Thanks: 
Likes: 
Dislikes: 
Re: Orthodox Jews murdered by 2 Black Hebrew Israelites in Jersey City NJ
As usual there always has to be at least one mention of “the liberals” or “lefties” or “Political Correctness”Originally Posted by Gandalf
You will never find such mention in serious scientific publications.
We never really drill down to the nuts and bolts that need to be asked of guys like you and you like it that way. Because you never have to actually put you’re ideas out there on the line to be scrutinized.
You can always claim ideological martyr status for being shouted down as being iconoclasts in the public square and pretend that marginalized trash are actually hidden gems of knowledge only you and a select few others can see.
Let’s have the debate.
Let's see what it would actually mean in public policy terms. Let’s see how you intend to address the problems of our time and indeed things you see as problems.
But I don't think you or people who think like you, will because you need a new theory of racism that allows you to separate yourselves from the blue collar stormfronters.
That's not how it works.
Science is not "I have this theory. Now all of you try and prove me wrong"
Science is
- Gather facts.
- Come up with a hypothesis to make sense of them.
- Test the hypothesis.
The important thing is that the hypothesis can be tested and can fail. That gives science a way to root out its own errors.
Your science and guys who think like you is the opposite:
- Come up with the desired conclusion (In your case blacks are the most stupid. Whites not so and Asian not so)
- Gather facts that support the conclusion.
- Find excuses for the facts that do not fit.
Science makes progress though discovery and disproof. Science loves facts that don't fit because they point to new ideas and discoveries.
Your brand of science never makes new discoveries that go against its claims
If you are trying to ground IQ as a genetic product of race the very first thing you need to do is offer up a genetic or biological definition of race, something no one has not done nor has any study.
But I’ll sit back, invite you to give me such a definition. Mainly because your fumbling attempts to define race point out just how subjective such definitions are. In close to a decade of debating race with guys like you.
I have yet to see any one of them - No matter what their scientific credentials - offer up an acceptably neutral definition of race.
- Which are those “races” then, purely scientifically speaking and in clear text ?
- What are the precise genetic criteria for making this classification ?
Those questions can obviously only be answered in arbitrary dimensions which are man-made constructs according to human perception alone.
However you twist it, you will run in circles and eventually spiral back into concepts based on human perception alone.
Do you even know what a scientific fact is ?
A scientific fact is that rain water freezes at 0°C at a pressure of 1 bar.
There’s no human choice involved. It’s observable and reproducible anywhere by anybody in the exact same way. Now a scientific fact, peer-reviewed, confirmed and approved, can have political consequences. Using the simple water example, it means that public administration, set into function by politics, orders winter road service to get ready once the temperatures fall below 0°C and the roads are wet.
But yet you throw around concepts that have no constant repeatability everywhere you try to reproduce the experiment or apply the theoretical claim.
In natural science, only one single significant deviation is enough to render the claim at least disputable, at worst invalid.
The reality is that there is not only one but a multitude of deviations that those “scientists” choose to ignore.
In neurology no one takes IQ seriously. It is archaic and only really useful to social scientists. Neurologists who have a better understanding of how the brain works because they spend decades of their lives studying it have little to no use for it, but to the public at large it is so important.
Because the public is only concerned with what feels like it should be true rather than what is actually the case in reality
You are making an explicatory argument.
You’re saying black IQ is lower, in general, because blacks are “naturally” less intelligent. That sort of exceptionally radical statement needs exceptionally radical proof to back it up. Proof you don't have.
The racial designations that we currently use are principally based on three characteristics.
!) Facial structure
2) Skin color
3) Hair texture.
Those are things that are controlled by six genes out of thirty thousand genes in the human genome and those genes have never been shown by any geneticist on the planet, any biologist on the planet, to be connected, or what geneticists call “concordant,” with any other trait known as intelligence
OK. So in that case then you believe that white people are intellectually superior ro black people ? Yes ?
And how about white people ? They're certainly less genetically diverse than Blacks, but they obviously have genetic variance between say… Scandinavians and Italians or Anglo Saxons and Spaniards… but evidently, those genetic differences are somehow never linked to intelligence.
Why don't you theorize on which group of White people are the least intelligent.
No !
That's only used for talking about black ppl. Right ?
Who are the genetically dumber and disadvantaged Whites ? If there is enough genetic difference for whites to have different hair color, eye color and different average height, then why not intelligence ?
The answer is because this is not science, it’s politics and to ask that question doesn't serve the political goals of racist Whites.
You don’t want to face the idea that you might belong to the dumbest group of White people in your little hierarchy. So you theorize that “Whiteness” simply makes all Whites just as capable, and all Blacks equally disadvantaged
Finally why don't you drive your arguments to their logical conclusions ?
That is if IQ is so important and so trustworthy then
- Why not give all the top positions to those with the highest IQ ?
- Why have elections? Why have job interviews or resumes ?
- Why not have birth licences or sterilization based on IQ ?
 |
|
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks