Why do some minorities think that

Leave it to the racists to get personal.

 

What part of geographic variation don't you understand.

Again IQ as scientific measurement is debunked.

http://ann.sagepub.com/content/661/1/238.short
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/deplr57&div=34&id=&page=
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2009/07/the-truth-about-iq/22260/
https://www.theguardian.com/observer/focus/story/0,,668879,00.html

I could on and on but what is the point. IQ tests are not a good measure of native intelligence.

Again not a strawman. You want to have your cake and eat it to. You want to say IQ tests are good at measuring certain aspects of intelligence but not intelligence. That doesn't even make sense. The IQ test has been thoroughly debunked as part of eugenic pseudo science. Deal with it.

Quote all the BS psuedoscience you want to. The genomic studies could not be more clear. The only variation seen is variation based off of geography. I have posted many, many articles that clearly state that in no uncertain terms. Most of those articles are from peer reviewed academic journals. You give me charts from racist web site.

 

I see, you have a mentality that doesn't recognize that racism is an injustice, a form of ignorance and cruelty structured into society, and that the redressing and abolition of this injustice is indeed an innate moral entitlement. Perhaps you might attempt to argue that there's no such thing as an innate right; that rights, at best, are mere legal fictions; but it would be interesting to see how far you're prepared to go with such a dangerous categorical argument against the very idea of rights. Would you, for instance, unabashedly apply the same thinking to rights such as freedom of speech; freedom of assembly; freedom from unreasonable search and seizure; if you're a Second Amendment freak, the right to bear arms (the one right in this group that I do consider to be a mere legal fiction); or freedom of religion? Take freedom of religion, for instance, it's a fairly newfangled notion that never occurred to human beings for most of their history. Yes, throughout history, until quite recently, it was simply taken for granted in every society that one's faith should be the faith of one's monarch. If the pharaoh was a run of the mill pharaoh you worshipped Amun and Ra, if he was Akhenaten, well, then you showed worship to Aten; if your king was Roman Catholic then you were ipso facto Roman Catholic, but if your king declared religious independence, à la Henry VIII, well, then you became an Anglican, etc. (Sure, the Roman Empire permitted limited freedom of belief and was characterized by a good deal of religious diversity, but one was still required to do obeisance to the Roman state's official gods and its deified emperor.) One could then conceivably argue that this is the norm, and that freedom of religion is just a made-up right.

And of course one could make similar arguments against freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. One could in fact conceivably take this sort of thinking to the extreme of a Darwinian mentality which holds that we should follow the example of (the Darwinian's image of a totally ruthless) nature and establish a society that doesn't legally recognize rights or restraints on the strong, a society in which alpha males simply openly take whatever they prize and the rest of us wretchedly resign ourselves to their unfettered hegemony. Well, advocating such a brutally Darwinian form of society is what taking the view that there are no legitimate innate entitlements can lead to. Do you wish to go this far, or do you only wish to deny people of color equal rights? That is, are you prepared to embrace being a cruel social-Darwinian, or are you simply a disgusting racist and white supremacist? How about trying to cultivate a wee bit of enlightenment and grow beyond a mentality that would condemn you to such a dreadful choice.

 

And yes, I did note that you said that you're asian, however you still seem to be channeling a white supremacist sort of mentality.

 

another ho-hum moment.

Dude, nobody cares if they are called names, anymore.

Get used to it, and try to start with actual arguments. If that's not a possibility for you, then you are already irrelevant.

 

with all of this BLM stuff going on, did you think WLM should be kept silent?

or ALM?

Sorry, but you didn't spout off about black supremacists, so this is just blowback.

 

The issues I think stem from freedoms we have adopted (this goes for US and EU).
Laws to allow immigration, acceptance of culture and beliefs mean that there are legal reasons that are of our own creation that can be cited.
I often hear people comparing the opposite such as trying to be "Christian" or drink alcohol in Muslim countries. But those countries haven't created laws of "freedoms" like we have.

"External" people are only asking us to obey our own laws when dealing with them. Their countries do the same.
But ultimately, the "problem", if that's how it is seen, is our own making and NOT theirs.

 

"Again IQ as scientific measurement is debunked.

http://ann.sagepub.com/content/661/1/238.short
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPag...v=34&id=&page=
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...bout-iq/22260/
https://www.theguardian.com/observer...668879,00.html"

I looked over these and found no debunking of IQ at all. The first one doesn't even mention IQ, the second one attacks IQ as a construct of white supremacists without actually debunking its validity, and the fourth one talks about a TV program. Only the Atlantic article actually tackles IQ directly, and every one of their claims is verifiably false. IQ is NOT alterable outside of a narrow range of values in any individual, tests designed by and for those of non-white ancestry and even those who are completely illiterate yield the same results, each individual population yields a bell curve distribution which does not match those of other populations, and IQ correlates with success in life in many areas, including education, income, & marital stability, and inversely correlates with areas like criminality, teen pregnancy, number of children, the likelihood of children being born out of wedlock, the likelihood of ending up on welfare, and life expectancy. This pseudo-science, as you call it, is actually a better predictor of life results than many of the things that liberals point to as giving unfair advantages or disadvantages, such as socio-economic status and parental occupation.

 

we come from third world poor and bad countries and want to share in the fruits of your first world white country, when you don't want to share we have to vote democrat for lawful government force to demand you share with us.

 

Simple, because it was and often still is given that racism and depressing is fact. This is no special US issue ... even we have here the burning problems of the blacks as usual with all the shootings etc. ... but at least everywhere in this world.

On the other hand we have also a miss-use of these things too. A forced accepting of others will never work and this is often done in direct and indirect way. You all have sectors in your cities where you live, that are like Ghettos and dangerous and also mostly with people of one or more minorities living there, correct? So why isn't it for example OK to blame them as Ghettos and telling the truth about who is living there and doing what with what criminal statistics and so on? It is at this sort of hardcore liberals a crime to do and tell, because it will only heat up things ... but what do these people against these bad situations at least? Nothing aside bla bla bla telling and will to teach us to understand all and everything!

But everything has to coins ... and accepting each other is no "One Way" issue. If we shall accept them as minority etc., they have to accept us same way and right this is too often not given ... from both sides. It is wrong to force people to give up all of their culture and parentage as it is wrong not to accept these things of the country where I'm living and to create a sub-culture in it!

 

The part where the two groups I mentioned are categorized as separate races.

East Africans are also generally classified as Caucasian and therefore classified separately from negroids.

I could on and on but what is the point. IQ tests are not a good measure of native intelligence.[/QUOTE]

You're just link dumping and repeating yourself.

IQ on a large scale is predictive for life achievement markers. A population with a higher IQ is more likely to have lower crime rates, higher employment and earn more money, etc.

IQ tests have not been thoroughly debunked, and your first article did not even say that.

Perhaps you need to take an IQ test as you don't display a basic ability to read and comprehend articles?

The charts I provided are cited from scientific articles.

Geographic area vs race is a distinction without a difference.

WA blacks are from a different area than NE whites, and they identically different from one another.

 

Translation: I cannot counter any argument made here so I will just start throwing ad homs and pretend no arguments were put forth.

 

Again, ad-nauseum, what part of geographic variation don't you understand?

Translation: I cannot refute any these scientifically based arguments so I will just say you link dumping and continue to blithely believe debunked theories.

And then we start with the ad-homs. The last resort of the failing argument. The first link most definitely stated IQ tests were debunked as measure of native intelligence.

You do understand that genetic variation takes hundreds or thousands of years of ISOLATION to come about. Like African-Americans from WA cannot travel to the NE and vie a vie. That is just an ignorant statement. Please read up on how genetic variation works before making such ridiculous claims.

Geographic variation is much, much different than racial variation. There is just as much genetic variation between black South African's and black Central and equatorial Africans as there is between Africans and Europeans. So your racial argument just falls apart.

Your link is to blog post on a racist web site. The blogger claims sources from scientific articles for his charts but those charts are his interpretation of the data and NOT from the scientific articles.

 

Ignoring that east Africa is environmentally more similar to West Africa than Europe, is there some point you're making?

No. Instead I don't take arguing by link dumping seriously. If you have an argument to make then make it yourself.

Go ahead and provide that QUOTE.

Thrn provide the quote where I said IQ is synonymous with intelligence before you strawmanned me.

Feel free proving that genetic variation always takes 100sof 1000s of years.

What is the point you're trying to make from this vague and uninformative statement?

You would first have to demonstrate your claim, then I'll explain the fallacies in your argument and point out what I actually said.

But first prove WA's are as genetically distant to central Africans as they are northern Europeans.

Calling racism is a power word without any substance.

My link to a blog is as valid as your links to the Atlantic and other opinion sites.

Are you able to show what is merely the author's opinion and not the conclusion of the various sources he cites?

Do the sources on fst variation not also conclude quantitatively that humans are more genetically distinct than several subspecies of an animals?

Please show the author's arguments/conclusions are invalid based on the scientific work cited.

 

No. If I have a different phenotype from a white person, then this means I have at least SOME genes that are different from what that white person possesses. Therefore, there are SOME genotypic differences between us. As a result, we are not genetically identical. We are closely related, yes, but not identical.

This is what I meant by "entitlement complex". You think that just because you are a minority you get to use the coercive power of the State to compel white people to share things with you.

 

sorry that i must vote democrat to use lawful government force from the state to take some of what you and your white forefathers have worked so hard and sacrificed for, i have an entitlement complex due to being oppressed and being a victim.

 

This isn't really very responsive to my post, which for your convenience I'll include below.

 

Unfortunately, your links were refuted by another poster on page 21.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=480704&page=21&p=1066757859#post1066757859

 

Ah, "entitlement" and "entitlement complex, a concept invented and used by conservatives to dis and bias us against the idea that it's a moral imperative for society to guarantee all four of the Four Freedoms; including freedom from want, i.e. from the economic hardship and disempowerment inflicted upon most of us by our capitalist ruling class; and freedom from fear, such as, for example, the fear of becoming the victim of an unjustified police shooting that African Americans have to live with, or the fear of the crime and gang violence that economic inequality and disempowerment is producing in their neighborhoods. Yes, one doesn't even have to come up with good rationalizations for conservative uncompassion if one can use the bias-fostering term "entitled" to simply dismiss the ethical sense that struggling workingpeople, people of color, and folks on the left have that society should be geared to protect the human rights and ensure the socioeconomic welfare of all of its members. Mm-hmm, there's no need to bother trying to justify an unchristian attitude, simply use language and concepts like "entitlement", which makes folks who insist that their human right to a decent quality of life be respected out to be lazy free riders who want affluence handed to them without being productive; which panders to that cruel moralistic and Darwinian streak in many of us that inclines us to view the poor as morally inferior specimens who deserve to suffer the ill effects of poverty; and which brings people into your ideological camp where they wind up complicit in your support for a form of society in which the 1% enjoy an obscenely disproportionate measure of economic wealth and power at the expense of economically and politically disenfranchised African Americans, hispanics, and other working-class folks. Yes, quite clever indeed.

 

If that's the case then let's send all whites back to the Caucasian mountains where they came from.

Deal?

 

Relying on other people to do your work for you???

That was that posters opinion on those links. He stated the first doesn't even mention IQ but he is going off of the abstract. The article most definitely tackles IQ.

The second directly refutes the IQ as a scientific measurements and puts into the psuedo-science of eugenics.

Nothing in the third link has been debunked or false. That is just nonsense.

The fourth link is a link to the full article cited in the first link which dismisses IQ as a scientific measure of intelligence.

 

No. I just don't have time at work to refute links on my phone. I wouldn't bother if I were at home, either; I don't respond to link dumping.

You don't seem to have understood the first link since the article doesn't claim to refute IQ.

 

You mean the Caucasus mountain? I never heard of Caucasian mountains.

Either mountain, I would appreciate evidence that's where Caucasians came from.

 

There is a war in progress to eliminate the white race, not only from their traditional home lands but from the face of the earth, as well. I find it interesting that minorities that scream the loudest about discrimination, and racism; are. Minorities who call other minorities racist are delusional and have no concept of reality. " And quite a few minorities are apparently abnormal and have a serious entitlement complex. They think white people owe them." That's a condition brought on by generations of exposure to Marxism, and socialism as taught by Carl Marx, and Moses Hess; both were Khazar lunatics.

 

If IQ is just "pseudoscience" how come Down Syndrome people typically score low IQ's, and the best, and brightest typically score high IQ's?