Blacks are stupid...discuss

Posted by doniston:



Did I misinterpet your meaning?

Wait, YOU must be a DEMOCRATE, ok, I understand now.

Carry on...............:razz:
No you didn't misinterpret. you just added to it. I will not discuss such a stupid, racist, biased, untrue issue. when someone else beleives it, it is scarey. and no, I am not a democrat.
 
No, who someone reveals when they are tested at age 6, an IQ of 85, is never going to be nuclear physicist, no matter how hard they try and no matter what environment they are raised in.

Coaching for the IQ test can raise your score by about 5 points. There are other things that can affect it -- Google on "stereotype effect" for one interesting discovery.

And the IQ of each new generation seems to be improving over time. Google on the "Flynn effect" for more on this.

And there is some evidence that the Black mean IQ (the average) is moving up.

Two babies born with the same genes -- identical twins -- will have similar IQs, regardless of the homes they are raised in.

Think of IQ like height. By stretching every day, hanging from bars with weights, you can lengthen your height by a bit. But basically, your height is determined by your genes, which you got from Mommy and Daddy.

But, as I have argued, so what? In another century or so our genes will be the product of our conscious choices -- or rather, of our parents' choices.

Now, THAT is damn interesting.

Can't say I swallow it, but you DO present a good argument.

Guess I'll have to do some research.

Thanks for the "heads up" .

Kinda like height, hmmmmmmmmmmmm.:eusa_think:
 
Sorry Tom, I disagree. The recipients of that largesse, were no different than you or I would be if it seemed we could get something based on injustices of the past. The fact that the 'injustices' were not what they seemed to be or the remedies, well that's besides the point. They responded to what was presented. So would we.

Oh I agree totally Kath. "They responded to what was presented... welfare, quotas, affirmative action, etc.." It created the mindset that something was to be given to them without any effort put forth to earn it, regardless of why.
 
Yes I must admit some of the stupidest fucking lunatics I have ever spoken to were swarthy looking bastards to say the least, some of them were as black as fucking coal, and some of the fucking twats were different shades of brown, but all in all the thickest bastards by a country mile that I have ever tried to engage in social intrercourse with were 'seriously' white.Make of that what you fucking idiots will.:eusa_drool:
 
Yes I must admit some of the stupidest fucking lunatics I have ever spoken to were swarthy looking bastards to say the least, some of them were as black as fucking coal, and some of the fucking twats were different shades of brown, but all in all the thickest bastards by a country mile that I have ever tried to engage in social intrercourse with were 'seriously' white.Make of that what you fucking idiots will.:eusa_drool:

Roomy... LOL... you drinkin' again ya sod buster... :D
 
Yes I must admit some of the stupidest fucking lunatics I have ever spoken to were swarthy looking bastards to say the least, some of them were as black as fucking coal, and some of the fucking twats were different shades of brown, but all in all the thickest bastards by a country mile that I have ever tried to engage in social intrercourse with were 'seriously' white.Make of that what you fucking idiots will.:eusa_drool:

Consider it done mate...............:wtf:
 
what amazes me the most is the mainstream medias reaction to this .if it was some slack jawed yokels in white sheets or Nazi outfits or a radio talk show host spouting this stuff ,they would jump all over it but because its a racist with a Nobel prize and on the "government payroll" the reaction is subdued
 
Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[1] Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering. More controversially, some, such as the Nazi regime in Germany, used eugenics as a pretext for racial discrimination.


The promotion of the American Eugenics movement by prominent ...Interviewee: James Watson DNAi Location: Chronicle>Threat of the unfit>epilogue Progressive eugenics Many Americans accepted eugenics social policy as a ...
www.dnai.org/text/502_the_promotion..._movement_by_prominent_americans_james_watson...
 
Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[1] Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering. More controversially, some, such as the Nazi regime in Germany, used eugenics as a pretext for racial discrimination.


The promotion of the American Eugenics movement by prominent ...Interviewee: James Watson DNAi Location: Chronicle>Threat of the unfit>epilogue Progressive eugenics Many Americans accepted eugenics social policy as a ...
www.dnai.org/text/502_the_promotion..._movement_by_prominent_americans_james_watson...

Racism and eugenics are not mutually inclusive ideals.
 
Racism and eugenics are not mutually inclusive ideals.

Your talking to the board loon. Have you forgotten the US Government is run by a shadowy secret society according to EOTS and that this Cabal planned and executed 9/11. I mean come on, if he can claim that with a straight face, why argue with him about anything, he is off the deep end with no life preserver.
 
So you agree that sound, fair and progressive amounts to a socialist society wherein the strong are held back because their ability to excel is negated by taking what they have earned to drag up those that have not earned to the same level?

That's crap.

Huh? I think you need to remove that cap it's too tight or those glasses you wear have a bad reflection of assumption.
 
Huh? I think you need to remove that cap it's too tight or those glasses you wear have a bad reflection of assumption.

Originally Posted by Chips Rafferty
I maintain the proper way to judge what is "good, sound, fair, progressive society" is how it treats its underprivileged, disenfrachised, its political, religious, and "racial" minorities, and how it interacts with dissimilar external societies.

This is the post you responded to as "excellent." DO explain where I have erred.
 
Eots: do I understand from your argument that anyone who is any kind of advocate of Eugenics is therefore a "racist" and therefore a bad person, i.e. one who would lie about scientific findings in order to advance his wicked agenda?

In other words, if someone is an advocate of Eugenics, we may automatically dismiss anything he has to say related to questions of genetics?
 
It's always worth reading people's posted links.

Eots posted the following:
Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[1] Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering. More controversially, some, such as the Nazi regime in Germany, used eugenics as a pretext for racial discrimination.

The promotion of the American Eugenics movement by prominent ...Interviewee: James Watson DNAi Location: Chronicle>Threat of the unfit>epilogue Progressive eugenics Many Americans accepted eugenics social policy as a ...
http://www.dnai.org/text/502_the_pro...s_james_watson...

Now, a quick reading of this post would make it seem that Watson is one of the "prominent" people promoting the American Eugenics movement. But click on the link: all you get is a short video clip of Watson describing the attitude of prominent Americans at the beginning of the 20th Century towards people they thought of a genetically unfit.

Suppose Eots is quoted as saying: "The Nazis believed Jews to be evil and wanted to eliminate them."

Then suppose I accuse Eots of being a Nazi, and give a link to a page entitled "Nazi beliefs about Jews", featuring an interview with Eots.

What would you think of that method of arguing?

Now, I am morally certain that James Watson believes, whatever his recent hasty repentance of his thoughtcrime, that the genes for intelligence are differentially distributed among the different human geographical population groups.

That is to say, I think he really believes that it is probably that a certain ethnic group is genetically, inherently superior to another in intelligence.

So, does this make it fair to award him the blanket title of "racist" with all the connotations that come with it?

Let me ask Eots, and others who agree with him: if a scientist says that he believes that it is probable that one ethnic group is superior to another in intelligence, due to its genes, should he be shunned?

Suppose he writes that

... Europeans suffered high mortality from murder, chronic tribal warfare, accidents, and problems in procuring food.

Intelligent people are likelier than less intelligent ones to escape those causes of high mortality. However, the differential mortality from epidemic diseases had little to do with intelligence, and instead involved genetic resistance dependent on details of body chemistry. For example, people with blood group B or O have a greater resistance to smallpox than do people with blood group A. That is, natural selection promoting genes for intelligence has probably been far more ruthless in Europe than in more densely populated,... societies, where natural selection for body chemistry was instead more potent.

Should James Watson be labelled a "racist" and anathematized for writing this?

Shouldn't we rather calmly consider it as a hypothesis, and go about testing it?
 
Shouldn't we rather calmly consider it as a hypothesis, and go about testing it?

Sure, but I think many folks are just too afraid of the possible results.

The question isn't really "is black intelligence lower than white," it's more like...

"What quantum of evidence would convince you that blacks are less intelligent than whites?"

If none, then we need not bother with testing. For many (see doniston), the question won't be asked because it's too incendiary. If it gets out that blacks are, in fact, inherently less intelligent than whites, then so much of what so many have staked their entire belief system on is dead wrong. Questioning human equality is like questioning the existence of God.
 
as I said before if I had told you in 1956 that the government was murdering the citizens of NY WITH BIO WEAPONS hidden in taxis car exhaust you would of called me a loon etc but 30 years latter in just a fact. the official conspiracy theory of 911 is not the truth and there is eugenics movement in which James Watson is prominent in ,that calls for the reduction in world population of 80% by 2020

An Internet Publication for Real Americans Monday October 8,2007 ...Advance an aggressive "family" agenda to reduce the world's population - the UN ..... to adopt US-mandated birth control or population reduction policies. ...
www.sierratimes.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard//topic.cgi?forum=2&topic=932 - 59k -
 

Forum List

Back
Top