Apparently logic doesn’t matter to you. Make the connection Mr. Te. You need to show how A=B, not just assume it does.Originally Posted by Itsme
Apparently logic doesn’t matter to you. Make the connection Mr. Te. You need to show how A=B, not just assume it does.
Yeah, go on acting from above while arguing like a fourth grader.
What you are saying is not relevant at all.
There are proven Differences in all those Areas and those Areas matter a lot.
It's not your people being genocided so please understand that i am a little bit more bothered by those things than you may are.
Use your demonstrative a bit more and read some of the sources i provided in this or the outsourced thread. I won't push empirical data for the thousand time onto deaf ears, my posts still stand there and can be read.
Lol
It’s relevant because you’re making arguments about race based on genetic distance, when there is less genetic differentiation between races (entire races being bigger pool averages of humanity of course) than there is between individuals within the same respective individual race.
I guess you consider your fear of white people being killed to be rational and mature and adult then.
I’ve posted sources before too:
Your sources are irrelevant because you’re still not able to link A to B with them for your argument. There’s no connection there.
My demonstrative is for my dual. You, an LIE need my help?
Wow race is a continuum and not a 1 or 0 switch. i am totally flashed. Its almost like people have more than 1 gene that determines who they are...
Yes there is also so much difference between individual intelligence that there are black individuals smarter than white individuals, still does not change anything about the majority of people.”Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other (Figure 2).”
I've provided so many sources proving what I'm saying.
It is everywhere, show me all those black scientists and philosophers, i don't want to repeat myself for the thousandth time. Ignoring those facts will not lead to anything good but repeating what i already said here for so many times is just a waste of energy.
Here, again an article stating the obvious which everyone who is not completely brainwashed and can put together with basic biological knowledge spelled out for you, even though it is a waste of energy.
https://www.livescience.com/29390-al...ancestors.html
You mean your sources that don’t remove the effects of environmental factors? I think you need to keep repeating yourself because it reinforces your position to everyone. You have some really insightful points! You alone are proof of the supremacy of the white race and account for the complete absence of black scientists and philosophers!
... What is the point of this? LOL
Sharing a recent ancestor doesn’t mean that all white people are carbon copies of each other. What exactly do you think this adds to your argument?
Stop moving the goalpost. It was about the results, of course it were environmental factors that shaped those differences, thats exactly why people from similar environments share similar genetic traits. How is this so difficult to comprehend for you when you are even the one trying to use this talking point yourself? It just hurts at this point.
Yes people from an European environment are more related to other people from this environment because the environment shaped them this way.
Before you want to save your poor African babies from facing the harsh reality of being inferior in achievement and performance, these environments shaped them for millions an thousands of years, by natural selection. So no, there is no hope for this to be overcome, and why the fuck should one wish for this.
The other alternative is being in a developing country without proper birth control and health standards
Its not white people overpopulating the planet, they are sub-replacement rate, so stop compensating for your lack of arguments with acting like a brute.
No, my point is that they don’t. Not much that are meaningful or beyond literally skin deep with environmental factors removed. Actually some sources that you posted yourself proved that, like when black adopted kids were raised in white environments, they experienced improved success.
No they aren’t, and your article didn’t state that either lol.Yes people from an European environment are more related to other people from this environment because the environment shaped them this way.
Sharing a common ancestor or a couple race markers doesn’t create more overall genetic closeness when accounting for a human’s entire genetic makeup.
ErmBefore you want to save your poor African babies from facing the harsh reality of being inferior in achievement and performance, these environments shaped them for millions an thousands of years, by natural selection. So no, there is no hope for this to be overcome, and why the fuck should one wish for this.
Maybe you wouldn’t feel that way if you weren’t just plain wrong.
I have listed so many sources that tell us that this is not the case. They improved a little, were still far more close to their family of origin.
Stop just spewing lies because they fit into your worldview, it has been disproven so many times. I am tired of this shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnes...Adoption_Study
Yes they are, if you are not capable of generating individual thought out of this article you maybe should not try to debate about things that are that fundamental to our survival.No they aren’t, and your article didn’t state that either lol.
Yes, why should one do anything for any reason at all, let's just do what we have been told. There does not need to be a ethical basis for systems of morality, just do what everyone does. <- This is your level of thinking and i am tired of discussing with you, you will stay ignorant, here natural selection fails, because you will still have a country to go home to after having helped to destroy our civilization by being a propaganda sock puppet for evil people, i won't have this luxury.Erm
.
