Blacks are stupid...discuss

[Dr Grump]

are more intelligent than white gentiles, as are many Asians.

I remember reading an article years ago about Asians. And I remember the writer asking by race, who was more intelligent. I immediately thought Asians. He then went on to produce a graph that showed Caucasians generally had higher IQs, but Asians did better because they worked harder. Interestingly, educated Indians (from India) were top of the pile IQ-wise. Article was read a long time ago, and I do not remember the study..

 

[actsnoblemartin]

you hit the nail on the head, people are too much of a chicken shit to be honest and open about the issue of race.

Nobody wants to solve the problem.

Conservatives trying to discuss the issue of race/racism is tap dancing and looks silly, huh? So what do you call being so ignorant to the topic that all you can do is cry "racism" as if that alone dismisses any and all arguments on the topic?

It's called willful blindness because you're so terririfed of being labelled a racist you can't discuss the issue.

You will NEVER fix a problem if you're too scared to even identify it.

And please clarify ... are you calling ME a racist?

btw ... the issue of racism has been an ongoing current event since the 1950s, mostly because no one wants to address the issue honestly.

 

[midcan5]

Still tap dancing and viewing life through that assumption filter. I can debate in any manner I like as an American and as a liberal I think you righties are a bunch of hypocritical elitists.

I answered this at least twice already. Once with satire and once with a 'future' right wingnut rhetoric. Still prevalent obviously from some of the posts. My point above was you leave this nonsense here for all the racists, so let's see if we can find a better place for it. Racism ain't current either.

 

[doniston]

I don't recall any requirement to choose a side in order to discuss the issue.

If you feel so righteous about not discussing the issue then why bother posting in the thread at all? There's absolutely NO point to it, and I AM right about THAT.

That of course is you OPINION, in spite of how wrong it is.

I was registering my disgust that Racism had once more raised it's ugly head. THAT was my point (that you missed.)

The rest of my responsesewere to you and others who simply can't take "NO" for an answer.

 

[Diuretic]

Is it racist to make a claim that group A has a modal IQ of *insert number* and group B has a modal IQ of *insert number* and then try to produce evidence for that claim?

I don't know much about statistics so I hope I used the right term to describe the most frequently occurring variable in a population, I think it's the mode but it's been a while since I had to wrestle in a lecture room with this stuff.

 

[eots]

I didn't ask.

again your answer is not relevant to the statement

 

[Annie]

That of course is you OPINION, in spite of how wrong it is.

I was registering my disgust that Racism had once more raised it's ugly head. THAT was my point (that you missed.)

The rest of my responsesewere to you and others who simply can't take "NO" for an answer.

So you are not open to what is a discussion of racism? Is it racist to point out that backs were held back post-Reconstruction? Is it racist to say that quotas are a prejudice response to Caucasians? What's ok to discuss? What are the parameters?

 

[Gunny]

Still tap dancing and viewing life through that assumption filter. I can debate in any manner I like as an American and as a liberal I think you righties are a bunch of hypocritical elitists.

I answered this at least twice already. Once with satire and once with a 'future' right wingnut rhetoric. Still prevalent obviously from some of the posts. My point above was you leave this nonsense here for all the racists, so let's see if we can find a better place for it. Racism ain't current either.

Racism isn't current? I suggest you do a little research. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis farrakham and more than a few lesser known folks would disagree with you.

And WHERE have you debtated the issue, and what have you debated? I see nothing but a condescending attitude and wishful-thinking moral superiority.

"Racist" is NOT a refutation. "Racist" is not a rebuttal. Again, it's nothing but a dismissive label used in lieu of an intelligent argument based on fact. Accusing others of tapdancing when they are the ones willing to debate the issue, while you sit back and pretend you're some kind of superior being is ludicrous.

And I'll ask again since you dodged the question ... are you calling ME a racist?

 

[Gunny]

That of course is you OPINION, in spite of how wrong it is.

I was registering my disgust that Racism had once more raised it's ugly head. THAT was my point (that you missed.)

The rest of my responsesewere to you and others who simply can't take "NO" for an answer.

My opinon is based on fact and logic. Yours is based on nothing.

You for some reason see a need to post in this thread to say you aren't going discuss the topic so you can damned-well expect someone to question your insanity.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

oh, youre not elietest because you can call someone else elitiest first?

Still tap dancing and viewing life through that assumption filter. I can debate in any manner I like as an American and as a liberal I think you righties are a bunch of hypocritical elitists.

I answered this at least twice already. Once with satire and once with a 'future' right wingnut rhetoric. Still prevalent obviously from some of the posts. My point above was you leave this nonsense here for all the racists, so let's see if we can find a better place for it. Racism ain't current either.

 

[Gunny]

Is it racist to make a claim that group A has a modal IQ of *insert number* and group B has a modal IQ of *insert number* and then try to produce evidence for that claim?

I don't know much about statistics so I hope I used the right term to describe the most frequently occurring variable in a population, I think it's the mode but it's been a while since I had to wrestle in a lecture room with this stuff.

The problem with your question, as evidenced by recent posts, is ... it appears one side of the argument can't get past to the difference between "A" and "B" to address the issue of which one comes first in the alphabet.

It's a smokescreen for ignorance.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I love it, if they dont want you talking, your this and that.

Liberalism is interolerant of oposing views, and cowardly when it comes to conterversy

My opinon is based on fact and logic. Yours is based on nothing.

You for some reason see a need to post in this thread to say you aren't going discuss the topic so you can damned-well expect someone to question your insanity.

 

[Gunny]

again your answer is not relevant to the statement

Your posts are not relative to this thread. Most of them aren't even relative to reality.

 

[AllieBaba]

That's "Gunnery Sergeant Yahoo" to you ... thankyouverymuch ... and I don'ty doubt that when you choose to compare one of the most historically discriminated against societies against one of the most hostorically privleged societies there's GOING TO BE a disparity.

How would you compare the whites in Bumfuck, Kentucky with the blacks in Southern Maryland? I GUARANTEE it would show those backwoods, tobacky-chewing hillbilly's were intellectually inferior.

Hehe..you are so right, Gunnery Sergeant Yahoo, lol.

They can't have it both ways. Either you believe in science, or you don't. Either you believe in evolution, or you don't.

If you believe in evolution, you have to believe over generations a chasm is going to emerge between populations in less than favorable circumstances, and those in ideal circumstances.

But hey, if you choose not to believe in the science, yahoos, you can always put it down to God's punishment. But you have to make a choice.

 

[William Joyce]

I remember reading an article years ago about Asians. And I remember the writer asking by race, who was more intelligent. I immediately thought Asians. He then went on to produce a graph that showed Caucasians generally had higher IQs, but Asians did better because they worked harder. Interestingly, educated Indians (from India) were top of the pile IQ-wise. Article was read a long time ago, and I do not remember the study..

Hmmm... that could have been differentiating between north and south Asians (the former are smarter) and spatial and verbal IQ (whites have higher verbal IQs, Asians have higher spatial IQs).

J. Phillippe Rushton and Richard Lynn have done pretty comprensive work in this field and both have written pretty accessible books on the topic.

The smartest ethnic group in the world is apparently the Ashkenazi (northen European) Jews.

 

[Gunny]

Hehe..you are so right, Gunnery Sergeant Yahoo, lol.

They can't have it both ways. Either you believe in science, or you don't. Either you believe in evolution, or you don't.

If you believe in evolution, you have to believe over generations a chasm is going to emerge between populations in less than favorable circumstances, and those in ideal circumstances.

But hey, if you choose not to believe in the science, yahoos, you can always put it down to God's punishment. But you have to make a choice.

You assume there is some biological disparity based on race ... but ALL humans are classified homo sapien by science. Using a purely biological format, it would be far more likely that any disparity in evolution would be based on region and culture moreseo than physiology.

Intellectual ability is individual, and I have never once seen a reason to believe otherwise. I've know some really smart people of all races, and known some really dumb ones.

