The genetic differences are not even skin deep.
That's what's been shown in this thread, that there is no genetic marker that divides people into different races.
CNBC commentator Marc Faber says "Thank God white people populated America, not black
- Thread starter Smallcock
- Start date
That's what's been shown in this thread, that there is no genetic marker that divides people into different races.
All that has been shown in this thread is a complete education from me to you, about IQ. The two best students thus far have been yourself and oagre.
You're welcome.
More of your uninteresting personal prejudices paraded as if they were relevant, meaningful, or exist anywhere outside your mind. Still twaddle
The only thing so far established in this thread is that whatever shifting labels you try, you still haven't found terms to define your 'population groups' objectively enough for simple conversation, never mind actual study and science.
His religion and heritage are irrelevant, ask to see your accountant's credentials.
It was a joke, but the reason why it's a joke that resonates (like all jokes that have currency), is because it is under-girded by kernels of truth.
That 'joke' resonates like a joke about 'retards' does theses days.
Which kinda sums up your state of knowledge about the science and your attempts to outright deny it.
You hate having to think analytically. You hate having to challenge the beliefs you take for granted even when you're shown evidence that it's wrong. You side with whatever is popular because it's easier and you might even get accolades for doing so. If most people starting saying the sun is green, you would agree with them just so that you don't cause a stir. You're afraid of what science might tell us about ourselves so you deny what the data says and seek to suppress or lie about it. People like you provide the framework for fascism to succeed, not because you're bad, but because you're scared and weak minded, so you'll silence dissension using propaganda, ad hominem, and threats to livelihood.
But you'll never get away with it while I'm breathing.
Trouble is that the only truth is the existence of unfounded prejudice that 'thinks' that's funny.
You know that; it's why you felt the need to defend and de-fang it by explicitly labelling the obvious as something innocent. It didn't work.
Better you shoulda left it alone.
While you're on your soapbox you should also tell us about the dangers of vaccines, who really shot JFK, why the Chinese created climate change and how the CIA or Luxemburg really ran 9/11.
We went through all your sources, which all boil down to references from the Pioneer Fund, a racist 'think tank' that pushed a theory that white women have bigger pussies so can give birth to kids with big heads, and big heads = big brains.
We even looked at your sources and repeatedly noted that they don't say what you claim.
If you recall:
Here, its like you ask the question:
Hey APA, smallcock is looking for an excuse to be racist, do you guys support the claim that, even though there are no biological races, race predetermines IQ?
And then they say:
There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation
And now you come over and say, 'see, I told you the APA said different races have different IQ's, just like white women have large vaginas and asian guys have small dicks. Its a scientific fact'.
That pretty much sums up this thread.
And here you again yelling that you'll never change your white supremacist theories until your very last breath.
Great....
The great irony in all of your claims is that if we were living in Nazi Germany or the Jim Crow south, you would be the ultimate Nazi and Klansman. You stick to societal orthodoxies despite any evidence that they're wrong. You display a level of dishonesty that would make propagandists proud. But just as the Nazis fell and Jim Crow laws were changed, your views will become discarded in time, too.
Here's the difference.
The science I follow is not a fixed result but a process to uncover the physical laws of reality.
So when you started on claiming that the science backed you I had doubt because I had never heard anything backing these claims.
Once it became clear where you got your 'science' from, I spent some time researching it.
It became clear that all the work you referenced came from one rather dubious outlet and that there were clear and detailed criticisms of that work and its clique of authors, backed by multiple studies.
The 'orthodoxies' you claim I follow are full of debate and discovery. For instance climatologists always list the confidence they have of their projections and findings based on their research. That's the opposite of 'orthodoxies'. Here we have a body of work that listens to new studies and findings daily and incorporates that into their ongoing statement of the sum of knowledge.
Your Pioneer Fund finds the basis of their claims in very dubious old studies by people who fudged their numbers to back their point of view. None of it is confirmed by studies not funded by the Pioneer Fund.
I had thought the views of the KKK and the Nazis were relics of history until Trump came to power and people like you came out from under your rocks and felt your views were now confirmed as mainstream.
Sad.
I welcome all to review this thread for the bogus claims you repeatedly talk about. Your posturing and false accusations have little power in the Information Age.
Please do.
Its all there, including the wiki page you linked to the contradicts everything you said and the references to Rushton and the Pioneer Fund.
All to back the people who think big heads = big brains = big smarts.
Take a look everyone, its also worth checking out Rushton's theories on penis size, while we're digging into smalldick's beliefs.
No, the US army administering IQ tests for 100 years and the APA (a group of experts with access to all the data) have nothing to do with the Pioneer Fund or Rushton (who is dead is irrelevant). Likewise, brain size is correlated with intelligence.
You cannot help people and society by denying science. Solutions require facts.
You cannot help people and society by denying science. Solutions require facts.
Science establishes facts that can be confirmed by anyone who does the same work, experiments or research.
Rushton and the Pioneer Fund's work is backed only by people funded by the Pioneer Fund, no outside research backs it.
It fails the basics.
Galileo's work was supported over time because astronomers everywhere could duplicate his work.
Nobody has done work that duplicates Rushton and his Pioneer fund.
The racial IQ gap has been duplicated hundreds of times since WWI. It is so well established that it is a staple in IQ research. Rushton and the Pioneer Fund have nothing to do with the existence of the racial IQ gap. Not researcher on Earth past or present denies it.
It is not socioeconomically based. In fact, no environmental solution to date explains the gap.
What you actually mean is that the gap between the measure average IQs of distinct races is real and the research that proves it has been duplicated. But you have not cited even one such research study, let alone a summary of hundreds.
To prove what you say such a study would have to include: the definition of the races that was used to group the subjects who were studied, the details of the testing, the methodology used to determine race, and only race as defined, could account for the difference. And you owe us a biblography of hundreds such.
They have ruled out genetic causes but haven't nailed down the exact socioeconomic and cultural causes.
If you recall:
Here, its like you ask the question:
Hey APA, smallcock is looking for an excuse to be racist, do you guys support the claim that, even though there are no biological races, race predetermines IQ?
And then the APA says:
There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation
Your belief that different 'races' are not as smart as other 'races' is not founded in science.
There is "no such support" doesn't mean there "no support". The APA chose their words carefully.
If the racial IQ gap didn't exist, and if it were not consistent across socioeconomics, environments, and cultures, this discussion wouldn't be happening.