... Yeah this is the one that you linked that disproves YOUR OWN argument, and here you are linking it again LOL:
”The study found that "(a) putative genetic racial differences do not account for a major portion of the IQ performance difference between racial groups, and (b) black and interracial children reared in the culture of the tests and the schools perform as well as other adopted children in similar families."[4]”
At this point I think you have actual mental disabilities that you should see a counselor or something for probably.
Err... fundamental to our survival? Lol? No they aren’t in the article. If they were you can quote it though!Yes they are, if you are not capable of generating individual thought out of this article you maybe should not try to debate about things that are that fundamental to our survival.
I teach biology and genetics...Yes, why should one do anything for any reason at all, let's just do what we have been told. There does not need to be a ethical basis for systems of morality, just do what everyone does. <- This is your level of thinking and i am tired of discussing with you, you will stay ignorant, here natural selection fails, because you will still have a country to go home to after having helped to destroy our civilization by being a propaganda sock puppet for evil people, i won't have this luxury.
At least I am capable of comprehending the words that I post and link to lmao. You can’t say the same for yourself.
So another intellectual dishonest ideologue has edited the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article and you poor mid-wit immediately fall for it?
It is just sad and only proves my point that there is no reason to take you intelectually serious.
Here are the different interpretations out of the Wikipedia site:
For me it proves my point, for you it does not prove your point beause you are clearly not thinking for yourself but giving value to the line that is written most on top on wikipedia.Scarr & Weinberg (1976) interpreted the results from age 7 suggesting that racial group differences in IQ are inconclusive because of confounding of the study. They noted, however, that the study indicated that cross-racial adoption had a positive effect on black adopted children. In support of this interpretation, they drew special attention to the finding that the average IQ of "socially classified" black children was greater than that of the U.S. white mean. The follow-up data were collected in 1986 and Weinberg et al. published their findings in 1992; they interpreted their results as still supporting the original conclusions.
Both Levin[8] and Lynn [9] argued that the data clearly support a hereditarian alternative: that the mean IQ scores and school achievement of each group reflected their degree of African ancestry. For all measures, the children with two black parents scored lower than the children with one black and white parent, who in turn scored lower than the adopted children with two white parents. Both omitted discussion of Asian adoptees.
Waldman, Weinberg, and Scarr [10] responded to Levin [8] and Lynn.[9] They noted that the data taken of adoption placement effects can explain the observed differences; but that they cannot make that claim firmly because the pre-adoption factors confounded racial ancestry, preventing an unambiguous interpretation of the results. They also note that Asian data fit that hypothesis while being omitted by both Levin and Lynn. They argued that, "contrary to Levin's and Lynn's assertions, results from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study provide little or no conclusive evidence for genetic influences underlying racial differences in intelligence and achievement, " and note that "We think that it is exceedingly implausible that these differences are either entirely genetically based or entirely environmentally based. The true causes of racial-group differences in IQ, or in any other characteristic, are likely to be too complex to be captured by locating them on a single hereditarianism-environmentalism dimension."[10]
In a 1998 article, Scarr wrote: "The test performance of the Black/Black adoptees [in the study] was not different from that of ordinary Black children reared by their own families in the same area of the country. My colleagues and I reported the data accurately and as fully as possible, and then tried to make the results palatable to environmentally committed colleagues. In retrospect, this was a mistake. The results of the transracial adoption study can be used to support either a genetic difference hypothesis or an environmental difference one (because the children have visible African ancestry). We should have been agnostic on the conclusions [...]."[11] Later opinions supported Scarr's reassessment. For example, one group of authors wrote, "Generally, scholars in the field of intelligence see the evidence from this study . . . as consistent with both environmental and genetic hypotheses for the cause of Group IQ score differences . . ."[12]
Loehlin (2000) reiterates the confounding problems of the study and notes that both genetic and environmental interpretations are possible. He further offers another possible explanation of the results, namely unequal prenatal factors: "[O]ne possibility lies in the prenatal environment provided by Black and White biological mothers. The Black-Black group, of course, all had Black mothers. In the Black-White group, virtually all of the birth mothers were White (66 of 68). Willerman and his colleagues found that in interracial couples it made a difference whether the mother was Black or White: The children obtained higher IQs if she was White. They suspected that this difference was due to postnatal environment, but it could, of course, have been in the prenatal one."[7]
The paper from Drew Thomas (2016), which reanalyze these adoptions studies found that once corrected for attrition in the low IQ white adoptees, once corrected for the Flynn effect since none of the Asian adoptee studies had a white control sample, mixed and white adoptees score the same, black adoptees score a little lower with a gap of 2.5pt, which can be explained by their pre-adoption characteristics.[13]
This does not work, you should not try to earn your good boy points this way, it hurts people for you to act like you had a clue, you don't have it, go on teaching the state doctrine but please do not act like you had an opinon, it is not yours, nothing of this is is a product of your own cognitive process, at least not in an academic sense, if it was it would be sad, but not that uncommon, please just stop overestimating yourself, it causes harm.