I can only suggest that some of you need to do some time in the military. Personal observation over 20 years belies a bunch of crap written on paper.

 

[eots]

Your posts are not relative to this thread. Most of them aren't even relative to reality.

I see you and rgs have the same style

 

[Gunny]

I see you and rgs have the same style

I see you an lieberalism have the same style.

 

[eots]

Updated 11:15 AM ET





Virginia governor apologizes for eugenics law

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Gov. Mark R. Warner issued a formal apology Thursday for the state's decision to forcibly sterilize thousands of Virginians from 1924 to 1979.

His apology coincides with the 75th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's Buck v. Bell decision upholding Virginia's eugenics sterilization law, which became a model for other states.

Virginia forcibly sterilized about 7,450 people under the banner of eugenics, or selective human breeding and social engineering.

The practice continued until 1979. Last year, the General Assembly passed a resolution expressing "profound regret" for the state's role, but stopped short of issuing a formal apology.

With the governor's statement Thursday, Virginia becomes the only of the 30 states that conducted eugenics sterilizations to apologize. There are believed to be more than 60,000 eugenics victims nationwide.

"Today, I offer the commonwealth's sincere apology for Virginia's participation in eugenics," Warner said.

"As I have previously noted, the eugenics movement was a shameful effort in which state government never should have been involved," he said. "We must remember the commonwealth's past mistakes in order to prevent them from recurring."

The law targeted virtually any human shortcoming that was believed to be hereditary, including mental illness, mental retardation, epilepsy, alcoholism and criminal behavior. Even people deemed to be "ne'er-do-wells" were sometimes targeted.

On Wednesday in Lynchburg, two state legislators presented a commendation from the General Assembly to eugenics victim Raymond W. Hudlow for his service as a decorated combat soldier in World War II. Hudlow had been sterilized against his will at age 16 because he was a runaway.



Yale Study: U.S. Eugenics Paralleled Nazi Germany
... in eugenics waned during the 1920s, researchers said sterilization laws had ... sterilization was legal in 18 U.S. states, and most states with eugenics laws ...
www.commondreams.org/headlines/021500-02.htm - 6k - Cached


Eugenics and Sterilization in California, 1909-1945
The Cutting Edge: Sterilization and Eugenics in California, 1909-1945. ... a eugenics advocate at the national level who wrote extensively on sterilization. ...
www.gottshall.com/thesis/article.htm


.

 

[eots]

Nazis Learned Eugenics from America
Many in America argue that there is no "right to privacy" protected by the Constitution. The point, generally speaking, is to also argue that there is no right to have an abortion. Some go a bit further and also argue that access to contraception and contraceptive information also shouldn't be protected. But if the ability not to become a parent is unprotected, what about the ability to become a parent?
Michael Ollove writes in the Baltimore Sun about the presentation of eugenics at the U.S. Holocaust Museum:

"The United States certainly pioneered the establishment of those laws on the books," said Garland Allen, a professor of the history of science at Washington University. In 1907, Indiana passed the first sterilization law in the United States; by 1933, 34 other states had followed suit. Most never acted on their laws, but some - California, Virginia and North Carolina - did. By the time sterilizations ended in the United States in the 1970s, the procedure had claimed an estimated 60,000 victims, most of them institutionalized and poor. Eugenicists in Germany were jealous of the success of their counterparts in America and other countries where compulsory sterilization was permitted. Nevertheless, eugenics gained ground in Weimar Germany, particularly in the social upheaval of economic and political collapse. Asylums and hospitals were overburdened, their patients disparaged. Eugenicists Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche rued the deaths of German soldiers in World War I ("the best of humanity" in their language) compared to the continued existence of the mentally retarded ("idiots," in their words), on whom "the best care is lavished" despite their lives of "negative worth." Take a look at that last date in the first paragraph above: forced sterilizations in the United States didn't end until the 1970s. How many people are aware of this? Were you aware of this? If you are outraged at the idea of the government sterilizing people regarded as "unfit" to breed, consider for a moment the fact that there is nothing spelled out in the Constitution which protects people from such things.

-