke of did not exist.
Ok, then that should answer your question. I have interacted with tens of thousands of people over the years in many different parts of the US and it’s very noticeable that blacks are less intelligent than whites.
Most people don’t – at least not in public.
The same argument could be made about height differences between men and women. The main difference is that people generally won’t scream at you for stating the truth about the male/female height gap.
If races do not exist, what is it that DNA tests reveal? Why is it that the various non races differ so much in appearance, behavior, and aptitude?