You are the one who linked this Wikipedia site lmao. You are complaining about and calling me intellectually dishonest for your own Wikipedia page that YOU linked
Here are the different interpretations out of the Wikipedia site:Actually, this potentially disproves your point EVEN MORE. You did it again, genius.Scarr & Weinberg (1976) interpreted the results from age 7 suggesting that racial group differences in IQ are inconclusive because of confounding of the study. They noted, however, that the study indicated that cross-racial adoption had a positive effect on black adopted children. In support of this interpretation, they drew special attention to the finding that the average IQ of "socially classified" black children was greater than that of the U.S. white mean. The follow-up data were collected in 1986 and Weinberg et al. published their findings in 1992; they interpreted their results as still supporting the original conclusions.
Both Levin[8] and Lynn [9] argued that the data clearly support a hereditarian alternative: that the mean IQ scores and school achievement of each group reflected their degree of African ancestry. For all measures, the children with two black parents scored lower than the children with one black and white parent, who in turn scored lower than the adopted children with two white parents. Both omitted discussion of Asian adoptees.
Waldman, Weinberg, and Scarr [10] responded to Levin [8] and Lynn.[9] They noted that the data taken of adoption placement effects can explain the observed differences; but that they cannot make that claim firmly because the pre-adoption factors confounded racial ancestry, preventing an unambiguous interpretation of the results. They also note that Asian data fit that hypothesis while being omitted by both Levin and Lynn. They argued that, "contrary to Levin's and Lynn's assertions, results from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study provide little or no conclusive evidence for genetic influences underlying racial differences in intelligence and achievement, " and note that "We think that it is exceedingly implausible that these differences are either entirely genetically based or entirely environmentally based. The true causes of racial-group differences in IQ, or in any other characteristic, are likely to be too complex to be captured by locating them on a single hereditarianism-environmentalism dimension."[10]
In a 1998 article, Scarr wrote: "The test performance of the Black/Black adoptees [in the study] was not different from that of ordinary Black children reared by their own families in the same area of the country. My colleagues and I reported the data accurately and as fully as possible, and then tried to make the results palatable to environmentally committed colleagues. In retrospect, this was a mistake. The results of the transracial adoption study can be used to support either a genetic difference hypothesis or an environmental difference one (because the children have visible African ancestry). We should have been agnostic on the conclusions [...]."[11] Later opinions supported Scarr's reassessment. For example, one group of authors wrote, "Generally, scholars in the field of intelligence see the evidence from this study . . . as consistent with both environmental and genetic hypotheses for the cause of Group IQ score differences . . ."[12]
Loehlin (2000) reiterates the confounding problems of the study and notes that both genetic and environmental interpretations are possible. He further offers another possible explanation of the results, namely unequal prenatal factors: "[O]ne possibility lies in the prenatal environment provided by Black and White biological mothers. The Black-Black group, of course, all had Black mothers. In the Black-White group, virtually all of the birth mothers were White (66 of 68). Willerman and his colleagues found that in interracial couples it made a difference whether the mother was Black or White: The children obtained higher IQs if she was White. They suspected that this difference was due to postnatal environment, but it could, of course, have been in the prenatal one."[7]
The paper from Drew Thomas (2016), which reanalyze these adoptions studies found that once corrected for attrition in the low IQ white adoptees, once corrected for the Flynn effect since none of the Asian adoptee studies had a white control sample, mixed and white adoptees score the same, black adoptees score a little lower with a gap of 2.5pt, which can be explained by their pre-adoption characteristics.[13]
Apparently lol, “for you”, because you are borderline retarded and can’t read or choose argument material correctly.For me it proves my point,
blah blah blah lmaofor you it does not prove your point beause you are clearly not thinking for yourself but giving value to the line that is written most on top on wikipedia.
This does not work, you should not try to earn your good boy points this way, it hurts people for you to act like you had a clue, you don't have it, go on teaching the state doctrine but please do not act like you had an opinon, it is not yours, nothing of this is is a product of your own cognitive process, at least not in an academic sense, if it was it would be sad, but not that uncommon, please just stop overestimating yourself it causes harm.
Yes the person who writes the first line and the last line is the one who is right.
This is how thinking works, you will get a golden star on your Homework. Did a good job (for us). Being obedient and rewarded for it does not make you smart, it makes you a good slave.
You are the one who linked it lol. Upon closer inspection of the article nothing changed. Bitch go pick my cotton. Hint: It’s inside of your skull.
Yes it was my mistake to trust you with thinking and reading. My racism probably let me overestimate your IQ because you are Asian, mea culpa.
I’m not even the one who railed on you for picking a Wikipedia and pop science mag link (latter of which was utterly irrelevant btw) when I picked a Harvard one. You did this to yourself @Itsme .
Yes it is all about outer appearance, never about the content and what is said.
Sorry for making the article more readable for you instead of linking the sources hat has been quoted by the article. I mean clicking on a link or googling something would be close to forming independent thought and would have overchallanged you.
I listed so many sources in our prior discussions, it was an low effort to give you something i saw as self evident.
But yes, you are even right with this, linking you an Wikipedia article already DID over-challenge you since the first thing you did was assuming that the statement some payed shill had put into the first paragraph equated empirical truth
You didn’t make it more readable. You posted a massive textwall, where you couldn’t identify the places that supported your argument at all.Yes it is all about outer appearance, never about the content and what is said.
Sorry for making the article more readable for you instead of linking the study hat has been sourced by the article. I mean clicking the link would be close to forming independent thought and would have overchallanged you.
I listed so many sources in our prior discussions, it was an low effort to give you something i saw as self evident.
But yes, you are even right with this, linking you an Wikipedia article already DID over-challenge you since the first thing you did was assuming that the statement some payed shill had put into the first paragraph equated empirical truth
I’ve already bolded and made the areas supporting my points (well, with your help lmao since you idiotically refuted yourself over and over again) clear. I made them red so people can see.
I’ve listed tons of sources in our prior discussions too, which you asked for but never replied to. I’ll link the post here: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1390823
When you use sources, you should specifically quote to show their relevance in what you’re trying to say. Otherwise you just look intellectually dishonest and trolly.
Speaking with retarded disadvantaged children makes me feel like a brute @Itsme so you should probably go and continue your conversation with a “professional” who will light incense and pat you on the back .
I thought about it as as self evident, just as much as the notion that only when something is the first paragraph or last line in a Wikipedia article, it does not make it correct.
I guess we will not come to an agreement, we will interpret the same data differently and where you see proof i see mental gymnastics and constructs and the other way around.
Should not really confuse that much, even the scientists are having a constant debate about it. Even though it is not a fair discourse and people are losing their noble prices over going against current ideology.
From my POV things are crystal clear but i accept that i will not be able to sway your opinion, the important thing is that other peple will follow the discussions and can profit from the arguments that have been made.
As i see, my answer has been far to diplomatic, just stop being a cunt only because people disagree with you, showing of your bad manners on the internet only makes you look like a try-hard teenager.
Yeah you are not addressing the arguments anymore because you never could. Your backpedaling became obvious a couple posts ago.
The way that you speak won’t be convincing to even the dullest of minds on here if you don’t have any real content to back it up. Well, actually the way that you speak isn’t even that academic or compelling anyway although it’s vaguely manipulative since it’s riddled with typos, hypocrisy and obvious ironic contradictions.
We’re projecting again I see...
Follow it to the start, you have been rude far before i have started meeting you half-way.
What start? Where you started bringing up racist ideas about African babies going extinct, in multiple threads? Where you supposedly erroneously judged me for having a higher IQ because I’m Asian, according to none other than yourself? Lmao
I’m genuinely sorry that contrary to your hopes, being born white instead of black didn’t stop you from being mentally crippled.
Last edited by sbbds; 08-05-2020 at 10:35 PM.
Lol pathetic whore edits the post to add an insult because she sees that i am letting her the last word. Don't you get the hint that i do not want to talk to you idiot anymore?
Different states and political movements behave in unique ways always in order to achieve their goals.
The American wars in the Middle East did not happen because the Republicans were in charge, they occurred because the United States needed to strengthen its influence in the area, ensure the hegemony of the petro-dollar and keep the Eurasian Balkans under control.
Additionally, the North American political model (in a similar fashion of most "democratic states") is designed in pursuit of the maintenance of the status quo, and it's deeply rooted in networks of networks of high-level individuals. In the United States, the vote never seems to change anything, perhaps a couple of pointless bullshit like some minor drop in tax pressure or a ban on certain weapons, but in the long run these narratives have no real weight and are media-driven, financed and regurgitated by networks of financial and bureaucratic interconnections. To put it simply, what a certain statesman would (hypocritically) call "Men in black suits and red ties."
You just have to take a look at history to realize that (as long as a radical political movement does not take power) both geopolitics and domestic politics do not depend to a large extent on which puppet on duty is sitting in the center of parliament.
You can lynch me for saying this, but the only difference between a parliamentary republic and a dictatorial regime is to what extent you are allowed to see who is putting his boot on your head.
Last edited by RBRS; 08-06-2020 at 12:14 AM.
It is. Won't deny it. I got pissed. I'm melancholic-choleric in temperament and tripple reactive in the enneagram, oldham's vigilant type.. they all describe roughly the same kind of person and its not a chill type 5 -ish robot for sure.
Yeah I understood it, don't worry. I was just venting.I never said or implied any of this in my post, I thought I made that explicit. I never said that "white people's" lives are made due to the fact that they're white looking, or that they are all perfect, or that they're born into comfort. That would be a ridiculous claim. What I meant is that the way most of the world thinks of them, even if they are the "minority" (because of the power structures in place), is going to be much different. Yeah, of course people of all types, from different sorts of walks of life, from all around the world are going to have to work for meager wages in order to survive and provide for their loved ones. Life is like that.
Privilege of one kind doesn't negate hardship. One can still have a hard life and be privileged because systemic sexism and racism haven't molded one's life the same way it has those of other peope. And talking about privilege... that's not saying you were the instigator of those systems. Yes, there seems to be a touch of bitterness or pain here or there in that post by Alonzo, but it's been my experience that throwing out the message through dismissal when the person who said it was het up is throwing out opportunity to grow. We can feel our ire rise when we presume we're getting attacked. Letting that shutdown the mental exploration and going on an equally bitter tirade isn't the best use of the opportunity
Last edited by nanashi; 08-06-2020 at 04:12 AM.
The problem is that the word "privilege" is Normative language. It will always carry baggage by default, no matter how many times you try to qualify it the other way. You can't just use it as a blank descriptor without immediately implying value.
I think everyone "deserves" to live at the same standard at which the most privileged person on the planet lives, and the only reason we're not elevating everyone else to that level is physical limitations.
It would probably be more constructive to frame it in language that makes it out as a negative thing that everyone else doesn't have it that good, rather than an aberration that a small group leads "privileged" lives. Because those are the lives we'd wish everyone could also have, if we could help it. The ideal isn't "no one can have these unrealistically nice things," the ideal is that everyone has them.
"Privilege" inherently connotes "having nice things is bad," and if nice things were bad, then it wouldn't even be a bad thing that only an elite few could have them. They're good things and we don't want to connote that their existence is a bad thing.
I disagree. I agree with you that some people have used it as a dirty word and that, consequently, some people hear the word and dislike the connotation they are used to hearing, but the word is not objectively, consistently, and universally a negative word.
I really like the strategy you're describing
Are you saying then that you think POC are being incentivized to fuck over* white people in developed countries?
*I mean to fuck each other more than whites fuck each other, but you can answer for “fuck over” too.
Last edited by sbbds; 08-06-2020 at 04:45 AM.
Lol then how come you’re replying to me insulting me by calling me a pathetic whore so that you get the last word, you pathetic whore?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote