NationStates Jolt Archive

So mixed means mixing black and whites only?

Your words "KINDA light skinned indians ALMOST as light as SOME south europeans" and "those that are really black...."

Mixed could also be east asian and black.

And what are you basing this theory on? that only east Asians should have slant eyes and only blacks can have well black skin and the guy whose photo I put up has tanned skin and slant eye so he must be a "mix" of east asian and black.

I sure as hell would like to know if Bhutia had a father from zambia and mother from taiwan.

I figured him for a troll reading his first thread. Haven't had much cause since then to change my opinion.
Is that the whiff of prunes I smell, or is it just my imagination working overtime...

Get it right - Stalin was a totalitarian who perverted the Revolution in order to seize total executive power for life.

This is bullshit.

I'm not saying socialism = Stalin...I'm proving the paradox in his thinking. You are yet to say anything intelligent...

Your words "KINDA light skinned indians ALMOST as light as SOME south europeans" and "those that are really black...."

They are really black in skin tone though, aren't they? Some, at least. That doesn't necessarily imply African origin (not recent anyway).

An awful lot to infer from a person who simply said they look mixed, but never made any statements as to their actual provenance.

How about letting him (or her) answer so I can have more fun with the funny theories that will come as answers, eh?

1) So you are saying we shouldnt accept scientific studies because of the "supposed" political links of the scientists? I call that bigotry or prejudice.J. Philippe Rushton on IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn.This is a book that social scientists, policy experts, and global investment analysts cannot afford to ignore. It is one of the most brilliantly clarifying books this reviewer has ever read.This book classes 50% of Blacks as mental retards by European standards. This books is also open to the scathing criticism that it extrapolated data for over half the countries it presents data on IQs for. Also, in 34 countries there was only one IQ study used. In 30 countries there were only two. And in only two countries, the USA and Japan, did size of these studies top 100 people. I repeat, it is quack science. And this quack, Rushton, is praising another quack, Lynn.

2)Have you even read that article yourself? It says at least 50% of iq differences are genetic. So US blacks and africa blacks HAVE environment differences (like diet), which might explain iq difference. Besides, US blacks arent totally african but mixed to a degree. Have you read the thing about mixed children? I dont expect you to understand but at least I was expecting you to read b4 your claims...I'd read the summary. I've just looked at the actual article and it's a complete whitewash that borrows heavily from poor quality research such as 'IQ and the Wealth of Nations'. This isn't research, this is propaganda. He completely demolishes his oppositions argument without even once showing where the cultural model might be useful. His research is poorly worded and confusing, and he makes it very hard to follow his point until he justs sticks some stats in your face that show his point. I'm not going to go into a full critical review of the research by checking his sources and reading the whole paper. I haven't the time.

You obviously have your mind set and there is nothing I can say to change that.

So please, you may keep and pursue your ideas. It means your country will follow isolantionist policies meaning no one outside your country will ever have to put up with such ridiculous nonesense. You have continually spouted racists views whilst on this forum, backing them up with flimsy evidence. And when responding to arguments you attack the weakest point and ignore the strongest points.

Here is my parting viewpoint. Genetics may account for small differences in IQ, but to claim that is can account for up 20 points on the IQ scale is sheer and utter nonsense. It shows a willingness to manipulate statistics with little to no understanding of what the statistic represents. In other words it is bad science.

How about letting him (or her) answer so I can have more fun with the funny theories that will come as answers, eh?
Guess it must be the lawyer in me. No.

Your words "KINDA light skinned indians ALMOST as light as SOME south europeans" and "those that are really black...."



And what are you basing this theory on? that only east Asians should have slant eyes and only blacks can have well black skin and the guy whose photo I put up has tanned skin and slant eye so he must be a "mix" of east asian and black.

I sure as hell would like to know if Bhutia had a father from zambia and mother from taiwan.

His parents doesnt have to be 1st generation immigrants for him to be mixed. :rolleyes:

You are yet to say anything intelligent...

Yeah. Definitely prunes. He's just champing at the bit to get me to say something I'd regret - hello, Forrest. Interesting angle you're taking with this one.

Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

*logs*

They are really black in skin tone though, aren't they? Some, at least. That doesn't necessarily imply African origin (not recent anyway).

So you imply that there was "mixing" in the distant past? Which is nothing but saying in other words "there was a pure white race and a black race and then a yellow race and then they all mixed"...:rolleyes: which is nothing but a load of BS for anyone acquainted with Indian history and genetic studies (no not those of pseudo-historians and academics like Max Mueller etc)..

So what "race" would you classify Baichung Bhutia (the black and east asian mix:rolleyes: ), Aiswarya Rai http://www.internationalreporter.com/images/aishwarya_rai.jpg,

and vadivelu
http://in.yimg.com/i/in/mov/cinesouth/20051220/201449472.jpg

None of the above had any parents/grandparents from anywhere outside India (or even outside the region where their community resides).

HAHAHAHA....Is this all you could have come up with? 3 people? Wow!!!! Such a huge review!!! Those 3 must be gods to reject or accept scientific studies by themselves.....LMAOO
I guess what you just proved was only that you absolutely shouldnt be taken seriously when you claim something has been debunked....

I'm sorry? What is it you think you've proved exactly?

The most casual search, JUST of the source YOU provided, shows that three-fourths of peers reject the study.

If you want to show THAT statistic is an exception, rather than the rule, then do so.

As it is - even without hunting further resources, I have shown the fatal flaw in your source.

Now - the burden of proof is on you, my friend.

*snip*
And here your assumptions utterly and completely fail you. No. I meant that original human migration started from Africa.

Guess it must be the lawyer in me. No.

Well then, no worries. I will have fun with you as well.:cool:

J. Philippe Rushton on IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn.This book classes 50% of Blacks as mental retards by European standards. This books is also open to the scathing criticism that it extrapolated data for over half the countries it presents data on IQs for. Also, in 34 countries there was only one IQ study used. In 30 countries there were only two. And in only two countries, the USA and Japan, did size of these studies top 100 people. I repeat, it is quack science. And this quack, Rushton, is praising another quack, Lynn.

I'd read the summary. I've just looked at the actual article and it's a complete whitewash that borrows heavily from poor quality research such as 'IQ and the Wealth of Nations'. This isn't research, this is propaganda. He completely demolishes his oppositions argument without even once showing where the cultural model might be useful. His research is poorly worded and confusing, and he makes it very hard to follow his point until he justs sticks some stats in your face that show his point. I'm not going to go into a full critical review of the research by checking his sources and reading the whole paper. I haven't the time.

You obviously have your mind set and there is nothing I can say to change that.

So please, you may keep and pursue your ideas. It means your country will follow isolantionist policies meaning no one outside your country will ever have to put up with such ridiculous nonesense. You have continually spouted racists views whilst on this forum, backing them up with flimsy evidence. And when responding to arguments you attack the weakest point and ignore the strongest points.

Here is my parting viewpoint. Genetics may account for small differences in IQ, but to claim that is can account for up 20 points on the IQ scale is sheer and utter nonsense. It shows a willingness to manipulate statistics with little to no understanding of what the statistic represents. In other words it is bad science.

Oh you just backed down. You were arguing it had nothing to do with genetics. So part while backing down. It shows the science is true...


A conundrum for theorists of all persuasions, however, is that there is too little
evidence of any environmental effects. The hereditarian model of Black–White IQ
differences proposed in Section 2 (50% genetic and 50% environmental), far from
precluding environmental factors, requires they be found. Although evidence in
Sections 3 to 11 provided strong support for the genetic component of the model,
evidence from Section 12 was unable to identify the environmental component.
On the basis of the present evidence, perhaps the genetic component must be
given greater weight and the environmental component correspondingly re-
duced.

Well then, no worries. I will have fun with you as well.:cool:
Don't count on it.

And here your assumptions utterly and completely fail you. No. I meant that original human migration started from Africa.

oooh a theory.

Ok, so if the original humans migrated out of Africa, who did they "mix" with, as you implied in your post.

oooh a theory.

Ok, so if the original humans migrated out of Africa, who did they "mix" with, as you implied in your post.
When did I imply they mixed?

I'm sorry? What is it you think you've proved exactly?

The most casual search, JUST of the source YOU provided, shows that three-fourths of peers reject the study.

If you want to show THAT statistic is an exception, rather than the rule, then do so.

As it is - even without hunting further resources, I have shown the fatal flaw in your source.

Now - the burden of proof is on you, my friend.

The most casual search? LOL....Where is your quote? Why did they reject it?
When you havent proven anything, the burden is in you...

His parents doesnt have to be 1st generation immigrants for him to be mixed. :rolleyes:

So you are saying that somewhere in his ancestry, there was "mixing". Which would imply that once there was a black race and an "east asian" race (yellow?) and then they mixed and somehow Baichung looks like that because of that ?

The most casual search? LOL....Where is your quote? Why did they reject it?
When you havent proven anything, the burden is in you...

Read the posts.

I already quoted it, remember? One 'favourable' peer endorsement, and three critical commentaries?

That makes three-fouths rejection by peers.

The ball is in your court.

(Of course - I know the only reason you still prevaricate is because you know your 'argument' cannot be supported).

When did I imply they mixed?

Nevermind. Just tell me what "race" would Baichung, Aiswarya and Vadivelu belong to. I assure you their parents and grandparents are local to the region where they are from.

I hope you are getting where I am going with this.

The point is that there is no such thing as "pure race" (be it be white or black or yellow) and the people of Indian-subcontinent (from where all of non-African DNA is rooted in, according to Oppenheimer's recent study - refer to his book, the real Eve) are proof of that.

Nevermind. Just tell me what "race" would Baichung, Aiswarya and Vadivelu belong to. I assure you their parents and grandparents are local to the region where they are from.

I hope you are getting where I am going with this.
They are of Indian ethnicity (since the word race is too finite to apply).

The point is that there is no such thing as "pure race" (be it be white or black or yellow) and the people of Indian-subcontinent (from where all of non-African DNA is rooted in, according to Oppenheimer's recent study - refer to his book, the real Eve) are proof of that.
I am aware that theories of a pure race are false as opposed to the notion of ethnicities.

It's a race!

...

And I'm winning! :D

It's a race!

...

And I'm winning! :D

I never was much of a runner...

I never was much of a runner...
It's not about speed, it's about strategy! You know what they say: "To win the race, you have to push a few old ladies down the stairs."
:p

sorry but im still hung up on one thing: how are all these people that are anti-racist/anti-prejudice not hypocrites? they clearly hold prejudiced beliefs against a definative group of people. how are they not considered to be prejudiced themselves? shouldnt they extend their beliefs of (generalization coming) not judging others without getting to know the person to racists, etc?

and with regards to what someone said earlier about unitarianism, i dont see how that explained anything, as i hadnt heard of it before and the only things i now know about it came from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian which didnt say anything about anything regarding the subject at hand

sorry but im still hung up on one thing: how are all these people that are anti-racist/anti-prejudice not hypocrites? they clearly hold prejudiced beliefs against a definative group of people. how are they not considered to be prejudiced themselves? shouldnt they extend their beliefs of (generalization coming) not judging others without getting to know the person to racists, etc?

and with regards to what someone said earlier about unitarianism, i dont see how that explained anything, as i hadnt heard of it before and the only things i now know about it came from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian which didnt say anything about anything regarding the subject at hand
Unitarians are raised to be tolerant to what I found to be a fault, i.e. they'll tolerate even intolerance/the intolerant. I decided that was bullshit, and I stand by my assessment. And if you think that's hypocritical of me to say as much, well tough-o. Hypocricy like that I have not a smidgeon of trouble contending with. Better that than suffer the indignity of having to endure racist pap on an ongoing basis.

Oh, and I'm the one you're eferring to.

Unitarians are raised to be tolerant to what I found to be a fault, i.e. they'll tolerate even intolerance/the intolerant. I decided that was bullshit, and I stand by my assessment. And if you think that's hypocritical of me to say as much, well tough-o. Hypocricy like that I have not a smidgeon of trouble contending with. Better that than suffer the indignity of having to endure racist pap on an ongoing basis.

Oh, and I'm the one you're eferring to.
so are you actually unitarian, or just share some of their beliefs. and by "actually" i mean practicing, again i dont know much about the religion, so i dont know what practicing entails

so are you actually unitarian, or just share some of their beliefs. and by "actually" i mean practicing, again i dont know much about the religion, so i dont know what practicing entails
I'll have to assume you don't understand the term, 'lapsed'. No, I am no longer an active member of any Unitarian congregation. At the same time as I came to know I had fundamental differences of opinion with the Unitarians, I was also graduating from an RE program called, 'Building Your Own theology', through which I realized I could forge my own path and foster my own direct/personal relationship with what most people would call God.

My fundament is still essentially Unitarian, though - that much I'll concede.

I'll have to assume you don't understand the term, 'lapsed'. No, I am no longer an active member of any Unitarian congregation. At the same time as I came to know I had fundamental differences of opinion with the Unitarians, I was also graduating from an RE program called, 'Building Your Own theology', through which I realized I could forge my own path and foster my own direct/personal relationship with what most people would call God.

My fundament is still essentially Unitarian, though - that much I'll concede.
to be honest, im not really sure what the function of my last quesetion was with respect to my original point. however, i still think that tollerating everyone but the intollerant is intollerant and as a corollary i would call you a hypocrite, not that i expect my opinion of you to change your personal beliefs (and frankly, if it did, that would make you rather impressionable). but then again, as long as you are doing your do-it-yourself religion, i suppose you can just throw in a clause somewhere that says "one does not have to tollerate the intollerant," or something to that effect.

to be honest, im not really sure what the function of my last quesetion was with respect to my original point. however, i still think that tollerating everyone but the intollerant is intollerant and as a corollary i would call you a hypocrite, not that i expect my opinion of you to change your personal beliefs (and frankly, if it did, that would make you rather impressionable). but then again, as long as you are doing your do-it-yourself religion, i suppose you can just throw in a clause somewhere that says "one does not have to tollerate the intollerant," or something to that effect.
In fact, I am monitored by my God to do precisely that. Though that's hardly the sum total of my responsibilities on this plane of existence. Sorry if you feel my hypocricy is insurmountable for whatever reason. Obviously, I disagree, so there we are. A chacun son gout...

Ny, Ny, Ny, what are we going to do with you?

Once again, you treat us to:

1. A source article that is nothing more than propaganda written by open, acknowledged racists, already debunked by competent authorities long before you got hold of it, coupled with your claim that it is evidence of something (other than that the authors are racists, that is).

2. Ad hominem attacks against opponents, in lieu of actual defense or explanation of your own argument. In fact, I have never seen you actually try to explain why you think your sources are objective and correct. You just keep citing them and throwing insults at your opponents.

3. Attempts to deflect attacks against your source with distracting, off-topic side arguments (like this incest thing you're so hung up on).

4. Claims that your opponent is not qualified to comment. This is my personal favorite tactic because it is so spectacularly lame, like a grande jetee straight into a wall. Of course, you have never posted any qualifications of your own, so can we assume you are not qualified to post these threads of yours?

5. Trying to use your source article as your argument (rather than evidence in support of an argument*), and when challenged, trying to use the source material to prove itself (your "read it again" technique). Though when someone (like GnI) does read it and posts quotes from it that actually debunk it, you --

6. Fall back on good old lack of reading comprehension, and try to claim that people didn't post things that they actually posted only a page or two earlier.

Oh, and don't let me forget:

7. The spectacle of you presenting, pursuing, defending and insisting on a racist argument while, at the same time, denying that you are a racist. Self-loathing is a sad and terrible thing, Ny. You should just come out already.

The only thing you haven't done yet out of your repertoire is go back and change the OP and then try to claim that the arguments already posted are not valid because they don't fit it anymore.

* BTW, this is the reason all your threads end up as critiques of you, rather than your argument -- you are not actually presenting an argument.

to be honest, im not really sure what the function of my last quesetion was with respect to my original point. however, i still think that tollerating everyone but the intollerant is intollerant and as a corollary i would call you a hypocrite, not that i expect my opinion of you to change your personal beliefs (and frankly, if it did, that would make you rather impressionable). but then again, as long as you are doing your do-it-yourself religion, i suppose you can just throw in a clause somewhere that says "one does not have to tollerate the intollerant," or something to that effect.

I believe in maximum freedom for individuals.

Among those 'freedoms', I believe we should be free FROM interference by OTHER individuals.

Is that hypocrisy? Or - is it the only rational way to assure individual 'freedom'?

Everyone is free to believe what they wish about race/racism... until it interferes with another individual.

Also - if they are going to bring their racial intolerance to the table as though it were 'scientific', they'd better be prepared to defend it as such.

Mwah...

Race is mostly a social attitude.
*shrug*
The genetics aren't all that relevant.
Apart from the mytochondrial DNA thingie ( which does not really match with any antropological concepts of race. )

First post here, and I'm not going to trawl through the entire thread to see what people have put, I'm assuming I'm in the minority...

I picked yes.

I believe any other differences would be the result of social shaping of a person, how his culture has been taught to him and how he's lived it etc.

racism is schism on a serious tip
you dont believe me then I come bust your lip

or

if you can tell a wise man by the color of his skin
then mister you're a better man than I

First post here, and I'm not going to trawl through the entire thread to see what people have put, I'm assuming I'm in the minority...

I picked yes.

I believe any other differences would be the result of social shaping of a person, how his culture has been taught to him and how he's lived it etc.

Plenty of differences between black and white people, aside from the colour of their skins. I just don't really care about them.

A guy/girl here is from your country (india). Why dont you play with him/her?

"My country" would be England, idiot.

"My country" would be England, idiot.

lol...are you of Indian heritage/ancestry? I am quite puzzled at Ny's claim since none of your posts indicate such a thing (AFAIK)...

"My country" would be England, idiot.

All people are from 'my country'. I claim the whole world as my neighbours.

Even Ny Nordland.

"My country" would be England, idiot.

Getting mad over a mere suggestion?

*slaps RRP's wrists*;)

All people are from 'my country'. I claim the whole world as my neighbours.

Even Ny Nordland.

Even Israel?

Getting mad over a mere suggestion?

*slaps RRP's wrists*;)
So touchy, aren't they? :p

lol...are you of Indian heritage/ancestry? I am quite puzzled at Ny's claim since none of your posts indicate such a thing (AFAIK)...

In one of his previous racist threads I asked him whether he would consider me a "native" of Europe, revealing that my parents were immigrants to the UK from different countries in the Middle East. His verdict was that I am not European while another poster whose parents immigrated to the US from Sweden is considered "American". Since no reason was given for the difference I assumed the obvious, i.e. racism/idiocy.

P.S. I agree, Grave, hence the quote marks.

Getting mad over a mere suggestion?

*slaps RRP's wrists*;)

http://unstableart.com/finished/rage.jpg

Even Israel?

Sure, why not. :)

The problems I have with Israel are political boundaries, not the people.

Read the posts.

I already quoted it, remember? One 'favourable' peer endorsement, and three critical commentaries?

That makes three-fouths rejection by peers.

The ball is in your court.

(Of course - I know the only reason you still prevaricate is because you know your 'argument' cannot be supported).

You sound very ridiculous when you try this hard to be correct. :rolleyes: "That makes three-fouths rejection by peers."??? Are there only 4 people in this scientific community????? :rolleyes: Please, dont be this desperate, if you are going to object.
Those opposing ideas were included in the published study. Those 3 werent the scientific authority but, actually, the authors included their criticism in the report and ANSWERED it....

Ny, Ny, Ny, what are we going to do with you?

Once again, you treat us to:

1. A source article that is nothing more than propaganda written by open, acknowledged racists, already debunked by competent authorities long before you got hold of it, coupled with your claim that it is evidence of something (other than that the authors are racists, that is).

2. Ad hominem attacks against opponents, in lieu of actual defense or explanation of your own argument. In fact, I have never seen you actually try to explain why you think your sources are objective and correct. You just keep citing them and throwing insults at your opponents.

3. Attempts to deflect attacks against your source with distracting, off-topic side arguments (like this incest thing you're so hung up on).

4. Claims that your opponent is not qualified to comment. This is my personal favorite tactic because it is so spectacularly lame, like a grande jetee straight into a wall. Of course, you have never posted any qualifications of your own, so can we assume you are not qualified to post these threads of yours?

5. Trying to use your source article as your argument (rather than evidence in support of an argument*), and when challenged, trying to use the source material to prove itself (your "read it again" technique). Though when someone (like GnI) does read it and posts quotes from it that actually debunk it, you --

6. Fall back on good old lack of reading comprehension, and try to claim that people didn't post things that they actually posted only a page or two earlier.

Oh, and don't let me forget:

7. The spectacle of you presenting, pursuing, defending and insisting on a racist argument while, at the same time, denying that you are a racist. Self-loathing is a sad and terrible thing, Ny. You should just come out already.

The only thing you haven't done yet out of your repertoire is go back and change the OP and then try to claim that the arguments already posted are not valid because they don't fit it anymore.

* BTW, this is the reason all your threads end up as critiques of you, rather than your argument -- you are not actually presenting an argument.


LOL. Dont flatter yourself, you dont even piss me off. It's rather funny actually. You are debating in your own league, usually with yourself, claiming how my source was faulty and how I was debunked. I guess in this bla bla fantasy land of yours The University of Western Ontaria is an openly racist, biased source? :rolleyes: And GnI is the "competent" authority?
60 pages report of a study is not worth anything because of the "supposed" connections of the authors? Will you claim environmentalist scientists were lying about Global Warming? Oh but I forgot, this is your fantasy land, where you write lots of paragraphs without actually saying or aguing anything but just rephrasing over and over how I was debunked. Keep wishing, maybe if you say enough, you might debunk gravity...:rolleyes:

Keep wishing, maybe if you say enough, you might debunk gravity...:rolleyes:
Don't give him the incentive...

In one of his previous racist threads I asked him whether he would consider me a "native" of Europe, revealing that my parents were immigrants to the UK from different countries in the Middle East. His verdict was that I am not European while another poster whose parents immigrated to the US from Sweden is considered "American". Since no reason was given for the difference I assumed the obvious, i.e. racism/idiocy.

P.S. I agree, Grave, hence the quote marks.



If you cant understand my posts, of course you will call it racism/idiocy. But it only shows your comprehension skills actually. You arent native European. Just like a person of Swedish ancestary in the USA isnt native American.

lol...are you of Indian heritage/ancestry? I am quite puzzled at Ny's claim since none of your posts indicate such a thing (AFAIK)...

Oh he was a native middle eastern. I know middle east and india are quite different (culturally, geographically, etc...) but I sometimes confuse their inhabitants.

In answer to the first post, I would say that a person's skin color is the one really hard prejudice to get rid of, because it's so evident. Race is a little less obvious. I'm a jew, but I don't look that different from any other Middle-American.

In answer to the first post, I would say that a person's skin color is the one really hard prejudice to get rid of, because it's so evident. Race is a little less obvious. I'm a jew, but I don't look that different from any other Middle-American.

Because there is no jewish race...

lets get one thing straight-its not nazi socialist, its national socialist, and ask any historian more qualified than you that the nazis were a right wing group.Any historian, honestly,i promise- it is one of the fundamental facts of histroy.I just think you are trying to claim that all bad things in the world are caused by 'leftists' as you call them.Nazi's are right wing.
and there is only one race-its called the 'human race', or are you going to deny that as a leftist theory too.

also it is not true to say that nazis were economically left wing-far from it, the nazis were sponsered by business and encouraged it, nazis=facist, look up the definition.

I would consider myself primarily a nationalist. Most people these days consider that racism though. It should be noted that pre 1960s, the word racism hardly existed.

that doesnt mean that there was not discrimination based upon a persons country of origin or the colour of their skin

Why do you start so many race-related threads?

lets get one thing straight-its not nazi socialist, its national socialist, and ask any historian more qualified than you that the nazis were a right wing group.Any historian, honestly,i promise- it is one of the fundamental facts of histroy.I just think you are trying to claim that all bad things in the world are caused by 'leftists' as you call them.Nazi's are right wing.
and there is only one race-its called the 'human race', or are you going to deny that as a leftist theory too.

It's crap, whether leftist crap or rightist or center or whatever. Humanity is a species not a race...:rolleyes:

Why do you start so many race-related threads?

Why do you lose so many wars?

I just realised how stupid this all is. So a study concludes that there may be IQ differences between races.




And...? This matters why?

I wonder if racists are influenced by poor diet,environmental factors or just low iq.
Im glad that we are having this disscussion as it highlights how stupid and indefendable racist veiws are.

It might be worth noting that IQ measures only one sort of intelligence, and IQ scores have clear links to the quality of educations individuals recieve. Therefore, if there is a differenciation between ethnic groups insofar as IQ scores go, that more likely is indicative of the economic conditions, cultural emphasis on education, and other social factors rather than purely biological differences.

Not only are there biological differences, there are cultural differences as well. Certain cultures are naturally violent and barbaric, while others are naturally civil and advanced.

No only are there biological differences, there are cultural differences as well. Certain cultures are naturally violent and barbaric, while others are naturally civil and advanced.

Your joking, right?


If you're serious, however: So what? What exactly is the big deal? Is one race supposed to feel superior somehow?

I wonder if racists are influenced by poor diet,environmental factors or just low iq.
Im glad that we are having this disscussion as it highlights how stupid and indefendable racist veiws are.
I'm with Checklandia, here. Hello Checklandia. Welcome to NationStates General. Shame about these Nazis, isn't it?

It's crap, whether leftist crap or rightist or center or whatever. Humanity is a species not a race...:rolleyes:
semantics, okay all of humanity is the same species so who cares what colour their skin is or where they are from or where they end up living.

Certain cultures are naturally...

well that's one way to solve the issues surrounding nature and nurture, i guess

You sound very ridiculous when you try this hard to be correct. :rolleyes: "That makes three-fouths rejection by peers."??? Are there only 4 people in this scientific community????? :rolleyes: Please, dont be this desperate, if you are going to object.
Those opposing ideas were included in the published study. Those 3 werent the scientific authority but, actually, the authors included their criticism in the report and ANSWERED it....

Of course there are not only four people in the scientific community.

Attempting to trivialise only makes your 'argument' look more ridiculous.

In the published study, four opinions were included from peers. Three critical opinions, one not critical. That means - of the 'peer review' included IN the published material, three-fourths did not accept the study as entirely valid.

If you can prove that the greater science community reverses that statistic, then do so - but I don't fancy your chances.

Ball is in your court - put up or shut up.

I just realised how stupid this all is. So a study concludes that there may be IQ differences between races.

And...? This matters why?

The study doesn't even find that.

The methodology is flawed, the assumptions are unscientific, and it is not accepted even by it's own internal peer-review.

It wouldn't be that important even if it were valid... but, the source material as it is, it's a flimsy tissue for Ny Nordland to wrap around his racist fantasy.

Why would someone who isn't racist, fight so vehemetly for an idea (shot down in peer review) that IQ is lower in black people anyway?

Why would someone who isn't racist, fight so vehemetly for an idea (shot down in peer review) that IQ is lower in black people anyway?
...and who but a not-so-closeted racist, nazi symp would continue to erroneously believe he's taking his opponents down a rung by stamping his feet and steadfastly maintaining that this towering mound of monkey-dung hasn't been shot down in peer review.

I hope this thread and the others that Nordland has excreted over the last few months serve to dissuade anybody seriously contemplating joining a Nazi group.

Because there is no jewish race...

No, but there is a Jewish ethnicity. And, in truth, different ethnicities are as close to actual races as human beings get. There has never been a population of humans genetically isolated long enough to truly become a separate race. So what we have is the human race - with various semi-isolated groups we might call ethnicities. From a sociological standpoint, these groups have been called "races".

No, but there is a Jewish ethnicity. And, in truth, different ethnicities are as close to actual races as human beings get. There has never been a population of humans genetically isolated long enough to truly become a separate race. So what we have is the human race - with various semi-isolated groups we might call ethnicities. From a sociological standpoint, these groups have been called "races".

Not really. For instance, one could be a Jewish German. Not all Jews are of the same ethnicity, at all. Are YOU Jewish?

I just realised how stupid this all is. So a study concludes that there may be IQ differences between races.




And...? This matters why?

So you back down from your starting position too?
Why it matters? Explained in the 1st post...

I wonder if racists are influenced by poor diet,environmental factors or just low iq.
Im glad that we are having this disscussion as it highlights how stupid and indefendable racist veiws are.

Who's racist here? Care to explain why?

It might be worth noting that IQ measures only one sort of intelligence, and IQ scores have clear links to the quality of educations individuals recieve. Therefore, if there is a differenciation between ethnic groups insofar as IQ scores go, that more likely is indicative of the economic conditions, cultural emphasis on education, and other social factors rather than purely biological differences.

Read the post about cultural model vs hereditary model

semantics, okay all of humanity is the same species so who cares what colour their skin is or where they are from or where they end up living.

No, it's not a semantical difference. Given the calibre of your argument (lumping opposition views as stupid), I suggest you check your views first....:rolleyes:

So you back down from your starting position too?
Why it matters? Explained in the 1st post...

Actually, no. I still believe it. I just grow tired of 'debating' with you, as it really does go nowhere. However, I reiterate; so what? Why does it matter one iota if one race is apparently more intelligent than the others? Does this automatically give you gloating rights or something? The automatic right to enslave them? What?

No, it's not a semantical difference. Given the calibre of your argument (lumping opposition views as stupid), I suggest you check your views first....:rolleyes:

I've just noticed - EVERY other poster, and EVERY other argument is wrong... perhaps it isn't 'racism' at all, but a desperate quest for some kind of 'evidence' for the superiority you seem to believe you exhibit?

Of course there are not only four people in the scientific community.

Attempting to trivialise only makes your 'argument' look more ridiculous.

In the published study, four opinions were included from peers. Three critical opinions, one not critical. That means - of the 'peer review' included IN the published material, three-fourths did not accept the study as entirely valid.

If you can prove that the greater science community reverses that statistic, then do so - but I don't fancy your chances.

Ball is in your court - put up or shut up.

We both know more than 4 people reviewed it. So saying 75% of the peers rejected it is something totally silly and wrong and you just said it because you havent got much to support yourself. When we asked you to provide quotes and why they rejected it, you kept your silence. Those opposition views were included so those views could be answered. And those views were answered.
I linked a study, which answers opposition. You havent linked or proven anything, so it's you who has to prove the "consenssus" in scientific community.
Oh btw, after linking a full 60 paged scientific report, the quotes you used when saying argument shows the increadible amount of your bias. Guess you are one of those people who reject science based on political views. Like USA republicans who deny global warming....

The study doesn't even find that.

The methodology is flawed, the assumptions are unscientific, and it is not accepted even by it's own internal peer-review.

It wouldn't be that important even if it were valid... but, the source material as it is, it's a flimsy tissue for Ny Nordland to wrap around his racist fantasy.

You arent qualified enough to reach that conclusion, unless you got a PHD in revalant studies. It's like a garbage men dismissing physical equations.
Peer review were included so they can answer opposition claims. What part you dont get? It's more scientific to publish a study and answer some possible criticism in the 1st place, while publishing it...

Why would someone who isn't racist, fight so vehemetly for an idea (shot down in peer review) that IQ is lower in black people anyway?

Explained in the 1st post. Why would people write in a thread in which they dont even bother to read its 1st post???

...and who but a not-so-closeted racist, nazi symp would continue to erroneously believe he's taking his opponents down a rung by stamping his feet and steadfastly maintaining that this towering mound of monkey-dung hasn't been shot down in peer review.

I hope this thread and the others that Nordland has excreted over the last few months serve to dissuade anybody seriously contemplating joining a Nazi group.

Are you a broken record or what? "Nazi nazi nazi." :rolleyes: You are like a 5 year old who's using a word he doesnt even know what it means. I'm not a nazi, and the fact that you suggest it means you got nothing intelligent to say (or maybe you cant say) but just simple name calling. Or correcting my spelling, as you did in the last thread. Which was really pathetic in regards to your quality of debating.

Explained in the 1st post. Why would people write in a thread in which they dont even bother to read its 1st post???

I've read the first post. I still don't see why anyone should care if any other race is more or less intelligent? So what? Do you want bragging rights or somesuch?

Actually, no. I still believe it. I just grow tired of 'debating' with you, as it really does go nowhere. However, I reiterate; so what? Why does it matter one iota if one race is apparently more intelligent than the others? Does this automatically give you gloating rights or something? The automatic right to enslave them? What?

Explained in the 1st post *yawn*

I've just noticed - EVERY other poster, and EVERY other argument is wrong... perhaps it isn't 'racism' at all, but a desperate quest for some kind of 'evidence' for the superiority you seem to believe you exhibit?

You are assuming that I believe in superiority. Dont assume too much.
And yes, when I'm backed by science, everyone arguing against me is wrong....
Oh, but, You arent arguing actually. You arent reading. You are dismissing. Dismissing science. :eek:
See how so called "open-minded" people can be bigoted?

Not really. For instance, one could be a Jewish German. Not all Jews are of the same ethnicity, at all. Are YOU Jewish?

There is a distinction between the Jewish ethnicity - a specific group of people who have been fairly genetically isolated, especially in some areas of the world, long enough to have distinguishing traits - and the Jewish religion, which can be followed by members of any ethnicity.

And no, I am not Jewish, by ethnicity or by religion.

And "German" isn't really an ethnicity anyways - it is a nationality.

Explained in the 1st post *yawn*

Actually, it isn't. You explain that there are many differences, and cite an academic report on IQ differences in races.

However, you do not explain why anyone should care. Not anywhere in that post do you explain or state why this should matter to anyone. I mean, I honestly don't care who, on average, is dumber or smarter than me.

Honestly. Don't care.

I've read the first post. I still don't see why anyone should care if any other race is more or less intelligent? So what? Do you want bragging rights or somesuch?

In the 1st post, I'm saying that the sentence "it's just a skin colour" is a myth. Many people use that myth in NS forum. And this thread is firstly to debunk it. Get it now?

In the 1st post, I'm saying that the sentence "it's just a skin colour" is a myth. Many people use that myth in NS forum. And this thread is firstly to debunk it. Get it now?

Meh, okay. I still don't see why anyone should care, but each to his own and such...

In the 1st post, I'm saying that the sentence "it's just a skin colour" is a myth. Many people use that myth in NS forum. And this thread is firstly to debunk it. Get it now?

If it's any consolation, I'm on your side.

Different races are physically different in a variety of ways, be it susceptibiliy to disease or density of fast-twitch muscle fibre or whatever, the populations of different races exhibit variety within different boundaries.

This shouldn't be a contentious claim.

Actually, it isn't. You explain that there are many differences, and cite an academic report on IQ differences in races.

However, you do not explain why anyone should care. Not anywhere in that post do you explain or state why this should matter to anyone. I mean, I honestly don't care who, on average, is dumber or smarter than me.

Honestly. Don't care.

To care or not is a subjective bussiness. I'm just stating the facts, it's up to you to reach your conclusions...

To care or not is a subjective bussiness. I'm just stating the facts, it's up to you to reach your conclusions...

I have no conclusions. I honestly couldn't care less. What are your conclusions, then?

I have no conclusions. I honestly couldn't care less. What are your conclusions, then?

Given the amount of bias you have radiated, why do you care?

Given the amount of bias you have radiated, why do you care?

Well, you seemed to get so worked up about it old chap, that I thought it might have been some sort of theory you were endeared to.

In the 1st post, I'm saying that the sentence "it's just a skin colour" is a myth. Many people use that myth in NS forum. And this thread is firstly to debunk it. Get it now?

Actually, it's pretty obvious your intent here is to imply that race includes culture, intelligence and a whole lot of other things. Namely because you're a racist and this is what racists like you do. ;)

Actually, it's pretty obvious your intent here is to imply that race includes culture, intelligence and a whole lot of other things. Namely because you're a racist and this is what racists like you do. ;)
Because racists do this means he is one? He is trying to disprove a claim taken for granted, namely that there is no difference between "races". He already explained his intentions to Skinny, why must he repeat himself?

Well, you seemed to get so worked up about it old chap, that I thought it might have been some sort of theory you were endeared to.

It's just annoying when people defy gravity while thinking they are sooo "open-minded". Also funny too though. And old chap? :)

It's just annoying when people defy gravity while thinking they are sooo "open-minded". Also funny too though. And old chap? :)

Well, as long as you're not going to go into a 'Whites are Superior' rant of somekind, then no problem really.

Oh, and I'm just eccentric.

Are you a broken record or what? "Nazi nazi nazi." :rolleyes: You are like a 5 year old who's using a word he doesnt even know what it means. I'm not a nazi, and the fact that you suggest it means you got nothing intelligent to say (or maybe you cant say) but just simple name calling. Or correcting my spelling, as you did in the last thread. Which was really pathetic in regards to your quality of debating.
The fact that you continue to regurgitate the same tired unintelligent line, over and over and over frankly demands that I comport myself in a repetitive manner in order to underscore that if anyone here is short in the grey matter while long on the keyboard, it's you.

Oh, and FYI - I wasn't the one correcting your spelling. I've never bothered trying to correct your spelling. I'm not the droid you're looking for, you paranoiac dunderhead.

Because racists do this means he is one?

Yes. And his general focus on race, particularly in light of his other threads, shows a rather unhealthy obsession with the concept of racial differences and ethnic stereotyping. He views immigration as "invasion" and "genocide" and has expressed numerous times that he desires a race-based society in which "undesirables" are discriminated against due solely to ethnic and racial factors.

Deny it if you wish. Maybe I've just read more of his posts than you have.

Well, as long as you're not going to go into a 'Whites are Superior' rant of somekind, then no problem really.

Oh, and I'm just eccentric.

We'll discuss the conclusions in another thread, this one is for data....

LOL. Dont flatter yourself, you dont even piss me off. It's rather funny actually. You are debating in your own league, usually with yourself, claiming how my source was faulty and how I was debunked. I guess in this bla bla fantasy land of yours The University of Western Ontaria is an openly racist, biased source? :rolleyes: And GnI is the "competent" authority?
60 pages report of a study is not worth anything because of the "supposed" connections of the authors? Will you claim environmentalist scientists were lying about Global Warming? Oh but I forgot, this is your fantasy land, where you write lots of paragraphs without actually saying or aguing anything but just rephrasing over and over how I was debunked. Keep wishing, maybe if you say enough, you might debunk gravity...:rolleyes:
And here you are, giving me no information to critique about your argument, but more to critique about you. Is this some sort of very subtle flamebaiting? Are you hoping I'll start insulting you the way you insult others?

1. The University means nothing. Assholes get tenure every year. Several posters in this thread have already exposed the agenda and CVs of the authors of the paper, showing clear racist connections in their careers, thus undermining their credibility. The fact that you have no corroborating evidence from un-debunked sources causes the undermining to be fatal. So, yes, 60 pages of a study -- in fact the whole study in its entirety -- is rendered worthless by the bias of its authors.

2. I'm not referring to GnI as a competent source. Others have cited competent sources (not themselves) that debunk your source. I'll adopt one of your favorite tactics and tell you to go back and read your own thread.

3. Are you trying to say that environmental studies about global warming are written by racists? No? So, that particular remark has as much to do with this debate as someone else's remarks about incest? Obviously, any research done by biased researchers is suspect and should be examined very carefully and, best of all, corroborated by other, independent sources.

4. In my earlier post I told you specifically why we always end up talking about you. It's because you don't present a clear argument for us to talk about. You just keep repeating the same unexamined, unproven points over and over and making personal attacks against opponents. Most annoying at all, you refuse to acknowledge the root philosophies of the sources you post and your own support for those philosophies. No wonder you can't successfully defend these sources, since you won't even stand by them firmly enough to put them into the context of an argument of your own.

You want me to state my position? I already have, here and elsewhere, but I'll do it again: Race is, to all practical intents, an artificial social construct. There is no correlation between skin color and IQ. There is no correlation between skin color and culture. "Evidence" otherwise that is promulgated by avowed racists is not crediible evidence, especially when it is contradicted evidence from disinterested groups. You are a racist and a segregationist, even though you try to deny it. You promote these biased studies and claims because they can be used in support of your desire for a segregated world where people stay where you think they belong (i.e. out of Norway). You are entitled to your opinion. I have no desire to change your mind -- just as I have no interest in picking apart your defenses of these racist myths you keep posting. All I want is for you to be honest. Admit you are a racist so people will understand where you are coming from. If you really think you are right, you should be proud of it. This is the reason I keep putting my focus on you, rather than your sources.

We'll discuss the conclusions in another thread, this one is for data....

Oh, I can't wait for that...

Yes. And his general focus on race, particularly in light of his other threads, shows a rather unhealthy obsession with the concept of racial differences and ethnic stereotyping. He views immigration as "invasion" and "genocide" and has expressed numerous times that he desires a race-based society in which "undesirables" are discriminated against due solely to ethnic and racial factors.

Deny it if you wish. Maybe I've just read more of his posts than you have.

race-based society? "undesirables" descriminated? As in giving no rights to blacks?
I guess you are assuming this much because you are biased.

Oh, I can't wait for that...

He's already stated at least several of the conclusions. "Asians are smarter," being one of them. He didn't have the balls to say "blacks are dumber," but that's obviously implied if we take his racist "data" at face-value.

Yes. And his general focus on race, particularly in light of his other threads, shows a rather unhealthy obsession with the concept of racial differences and ethnic stereotyping. He views immigration as "invasion" and "genocide" and has expressed numerous times that he desires a race-based society in which "undesirables" are discriminated against due solely to ethnic and racial factors.

Deny it if you wish. Maybe I've just read more of his posts than you have.
I have never heard him argue anything of the sort. In addition, I know him better than you do. So avoid any assumptions for the time being.

He's already stated at least several of the conclusions. "Asians are smarter," being one of them. He didn't have the balls to say "blacks are dumber," but that's obviously implied if we take his racist "data" at face-value.
If that research in correct, then stating Asians are smarter would be a fact, not a conclusion.

race-based society? "undesirables" descriminated? As in giving no rights to blacks?
I guess you are assuming this much because you are biased.

Race-based society, as in your desire for a "nordic" Norway. Discrimination, as in blocking any Muslims from immigrating, and deporting a good number of them.

It's really sad when you have to lie to everyone about what you've already made clear in your many threads and trolling posts.

Calling me biased is a rather foolish rubber-glue attempt.

I have never heard him argue anything of the sort.

Then you're either lying or ignorant. Read his "Who else is anti-immigration?" thread. I've read just about all the posts in it. Read his locked "Angry White Female" thread.

If that research in correct, then stating Asians are smarter would be a fact, not a conclusion.

If that research is correct, saying "blacks are dumber" would also be a fact. Do you assert that it is so? If so, come out and say it. Say that black people are a bunch of idiots. Or are you, as well, too cowardly to admit to your own racist tendencies?

He's already stated at least several of the conclusions. "Asians are smarter," being one of them. He didn't have the balls to say "blacks are dumber," but that's obviously implied if we take his racist "data" at face-value.

Are you saying that I said I'm asian? Or you are the asian one?
Btw this study doesnt say asians are smarter.But mentions east asians. I forgot east part before, because I was rather surprised by the stupidity of that thread, whose auther has fleed this one, because he kept getting debunked.

The dance of the pussy-footing "Not-a"-Nazis continues unabated.

Are you saying that I said I'm asian? Or you are the asian one?

No and no. WTF does that have to do with anything?


Btw this study doesnt say asians are smarter.But mentions east asians. I forgot east part before, because I was rather surprised by the stupidity of that thread, whose auther has fleed this one, because he kept getting debunked.

Oh, okay. "east asians" are smarter. And "blacks" are dumber. Correct, mein freund?

Are you saying that I said I'm asian? Or you are the asian one?
Btw this study doesnt say asians are smarter.But mentions east asians. I forgot east part before, because I was rather surprised by the stupidity of that thread, whose auther has fleed this one, because he kept getting debunked.
I give up. You're too stupid for words.

Then you're either lying or ignorant. Read his "Who else is anti-immigration?" thread. I've read just about all the posts in it. Read his locked "Angry White Female" thread.
A matter of opinion then.

If that research is correct, saying "blacks are dumber" would also be a fact. Do you assert that it is so? If so, come out and say it. Say that black people are a bunch of idiots. Or are you, as well, too cowardly to admit to your own racist tendencies?
Saying they are less intelligent on the whole would be a fact. So would whites be vis-a-vis East Asians though.

A matter of opinion then.


Nope. Fact. READ his arguments. Go through that thread and read every single post he makes. It's what he argues for. It's not opinion.


Saying they are less intelligent on the whole would be a fact. So would whites be vis-a-vis East Asians though.

So, on the whole, you assert that black people are less intelligent than white. So does Ny Nordland. Yet you both deny your racist tendencies for even looking at "research" along these lines. That's what I call intellectual dishonesty.

(Even assuming the reasearch is 'fact'... which, being a racist and thus this supports your existing bias, you do.)

Race-based society, as in your desire for a "nordic" Norway. Discrimination, as in blocking any Muslims from immigrating, and deporting a good number of them.

It's really sad when you have to lie to everyone about what you've already made clear in your many threads and trolling posts.

Calling me biased is a rather foolish rubber-glue attempt.

1) I desire nordic Norway? Hmm, I wont be cool with 4 million swedes moving here. So you assumed and you were wrong. You were wrong 2 times actually. There is no "nordic" race. :rolleyes:

2) Denying immigrants is a discrimination? HAHA. Or you mean denying them because they are muslim? Many countries have got country specific quotas, which might be seen as denying a certain religion(because some religions are overwhelming majority in certain countries). And again there is no muslim race. By denying muslims, as you suggest, I wouldnt be racist but more like a "religionist". Again you are wrong.

3) What's really sad is you trying to hide that you are biased. Making assumptions yourself and accusing me based on your fantasy assumptions.

So, on the whole, you assert that black people are less intelligent than white. So does Ny Nordland. Yet you both deny your racist tendencies for even looking at "research" along these lines. That's what I call intellectual dishonesty.

(Even assuming the reasearch is 'fact'... which, being a racist and thus this supports your existing bias, you do.)
A leap of logic. Nothing more.

As for your previous claims, again a matter of opinion. He is against immigration from what I gather, and that is it.

I give up. You're too stupid for words.

Riiggghttttt. LMAO. :rolleyes:

Riiggghttttt. LMAO. :rolleyes:
Yeah, right... I figure I'll just let you and the Boy Wonder settle in for a hard night's shag, and be done with the bad taste in my mouth...

Actually, it's pretty obvious your intent here is to imply that race includes culture, intelligence and a whole lot of other things. Namely because you're a racist and this is what racists like you do. ;)

So you are saying doctors are racist because they are researching and acknowleging differences between races and in some cases make race specific drugs?
Actually what is obvious is that you label opposition to you and dismiss them. That's what close minded, "oh lets follow majority" type sheep people do ;)

Yeah, right... I figure I'll just let you and the Boy Wonder settle in for a hard night's shag, and be done with the bad taste in my mouth...
Hmm sounds hot...up for it Ny? ;)

1) I desire nordic Norway? Hmm, I wont be cool with 4 million swedes moving here. So you assumed and you were wrong. You were wrong 2 times actually. There is no "nordic" race. :rolleyes:


I put "Nordic" in quotes because sometimes, when you've argued for a WHITE Norway, you euphemistically talk about being "Nordic" (which to you implies being white).

It's nice that you're counting how many times you imagine I've been wrong. It's kind of like in your anti-immigration thread when GnI posted about two dozen comments you made which all contradicted yourself... but how quickly you forget.

That's your trick. You troll and create these huge threads, and then advance them along with your little :rolleyes: emoticons and short, stupid posts and eventually all reasonable arguments get buried.


2) Denying immigrants is a discrimination? HAHA. Or you mean denying them because they are muslim?

Gee, yes. Denying people because they're Muslim (and because you assume they'll be rapists.... and because you assume it's all part of a "genocide" against whites...) is discriminatory.

And again there is no muslim race. By denying muslims, as you suggest, I wouldnt be racist but more like a "religionist". Again you are wrong.

You would be biased and a bigot in that case. I never said you were a racist because of your discrimination against Muslims. You're a bigot because of that, and a racist because of your focus on race as with this thread and your "Angry White Female" thread.

Please try to keep up.


3) What's really sad is you trying to hide that you are biased. Making assumptions yourself and accusing me based on your fantasy assumptions.

Rubber-glue, again. It's not biased to come to conclusions based on available data. I've read your posts. They speak for themselves about your nature. Very few people here believe you're anything but a closet racist who doesn't have the balls to admit it... because that would be too politically incorrect.

And here you are, giving me no information to critique about your argument, but more to critique about you. Is this some sort of very subtle flamebaiting? Are you hoping I'll start insulting you the way you insult others?

1. The University means nothing. Assholes get tenure every year. Several posters in this thread have already exposed the agenda and CVs of the authors of the paper, showing clear racist connections in their careers, thus undermining their credibility. The fact that you have no corroborating evidence from un-debunked sources causes the undermining to be fatal. So, yes, 60 pages of a study -- in fact the whole study in its entirety -- is rendered worthless by the bias of its authors.

2. I'm not referring to GnI as a competent source. Others have cited competent sources (not themselves) that debunk your source. I'll adopt one of your favorite tactics and tell you to go back and read your own thread.

3. Are you trying to say that environmental studies about global warming are written by racists? No? So, that particular remark has as much to do with this debate as someone else's remarks about incest? Obviously, any research done by biased researchers is suspect and should be examined very carefully and, best of all, corroborated by other, independent sources.

4. In my earlier post I told you specifically why we always end up talking about you. It's because you don't present a clear argument for us to talk about. You just keep repeating the same unexamined, unproven points over and over and making personal attacks against opponents. Most annoying at all, you refuse to acknowledge the root philosophies of the sources you post and your own support for those philosophies. No wonder you can't successfully defend these sources, since you won't even stand by them firmly enough to put them into the context of an argument of your own.

You want me to state my position? I already have, here and elsewhere, but I'll do it again: Race is, to all practical intents, an artificial social construct. There is no correlation between skin color and IQ. There is no correlation between skin color and culture. "Evidence" otherwise that is promulgated by avowed racists is not crediible evidence, especially when it is contradicted evidence from disinterested groups. You are a racist and a segregationist, even though you try to deny it. You promote these biased studies and claims because they can be used in support of your desire for a segregated world where people stay where you think they belong (i.e. out of Norway). You are entitled to your opinion. I have no desire to change your mind -- just as I have no interest in picking apart your defenses of these racist myths you keep posting. All I want is for you to be honest. Admit you are a racist so people will understand where you are coming from. If you really think you are right, you should be proud of it. This is the reason I keep putting my focus on you, rather than your sources.

:rolleyes:

1) University means nothing? because you say so? HAHA
2) They havent cited any sources. Read yourself. Or get a glass. Or make some laser surgery.
3)Some environmental studies are done by environmentalist scientist. As usual, you got no clue about what is being said.
4)Oh I forgot. Sorry. A clear argument is an argument that supports your political views.
5) (Bolded area) It's like garbage men dismissing physical equations.

So you are saying doctors are racist because they are researching and acknowleging differences between races and in some cases make race specific drugs?

Some doctors are racist, yes.

What, you think being a doctor precludes someone from being racist? Surely even you can't be that stupid.


Actually what is obvious is that you label opposition to you and dismiss them. That's what close minded, "oh lets follow majority" type sheep people do ;)

I don't give a shit about the majority. The majority of people think you should be able to make whatever slanderous racist remarks you like. I think people like you should be locked up. ;)

There are other differences.
Obviously. There has to be a reason why black people seem to be faster than white people. Or more naturally athletic.

Black people aren't white and here are a bunch of links, blahblahblah I dare you to call me a racist

:rolleyes:

Some doctors are racist, yes.

What, you think being a doctor precludes someone from being racist? Surely even you can't be that stupid.



I don't give a shit about the majority. The majority of people think you should be able to make whatever slanderous racist remarks you like. I think people like you should be locked up. ;)

I wasnt talking about "doctors". I was asking if perscribing/making race specific drugs is racist. I was asking if researching differences of races to this end is racist. It's not the people, it's the concept. If you are going to say " Surely even you can't be that stupid.", make sure you understand what's being said first. :rolleyes:

I wasnt talking about "doctors".

Yeah, you were.

So you are saying doctors are racist

Please try to refrain from lying, at least until enough posts go by that it's prohibitively inconvinient to point out your lie.

And when you've got nowhere left to go and nothing left to say, stick your fingers in your ears and shout LALALALALA!

:rolleyes:

1) University means nothing? because you say so? HAHA
The university they work for does not guarantee they are credible.
2) They havent cited any sources. Read yourself. Or get a glass. Or make some laser surgery.
Yes they did. But as I recall, in your Angry White Female thread, you bragged about being too lazy to read sources. So let me know if you're too lazy to read your own thread, and I'll do it for you this time. But don't make a habit of it. I'm not your secretary.
3)Some environmental studies are done by environmentalist scientist. As usual, you got no clue about what is being said.
Are you one of those poor suckers who thinks anyone with initials after their name must be trustworthy? Evidence presented by a biased source must be double checked, no matter who that source is.
4)Oh I forgot. Sorry. A clear argument is an argument that supports your political views.
You haven't presented any argument of your own at all. You've been asked several times: Why are you telling us these myths? Why do you care who is smart or who is dumb and why they are that way? Why bother to point it out if you have nothing to say about it? And if you have nothing to say about it, no additional comments or interpretation or proposed applications for these supposed facts, then why keep this thread going? If your only point is that there is too such a thing as race, then you've made your point -- and it has made no difference.
5) (Bolded area) It's like garbage men dismissing physical equations.
And what is your qualification -- window-washer?

Although I do grant that you understand racism better than I do, since you're a racist and all. That is a qualification I don't have.

Explained in the 1st post. Why would people write in a thread in which they dont even bother to read its 1st post???


oh I see, so you are so hung up on "race" because some people (as we can see from teh poll it is a small minority) think that the color of someones skin is the only difference in someones ethnicity. As you can see the majority of people realise that there are physiological differences between ethnicities (even the ones who are debating with you that this "scientific" paper is a load of shit).

And this is why you hold on so dearly to the conclusion in a paper that was rejected by the majority of people that peer-reviewed it? you claim to have an open mind. Why is that? I think most the peopel disagreeing with you on here would not be doing so if the majority of the scientific community accepted this as fact, but they don't, yet you refuse to see things any other way.

Also, why do you say this thread is only about data and conclusions are for another thread? Are you afraid to say what your personal conclusions are?

3) What's really sad is you trying to hide that you are biased. Making assumptions yourself and accusing me based on your fantasy assumptions.

and you are not biased.
yeah whatever.
some reasearch into the differences in certain people such as the likelyhood of then getting a disease because of their ethnicity is not inherantly racist.its when people like ny nordland use this research to further their own racist claims ie that peoples iq is dictated by the colour of their skin or the country of their origin that i think IS racist.
ny nordland lampoons me and other 'non-racists' here because we do not agree with his beliefs in racial steriotyping-calling us biased
if ny nordland is not biased then I diont know who is.
by the way, ny nordland presents this'scientific'information and expects us to agree with it-yet when a person criticises him for supporting it he asks if they have scientific evidence.when they present this he asks them if they have any scientific qualifications.
well let me ask you ny nordland-do you have any scientific qualifications or are you like those you pity for following doctrine like sheep and following the doctrine of'psudo science'like a sheep.
btw, i know plent of people with phd in human phisiology (including my father)who absolutly refute the claim that iq is based upon a persons 'race'
oh and last point,the scientific information you have presented is in the realm of what scientists call eugenics(or what historians would call social darwinism)
an idea promoted by the nazis that some'races'are superior to others.
maybe you should examine the validity of your own arguements before you criticise the validity of others.

Of course there are other differences as well. There are different cultures.

No, just stating facts against a myth in this forum....
Why do you have to point out the differences. So they look different? Who the fuck cares? Race is SUPERFICIAL, weither it be skin color or nose shape or forhead height. None of it matters.

We both know more than 4 people reviewed it. So saying 75% of the peers rejected it is something totally silly and wrong and you just said it because you havent got much to support yourself. When we asked you to provide quotes and why they rejected it, you kept your silence. Those opposition views were included so those views could be answered. And those views were answered.
I linked a study, which answers opposition. You havent linked or proven anything, so it's you who has to prove the "consenssus" in scientific community.
Oh btw, after linking a full 60 paged scientific report, the quotes you used when saying argument shows the increadible amount of your bias. Guess you are one of those people who reject science based on political views. Like USA republicans who deny global warming....

At least have the decency to respond to arguments I actually made... rather than constructing ones you think you can answer.

1) I said 75% of the peers cited in the PUBLISHED report are critical... I made no comments about the entire science collective.

We are still waiting for YOU to present evidence that contradicts it on a global scale (since, clearly, within the published report, the peer-review discredits).

2) When you asked me to provide quotes, I provided a quote from your OWN source. To say I didn't, is dishonest.

3) Which study did you link that 'answers opposition'?

4) Showing bias? I'm impressed. You started a thread based on a bias, and yet feel qualified to point out what you PERCEIVE as bias (i.e. thinking YOUR arguments are weak) in others?

You arent qualified enough to reach that conclusion, unless you got a PHD in revalant studies. It's like a garbage men dismissing physical equations.
Peer review were included so they can answer opposition claims. What part you dont get? It's more scientific to publish a study and answer some possible criticism in the 1st place, while publishing it...

Not a PhD, but I did spend 3 years at University doing a Chemistry degree.

What is your parallel expertise?

Explained in the 1st post. Why would people write in a thread in which they dont even bother to read its 1st post???

Why would people continue to recycle the same weak arguments?

You already had this subject trashed a short time ago. Your sources are questionable, and their assertions illogical... and yet this is (at least) the second time you have trotted out the SAME 'evidence' to support your racist agenda.

You are assuming that I believe in superiority. Dont assume too much.
And yes, when I'm backed by science, everyone arguing against me is wrong....
Oh, but, You arent arguing actually. You arent reading. You are dismissing. Dismissing science. :eek:
See how so called "open-minded" people can be bigoted?

1) I don't assume you believe in superiority. You continuously make claims of superiority, I have to asume nothing.

2) Science doesn't back you on this... just one or two crackpots, that don't survive peer-review.

3) I don't see much to argue with, to be honest. I spent more time LAST TIME you churned out this crap... I went into more detail on the methodology, and what happened? You shut up for a few weeks, then started the same tired hatespeak.

4) How is the 'open minded' portion being bigotted? Because they won't accept your lame 'evidences' as gospel? Sorry, friend... but you are going to have to do a LOT better than that.

We'll discuss the conclusions in another thread, this one is for data....

Unfortunately for that premise, the data has turned out to be worthless...

i thoght race meant...


a drag race between a supercharged nitrous oxide state 5 fogger system running through a keith black 550 cu

The fact that you continue to regurgitate the same tired unintelligent line, over and over and over frankly demands that I comport myself in a repetitive manner in order to underscore that if anyone here is short in the grey matter while long on the keyboard, it's you.

Oh, and FYI - I wasn't the one correcting your spelling. I've never bothered trying to correct your spelling. I'm not the droid you're looking for, you paranoiac dunderhead.

Maybe it is unintelligent to you because you dont/cant understand it. And it's funny you are saying unintelligent because all you posted here, in this thread was name calling...:rolleyes:
Oh maybe you havent corrected my spelling, but you did something equally petty and pathetic. So I included you in the name calling/grammer/vocabulary/spelling correcting category...



Dig a hole on the ground. Lie down in it. Ask a friend to close the whole for you to rot. Are you still alive?

Yup. After all, he "closes" it, he doesn't "fill it in".

You hair-splitting pedant.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11007349&postcount=215

You understood what I meant. But as usual, instead of answering the argument (the argument being that you support murder), you resorted to name calling. Have you taken iq tests? You might be the live NS forum proof of how effective they are.

Maybe it is unintelligent to you because you dont/cant understand it. And it's funny you are saying unintelligent because all you posted here, in this thread was name calling...:rolleyes:
Oh maybe you havent corrected my spelling, but you did something equally petty and pathetic. So I included you in the name calling/grammer/vocabulary/spelling correcting category...



http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11007349&postcount=215

You understood what I meant. But as usual, instead of answering the argument (the argument being that you support murder), you resorted to name calling. Have you taken iq tests? You might be the live NS forum proof of how effective they are.

You do know what a pedant is, right?

I wasnt talking about "doctors".


Yeah, you were.


So you are saying doctors are racist


Please try to refrain from lying, at least until enough posts go by that it's prohibitively inconvinient to point out your lie.

Please try to refrain from sinking tooooo low. If you are going to quote me, do it correctly...


So you are saying doctors are racist because they are researching and acknowleging differences between races and in some cases make race specific drugs?
Actually what is obvious is that you label opposition to you and dismiss them. That's what close minded, "oh lets follow majority" type sheep people do


Did you see the "because" there which connects the second part of the sentence to the first? I'm not asking if doctors are racist or not because they are doctors but I'm asking if they are racist because they are doing a certain concept. Hence I used quotes when I said I wasnt talking about "doctors". Now get it? It's funny actually, it always takes 3 or 4 additional posts for you to understand my single post.

Please try to refrain from sinking tooooo low. If you are going to quote me, do it correctly...



Did you see the "because" there which connects the second part of the sentence to the first? I'm not asking if doctors are racist or not because they are doctors but I'm asking if they are racist because they are doing a certain concept. Hence I used quotes when I said I wasnt talking about "doctors". Now get it? It's funny actually, it always takes 3 or 4 additional posts for you to understand my single post.

Yes. Because it is ALWAYS the fault of the reader...

Again - we are dangerously close to 'delusions of grandeur' territory... EVERYONE has problems with your posts, so it must be EVERYONE that is 'wrong'...

And when you've got nowhere left to go and nothing left to say, stick your fingers in your ears and shout LALALALALA!


The university they work for does not guarantee they are credible.


Yes, but also it does not guarantee you can dismiss it because it doesnt support your political views.


Yes they did. But as I recall, in your Angry White Female thread, you bragged about being too lazy to read sources. So let me know if you're too lazy to read your own thread, and I'll do it for you this time. But don't make a habit of it. I'm not your secretary.


I'd really appreciate it if you do. But keep in mind that Angry White Female thread wasnt the primary thread we discussed about these iq issues. But you are free to look into any of the threads I posted. But maybe you want to read this study yourself first? Seems like you got some time in your hands if you are prepared to search my previous threads. Or maybe you'll do both, it's up to you.

html full version (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:inz0Uy01dEgJ:www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf+%22Thirty+Years+of+Research+on+Race+Differences+in+Cognitive+Ability,%22+Rushton&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1)

summary (http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530)


Are you one of those poor suckers who thinks anyone with initials after their name must be trustworthy? Evidence presented by a biased source must be double checked, no matter who that source is.


So double check it. But none of you is providing links for a counter study but you are saying your own conclusions or assumptions. I think this is very arragont considering those people spent 30 years for this research. And you are spending 30 minutes to come up with your "conclusions". And you arent trained in revelant studies...


You haven't presented any argument of your own at all. You've been asked several times: Why are you telling us these myths? Why do you care who is smart or who is dumb and why they are that way? Why bother to point it out if you have nothing to say about it? And if you have nothing to say about it, no additional comments or interpretation or proposed applications for these supposed facts, then why keep this thread going? If your only point is that there is too such a thing as race, then you've made your point -- and it has made no difference.

And what is your qualification -- window-washer?

Although I do grant that you understand racism better than I do, since you're a racist and all. That is a qualification I don't have.

The fact that you define a 30 year study as myth without providing links for a counter study shows the huge amount of your bias.
And no, I've never claimed I'm qualified. I quoted the conclusions of scientists, linked studies. But you are making conlusions yourself, as if you are some kinda scientist concluding a 10 year study. Do you understand the difference between these 2 approaches?

oh I see, so you are so hung up on "race" because some people (as we can see from teh poll it is a small minority) think that the color of someones skin is the only difference in someones ethnicity. As you can see the majority of people realise that there are physiological differences between ethnicities (even the ones who are debating with you that this "scientific" paper is a load of shit).

And this is why you hold on so dearly to the conclusion in a paper that was rejected by the majority of people that peer-reviewed it? you claim to have an open mind. Why is that? I think most the peopel disagreeing with you on here would not be doing so if the majority of the scientific community accepted this as fact, but they don't, yet you refuse to see things any other way.

Also, why do you say this thread is only about data and conclusions are for another thread? Are you afraid to say what your personal conclusions are?

As you can see more than 40 people voted for 1st option. So a considerable amount of people is buying "race" is just "colour" myth. So this thread is valid. And I made it to expose the ignorants I encountered in my previous threads. Which it did.
Get a grip about what "that was rejected by the majority of people that peer-reviewed it" means. Their criticism were included in the study itself so the scientist could answer some possible criticism while publishing the actual study. Hence making it more solid. Get it?
This thread is only about data and conclusions are for another thread. Why? Because if we started talking about conclusions it'd be a too big thread and hard to manage, especially for new readers. And I suspect this is the tactic of Trostia/Santa Barbara/insert his other id's and Dobbsworld and some others, considering the amount of their mindless chatter posts...

The fact that you define a 30 year study as myth without providing links for a counter study shows the huge amount of your bias.

No - it really doesn't.

If the evidence doesn't even support the assertion, one needs look no further to counter it.

As you can see more than 40 people voted for 1st option.

Probably because there is no "the differences are superficial" option...

3) What's really sad is you trying to hide that you are biased. Making assumptions yourself and accusing me based on your fantasy assumptions.

and you are not biased.
yeah whatever.
some reasearch into the differences in certain people such as the likelyhood of then getting a disease because of their ethnicity is not inherantly racist.its when people like ny nordland use this research to further their own racist claims ie that peoples iq is dictated by the colour of their skin or the country of their origin that i think IS racist.
ny nordland lampoons me and other 'non-racists' here because we do not agree with his beliefs in racial steriotyping-calling us biased
if ny nordland is not biased then I diont know who is.
by the way, ny nordland presents this 'scientific' information and expects us to agree with it-yet when a person criticises him for supporting it he asks if they have scientific evidence. when they present this he asks them if they have any scientific qualifications.
well let me ask you ny nordland-do you have any scientific qualifications or are you like those you pity for following doctrine like sheep and following the doctrine of 'psudo science' like a sheep.
btw, i know plent of people with phd in human phisiology (including my father)who absolutly refute the claim that iq is based upon a persons 'race'
oh and last point,the scientific information you have presented is in the realm of what scientists call eugenics(or what historians would call social darwinism)
an idea promoted by the nazis that some'races'are superior to others.
maybe you should examine the validity of your own arguements before you criticise the validity of others.

The bolded areas show the huge amount of your bias. First of all noone presented anything scientific here. The "peer-rejection" claim was stupid and answered. No link to a counter study has been given.
Secondly...."scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size" and iq tests and


10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)."


Are all these and many other pseudo science? :rolleyes: No they are science and science without quotation marks.

And these show why you are biased and a close minded sheep in this matter. You are also very dogmatic. You label something racist then dismiss it. This dogmatic approach is common. You'd be rejecting that Earth isnt flat if you lived a couple centuries before. And you'd be calling those studies blasphemous (as you label a scientific study racist), and you'd reject it, not because you think about it but because you label it blasphemous :rolleyes:

...stupid... a close minded sheep...

Just can't stop yourself flaming...


Not to mention the dishonesty:

"The "peer-rejection" claim was stupid and answered. No link to a counter study has been given. "

You have singularly FAILED to produce ANY supporting evidence.

The article you originally presented clearly shows peer opinion was critical... a counter-study isn't yet required... THIS study is still unsupported.

At least have the decency to respond to arguments I actually made... rather than constructing ones you think you can answer.

1) I said 75% of the peers cited in the PUBLISHED report are critical... I made no comments about the entire science collective.

We are still waiting for YOU to present evidence that contradicts it on a global scale (since, clearly, within the published report, the peer-review discredits).

2) When you asked me to provide quotes, I provided a quote from your OWN source. To say I didn't, is dishonest.

3) Which study did you link that 'answers opposition'?

4) Showing bias? I'm impressed. You started a thread based on a bias, and yet feel qualified to point out what you PERCEIVE as bias (i.e. thinking YOUR arguments are weak) in others?

1) You said it was rejected in peer review. And you were wrong. Dont twist your words. I linked a study which answers criticism as well as stating its own conclusions. It is up to you to find a counter study or shut up.

2) Maxima asked you to quote why they rejected it, twice, you failed...

3) You are being desperate...:rolleyes:


The paper, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors' reply.


4) I started a thread based on a 30 year scientific study. You rejected it on bias. Your bias is actually VERY clear as you havent even read the 3rd paragraph of the summary, yet you wrote many posts regarding a study whose summary you havent even read. Or you wouldnt be asking the silly question in 3rd question...

Why would people continue to recycle the same weak arguments?

You already had this subject trashed a short time ago. Your sources are questionable, and their assertions illogical... and yet this is (at least) the second time you have trotted out the SAME 'evidence' to support your racist agenda.

Oh was it trashed? By whom? Just because you are imagining it doesnt make it true...
Calling 30 year study a weak argument is a weak argument itself. :rolleyes:

1) You said it was rejected in peer review. And you were wrong. Dont twist your words. I linked a study which answers criticism as well as stating its own conclusions. It is up to you to find a counter study or shut up.

2) Maxima asked you to quote why they rejected it, twice, you failed...

3) You are being desperate...:rolleyes:



4) I started a thread based on a 30 year scientific study. You rejected it on bias. Your bias is actually VERY clear as you havent even read the 3rd paragraph of the summary, yet you wrote many posts regarding a study whose summary you havent even read. Or you wouldnt be asking the silly question in 3rd question...

1) It WAS rejected in peer review. Of the four accompanying opinions, three are critical. Is this really that hard to understand?

Don't you get it? I don't NEED to look any further, yet... the report itself admits critical peer-review.

2) I'm not sure I even read Maxima's posts... which ones didn't I reply to?

3) No - I'm not bein desperate... you claimed you linked to a study that refuted the criticism... but, in fact, all you are talking about is the fact that the original author gave an answer.

Show how the criticisms were REFUTED.

4) No. I did not reject it on bias... I rejected it on the basis that it is wank.

1) I don't assume you believe in superiority. You continuously make claims of superiority, I have to asume nothing.

2) Science doesn't back you on this... just one or two crackpots, that don't survive peer-review.

3) I don't see much to argue with, to be honest. I spent more time LAST TIME you churned out this crap... I went into more detail on the methodology, and what happened? You shut up for a few weeks, then started the same tired hatespeak.

4) How is the 'open minded' portion being bigotted? Because they won't accept your lame 'evidences' as gospel? Sorry, friend... but you are going to have to do a LOT better than that.

1) When?
2) Get a grip what peer review means and why it was included.
3) I lost interest. Feel free to link me...
4)Bigotted because you dismiss a study whose SUMMARY you havent completely read.

Oh was it trashed? By whom? Just because you are imagining it doesnt make it true...
Calling 30 year study a weak argument is a weak argument itself. :rolleyes:

I'm wondering if they taught you this was a good debate tactic...

You consistently fail to provide evidence, and you seem to assume 'your argument is weak' is a winning argument.

If you wish to actually engage in debate - you are going to need a better source, and you are going to have to present an argument... which you have still failed to do - claiming that isn't 'the point of this thread'.

Your 'so-called 30 year study' is weak. It is based on false assumptions, and it follows them to incoherent responses.

Racist agendas are ALWAYS going to fail, when it comes to real science. You might as well stop pretending this is anything other than what it is... an attempt to legitimise racism that you have thus far lacked conviction to admit.

No - it really doesn't.

If the evidence doesn't even support the assertion, one needs look no further to counter it.

How do you know the evidence? You havent even read the summary. That's what I call BIAS...

1) When?
2) Get a grip what peer review means and why it was included.
3) I lost interest. Feel free to link me...
4)Bigotted because you dismiss a study whose SUMMARY you havent completely read.

1) This is your technique? "I'm caught at it, so I act all innocent"? Good luck with that...

2) I'm thinking here, I might not be the one who fails to understand what you get when you combine the terms 'peer' and 'review'...

3) You 'lost' that debate. Your argument was shown to be weak and illogical that time, so you scarpered... only to return a few weeks later once you figured you could get away with your agenda again.

4) I suspect the summary WAS all you read. And yet, you assume I have no idea about the content of the report...

Just can't stop yourself flaming...


Not to mention the dishonesty:



You have singularly FAILED to produce ANY supporting evidence.

The article you originally presented clearly shows peer opinion was critical... a counter-study isn't yet required... THIS study is still unsupported.

What part of "peer criticism were answered" you dont get? I dont know how I can say it simpler...:headbang:

How do you know the evidence? You havent even read the summary. That's what I call BIAS...

You assume that I haven't read the whole report... that is what I call assumption.

What part of "peer criticism were answered" you dont get? I dont know how I can say it simpler...:headbang:

If I said you were an ape, I would be 'answering'... but it wouldn't in anyway REFUTE anything you said.

Is that so hard to understand?

Your little racist report may contain 'author's answers'... but that does not equate to refuting the criticisms.

You assume that I haven't read the whole report... that is what I call assumption.

I remember you mentioning about the effects of nutrition in other thread and how it disproves the study. Is this correct? Do you remember that claim of yours?
And tell me, why you dont accept the source?

You all sound so politcally correct you are making me sick reading your posts

If I said you were an ape, I would be 'answering'... but it wouldn't in anyway REFUTE anything you said.

Is that so hard to understand?

Your little racist report may contain 'author's answers'... but that does not equate to refuting the criticisms.

Neither you and I are qualified enough to conclude if the author's reply refuted/or not refuted their criticism. We have to wait more for that. The study is rater new. What I was arguing is that those criticism were put there to be answered. it wasnt put to show the study has been debunked...Now, get it?

Hey baby, it's all pink in the middle, yo.

I find it funny that Ny Nordland had to use only some of the butt-ugliest facial templates to try and get his point across. Of course, that's not to say I'm surprised. I mean, it's hardly surprising that a blatant racist would do such a thing, really.

Now, yeah, there are differences between the "races". Facial structure, body fat distribution, eye color, hair color, bone structure...

I remember you mentioning about the effects of nutrition in other thread and how it disproves the study. Is this correct?
And tell me, why you dont accept the source?

Not strictly a response to this question... but it just crossed my mind...

You made some inane comment about needing a PhD to have a crticism of the source... I pointed out I am a veteran of the University system... it might also be worth pointing out, I still work in the sciences.

I asked for your parallel experience... but you seem reluctant to step up...

Neither you and I are qualified enough if the author's reply refuted their criticism. We have to wait more for that. The study is rater new. What I was arguing is that those criticism were put there to be answered. it wasnt put to show the study has been debunked...Now, get it?

You might not be qualified, my friend...

What does all this crap you are posting have to do with being a racis.
You guys are way to smart for from what I reading. What are you, some kind of intellectual migdets or something

Not strictly a response to this question... but it just crossed my mind...

You made some inane comment about needing a PhD to have a crticism of the source... I pointed out I am a veteran of the University system... it might also be worth pointing out, I still work in the sciences.

I asked for your parallel experience... but you seem reluctant to step up...

I dont need qualifications because I'm quoting. Not reaching conclusions myself like you are doing. And I'm studying in engineering...

I dont need qualifications because I'm quoting. Not reaching conclusions myself like you are doing. And I'm studying in engineering...

One wonders how you feel ANY kind of qualified to be arguing about peer-review, or whether the research is 'scientific'...

One wonders how you feel ANY kind of qualified to be arguing about peer-review, or whether the research is 'scientific'...

Ok back your claims then.

1) How have you debunked me previously?
2) Why this research isnt scientific?
3) Why the source isnt reliable?

Here are some global scientific results, you were asking....


A survey was conducted in 1987 of a broad sample of 1,020 scholars (65% replied) in specialties that would give them reason to be knowledgeable about IQ (but not necessarily about race; Snyderman & Rothman, 1987). The survey was given to members of the American Education Research Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association, Behavior Genetics Association, and Cognitive Science Society. Political and social opinions, reported in the same survey, accounted for less than 10% of the variation in responses. (Respondents on average called themselves slightly left of center politically.) Measures of expertise or eminence accounted for little or no variation in responses.

One question was "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of the Black-White difference in I.Q.?" (emphasis original).[29] The responses were divided into five categories:

* The difference is entirely due to environmental variation: 15%.
* The difference is entirely due to genetic variation: 1% (8 respondents).
* The difference is a product of both genetic and environmental variation: 45%.
* The data are insufficient to support any reasonable opinion: 24%.
* No response (or not qualified): 14%.



In a 1988 survey, journalists, editors, and IQ experts were asked their "opinion of the source of the black-white difference in IQ" Snyderman and Rothman 1988
Group Entirely Environment Entirely Genetic Both Data Are Insufficient
Journalists 34% 1% 27% 38%
Editors 47% 2% 23% 28%
IQ Experts 17% 1% 53% 28%


Notice, how, unqualified people like you think it's more environment.
Of course this is old, I couldnt find a newer survey...BUt


The view of the American Psychological Association

In response to the controversy surrounding The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Association's Board of Scientific Affairs in 1995 established a special task force to publish an investigative report on the research presented in the book. [18]

The task force agrees that there do exist large differences between the average IQ scores of blacks and whites, and that these differences cannot be attributed to biases in test construction, nor does it "simply reflect differences in socio-economic status". While they admit there is no empirical evidence supporting it, the APA task force suggests that explanations based on social status and cultural differences may be possible. Regarding genetic causes, they noted that there is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis. The Janurary 1997 issue of American Psychologist included eleven critical responses to the APA report, most of which criticized the report's failure to examine all of the evidence for or against the partly-genetic interpretation of racial differences in IQ.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_%28Culture-only_or_partially-genetic_explanation%29

But keep in mind that this was b4 "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability" published in 2005. So we will have to wait for other scientists opinion...In the mean time, back your own claims....

Edit: About peer review, you were arguing 3 critical comments debunks the study. That was very stupid and you were wrong....

Ok back your claims then.

1) How have you debunked me previously?
2) Why this research isnt scientific?
3) Why the source isnt reliable?

Here are some global scientific results, you were asking....

Notice, how, unqualified people like you think it's more environment.
Of course this is old, I couldnt find a newer survey...BUt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_%28Culture-only_or_partially-genetic_explanation%29

But keep in mind that this was b4 "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability" published in 2005. So we will have to wait for other scientists opinion...In the mean time, back your own claims....

Edit: About peer review, you were arguing 3 critical comments debunks the study. That was very stupid and you were wrong....

1) Once again with the insults? "That was very stupid"...? I notice your insult is also connected to (yet another) deceit... I didn't say "3 critical comments debunks the study". I did point out that three of four comments given were critical. THAT proportion certainly raises questions.

2) You keep saying weird things like: "Notice, how, unqualified people like you think it's more environment..." and yet, of the two of us, I am the one with the science-education, and still working in the science field.

I have to assume, then - that you say it to make yourself feel better.

3) Curiously, once again,l you are in conflict with your own sources:

You say: "Notice, how, unqualified people like you think it's more environment..."

But, your source says: "Measures of expertise or eminence accounted for little or no variation in responses".

I'm beginning to think you don't even read your OWN 'sources'.

4) How you think journalists and editors are a valid catchment for peer-review, I don't know. The 'IQ experts' MIGHT be 'expert witnesses' on IQ, but I fail to see what application you think that might have to genetics or environment.

5) The other source you provide admits that 35% of those asked refused to respond. It also CLEARLY says that those who were asked were likely to have somev experience with IQ criteria, but NOT expertise in race.

Why do you insist on producing sources that get their figures from unrelated disciplines???

I can answer that one for you - it's because those with an expertise in race think your claims are racist bullshit.

6) Even if that study HAD been valid - the amount of people backing your evil agenda, would be those claiming that IQ was dependent on race - which would be the "The difference is entirely due to genetic variation" option - which was... how popular?: 1% (8 respondents from more than a THOUSAND).



Once again, I need to look no further than the 'evidence' you claim, to show that you misunderstand, misrepresent, and deliberately misinterpret what you find - to try to match some racial prejudice agenda.

Seriously, my friend... you are doing my work for me.

You continue to discredit yourself more and more thoroughly.

Shocker. The same old, same old. You post articles you don't understand and then when people who do point out the problems in those articles, you claim they aren't qualified to argue against the article.

You KNOW you don't know enough about this to argue and state as much all the time, yet you claim you can judge whether or not someone else is qualified. All of the scientists on this board that I've encountered whether they agree with GnI or not, admit that he is very versed in analyzing this kind of a report and come to a logical conclusion.

If you wish to debate, address people's points and stop with the ad hominems. If you're not able to address the points GnI makes then don't and we'll accept that. But simply claiming that what he says or basically what anybody who disagrees with you says is not worth addressing because you don't understand it is weak debating.

Let's simplify the problem with this study. Since you only address qualified sources. Three of four who are qualified to be considered peer-review did not accept the study as credible. They were critical of the study. That means, not critical of the conclusion, but critical of the methodology. That means the study did not survive peer-review and needs to be republished. Claiming the critiques were answered still leaves the study as not having passed peer-review.

However, don't take my word for it, Ny. Simply explain here what peer-review means and what is required in order for a study to be considered a credible, peer-reviewed source? You're studying engineering so you should know it. Please explain, because you're replies to GnI suggest otherwise.

Have you taken iq tests?
Yes indeed I have. I consistently score between 138 and 142. How about you there, chuckles?

Yes indeed I have. I consistently score between 138 and 142. How about you there, chuckles?
Boy Wonder, now chuckles? :rolleyes:

But as usual, instead of answering the argument (the argument being that you support murder), you resorted to name calling.
The argument is not whether or not I support murder. Shouldn't you know that much, at least? I mean, it is your thread after all. You started the poxy thing. Whenever did it become a thread about me?

Ahh, the moment you decided it'd be fun to try eliciting an empassioned response from me, that's when. Right about the time it surely dawned on you that this excreta has a half-life inversely proportional to the effort that you, Ny Nordland, personally put into continuing your dead dog & pony show.

Enthusiastic coat-tail riders aside, your name isn't mud so much as it's well... organic, anyway. Oh, and Europa Maxima?

Eat me.

Oh, and Europa Maxima?

Eat me.
Hmm I would, but I'm afraid you'd just give me indigestion. You're not my type. Ny, now him I'd "eat", and swallow too. ;)

It's also some genes and bone structure. We haven't been isolated from eachother long enough to make any major differences in personality, although I bet there are some slight ones.

Um... Why should a persons ethnic background/race matter?

A person should be judged on the idividual they are. Ones background should be of no consequence. I know many people around my college that are of a white ethnic background and yet do their best to fit in with the black ethnic background. It's how their personality is.

It doesn't really matter, we're all the same species, so we should all get the same rights and treatment as each other. I have never felt comfortable calling other ethnic backgrounds different races because biologically speaking they're all human. Human is a race, Black, White, Asian, other are ethnic backgrounds, colour of skin and some slight differences.

Racism in my book is hypocritical. To be Racist is to be nasty about other races such as animals, birds and other mammals. The racism we're familiar with is being hypocritical because you're more or less, gentically speaking made up of the same building blocks. The whole phrase: "That's the pot calling the Kettle Black." works really well in those situations.

It isn't just bone structure, Skin color, joint architecture, or disease resistance. It can be things such as nose and leg hair, too. My ancestors came from Scotland, Eireland (only the non-Eirish would call it Ireland), Poland, and Wales. The result: my nickname is Sasquaetch. Crazy? Maybe. Rascist? Never. I have hair only because two thousand years of evolution has resulted in my ultimate arrival. My ancestors would not have been successful if not for their ability to resist the cold. In similar respects, skin color is merely a result of cumulative generations of gene selection. In Africa, more melanin is a must if skin cancer is to be prevented. Similarly, nose shape and joint structure is a result of ancient survival traits. Remember, humanity has only been "civilized" for the past 10,000-15,000 years (rough estimate, varies largely based on definition of civilized). We have over 300,000 years of evolution encoded in our genes (or 300,000 years of Intelligent Design, take your pick). Race is a result of a few pathetic organisms trying to eke it out on this harsh planet. The strong survived, the weak did not. In different climates, so-called racial traits were really just local adaptations to the climate. I know white kids tat act black, black kids that act white, Asians that act Hispanic, and Hispanic kids that are mixed-blood native american/chicano (their terms, not mine). Race is still evolving, some say becoming even more diverse as we speak. Successful fishermen are known to have altered blood vessels, keeping their bodies warmer out in the middle of nowhere on their boats. Those born in high altitudes will gradually develop large lung capacities than lower altitude relatives, to a point where it does, in fact, become genetic. Peopl are mobile, and often times this results in moving from an environment less suited to one's body to one more suited to one's body. Example: moving to Colorado due to a natural acclimation to cold, or moving to California due to a natural acclimation to heat. People adapt. This is fact. So accept it, and stop calling this shit as scientific traits in race. One should concentrate on nurture just as much as nature.

*sighs*

Racism is to do with much more than skin colour. I know many white British people who hate white German people, because they're ignorant and despite knowing no Germans, they presume that they're all still Nazis.

And these show why you are biased and a close minded sheep in this matter. You are also very dogmatic. You label something racist then dismiss it. This dogmatic approach is common. You'd be rejecting that Earth isnt flat if you lived a couple centuries before. And you'd be calling those studies blasphemous (as you label a scientific study racist), and you'd reject it, not because you think about it but because you label it blasphemous


okay, lets get some things straight,I am doublting the scientific quality of your source, saying that 30 years of study proves its right is not enough to back a source up-there were 2-300 years of scientific study showing the earth was flat, there were over 30 years of scientific study that the nazi's used to back up their racist claims.
I was also not so much criticism of the science-I agree there are more differences within humans than skin colour such as predisposition to disease-what I was complaining about is people like you using this science to further your own racist aims.As far as im concerned the study uses racial steriotyping, culture education and diet are fair enough reasons for a difference between regional iq levels, claiming that certain'races' have lower iq than others is just stupid.Have i got a lower iq than my boyfriend just because he is chinese and I am a white italian, I dont think so.Iq is dependant on individuals.
If you are wondering why there are so many personal attacks on you, it is not because people are biased, it is because people are repulsed by your racist attitude and the fact that you are trying to suggest that certain races are superior in intelligence than others. Maybe if you argued more coherently than there would not be so many criticisms of you as a person.Nobody is disputing that there are more differences between people than just skin colour, they are just disputing the idea you seem to be presenting that one 'race' is superior to another and the fact that you are highlighting these differences for some racist agenda.If you are not suggesting one 'race' is superior to another then I am sorry,I have misunderstood you-but why start this thread if you were not saying this.

Yes, but also it does not guarantee you can dismiss it because it doesnt support your political views.
I'm not rejecting it because it doesn't match my political reviews. I am rejecting it because, over the course of the last 100+ years, these racist myths have been debunked and disproven by scientific facts over and over again. The assertions in your so-called data are false, plain and simple. That is why I reject them. The fact that the crackpot racists promoting these falsehoods work for a university does not change the fact that they are promoting falsehoods. The end.

I'd really appreciate it if you do. But keep in mind that Angry White Female thread wasnt the primary thread we discussed about these iq issues. But you are free to look into any of the threads I posted. But maybe you want to read this study yourself first? Seems like you got some time in your hands if you are prepared to search my previous threads. Or maybe you'll do both, it's up to you.
Apparently, I do have to find it for you, since you seem not to be able to keep track of what we are talking about on your own. I was talking about citations within this thread, not all the other racist tripe you've posted and had debunked elsewhere. I will take a bit of time to look it up and post it separately later today.

html full version (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:inz0Uy01dEgJ:www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf+%22Thirty+Years+of+Research+on+Race+Differences+in+Cognitive+Ability,%22+Rushton&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1)

summary (http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530)


So double check it. But none of you is providing links for a counter study but you are saying your own conclusions or assumptions. I think this is very arragont considering those people spent 30 years for this research. And you are spending 30 minutes to come up with your "conclusions". And you arent trained in revelant studies...
So you're impressed that some people spent 30 years studying something? People have been trying to "prove" racist theories for over 100 years. People spent several hundred hears "proving" the earth was flat. The amount of time spent working on something is not proof that the conclusions are right. I'm not dismissing your studies without reading them first -- I'm just telling you that trumpeting the length of the study is not proving anything for you.

The fact that you define a 30 year study as myth without providing links for a counter study shows the huge amount of your bias.
And no, I've never claimed I'm qualified. I quoted the conclusions of scientists, linked studies. But you are making conlusions yourself, as if you are some kinda scientist concluding a 10 year study. Do you understand the difference between these 2 approaches?
And do you understand that you are not dealing with separate critics each acting by themselves, in a vacuum as it were? You are facing a team of opponents, not several different and separate ones. I don't have to present evidence because others already have and I can use their comments to support mine. This is why you have to read the entire thread, to see how the various comments connect with each other. Your apparent inability to do this is one of the reasons why you consistently fail to carry your arguments.

That plus the fact that your arguments are crap. Blacks are dumber than whites? Please. That shit is so old, even the KKK avoids it nowadays.

But I would like to point out one victory for reality:

You: "And no, I've never claimed I'm qualified."

Thank you for admitting at last that you have no special qualifications in this area. Now, based on this, will you quit trying to dismiss your opponents as being not qualified to argue with you?

Or if you think people have to have qualifications to present arguments, will you quit posting these threads? No, that's too much to ask. I'll be satisfied if you just quit trying to use it against others.

1) Once again with the insults? "That was very stupid"...? I notice your insult is also connected to (yet another) deceit... I didn't say "3 critical comments debunks the study". I did point out that three of four comments given were critical. THAT proportion certainly raises questions.

I wasnt insulting you. I was saying what you said was stupid. As in the sentences you said rather than you. And I still think what you said is stupid.


1) It WAS rejected in peer review. Of the four accompanying opinions, three are critical. Is this really that hard to understand?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11018391&postcount=402

Throughout this thread you've been acting like 3 critical comments debunks the study. This claim is stupid. You dont even know IF they rejected the whole study. They might have been just critical of 1 point out of 10 points. But we dont know because you failed to provide a quote of their criticism. Furthermore their criticism is answered. You arent qualified enough to know if authors debunked the criticism.


2) You keep saying weird things like: "Notice, how, unqualified people like you think it's more environment..." and yet, of the two of us, I am the one with the science-education, and still working in the science field.

I have to assume, then - that you say it to make yourself feel better.


I remember you being in chemisty? You are unqualified in genetic studies, iq studies, social studies and revelant stuff. You might know the chemical make up of genes, but you got no idea how it effects iq and other stuff. So if you think you can claim that this study is worthless without backing your claims with quotes or links of a counter study, but just by yourself, you are suffering from delusions of grandeur. It is also very arrogant to assume you debunked this study with an hour thinking while the study took 30 years by people much more qualified people than you.



3) Curiously, once again,l you are in conflict with your own sources:

You say: "Notice, how, unqualified people like you think it's more environment..."

But, your source says: "Measures of expertise or eminence accounted for little or no variation in responses".

I'm beginning to think you don't even read your OWN 'sources'.

4) How you think journalists and editors are a valid catchment for peer-review, I don't know. The 'IQ experts' MIGHT be 'expert witnesses' on IQ, but I fail to see what application you think that might have to genetics or environment.

5) The other source you provide admits that 35% of those asked refused to respond. It also CLEARLY says that those who were asked were likely to have somev experience with IQ criteria, but NOT expertise in race.

Why do you insist on producing sources that get their figures from unrelated disciplines???

I can answer that one for you - it's because those with an expertise in race think your claims are racist bullshit.

6) Even if that study HAD been valid - the amount of people backing your evil agenda, would be those claiming that IQ was dependent on race - which would be the "The difference is entirely due to genetic variation" option - which was... how popular?: 1% (8 respondents from more than a THOUSAND).


I checked the other thread and you sure were suggesting they must have left out the effects of diet in their study. This silly claim shows that you havent read the study itself.
When did I suggest it was ONLY genetic? The title of the study I pasted says at least 50% genetic (the rest is environmental factors.) So are you are criticising a study that you havent even read its title, its summary and yeah itself. WOW. WHAT A BIAS!!!

In a 1988 survey, journalists, editors, and IQ experts were asked their "opinion of the source of the black-white difference in IQ" Snyderman and Rothman 1988
Group Entirely Environment Entirely Genetic Both Data Are Insufficient
Journalists 34% 1% 27% 38%
Editors 47% 2% 23% 28%
IQ Experts 17% 1% 53% 28%


Do you see "both" there? the 3rd percentage group. As you can see the majority of IQ experts believe it's both genetic and environment. Only 17% thinks it's only environment. However 34% and 47% of journalists and editors think it's only environment. Hence unqualified people like you think it's purely environmental (diet, culture, etc....) while the majority of experts disagrees.

Oh an evil agenda? :rolleyes: So it's "evil" to be anti-immigrant but it's "good" to be pro-immigrant? Most westerners acknowledge that immigrants do the jobs locals wont do. So it's "good" to let them do the dirt work? It's "good" to let big companies exploit them as cheap labour? It's "good" to let qualified people immigrate from 3rd world, hence damaging their chance of develpment? Is it also "good" when immigrants abuse welfare state. In many european countries immigrants get more then they contribute. (This is true, for ex: check the case of Holland and Denmark) So if our economies goes bankrupt, who'll even send aid already being sent? I know it's little but it's something. And we are letting massive immigration for decades but poor countries are still poor. So immigration is not working for the majority (the people that stay in their own countries) Besides my anti-immigration views comes with much more aid to developing countries. But these things wont fit your black&white world vision. You are always the "good guy" and anyone disagreeing with you is the "bad guy". How simplistic. You remind me of George Bush. Are going to call me axis of evil as well?


Once again, I need to look no further than the 'evidence' you claim, to show that you misunderstand, misrepresent, and deliberately misinterpret what you find - to try to match some racial prejudice agenda.

Seriously, my friend... you are doing my work for me.

You continue to discredit yourself more and more thoroughly.

Umm right. You havent argued anything but "peer review". You havent answered my questions in my last posts. You havent proved any of your claims yourself...

Let's simplify the problem with this study. Since you only address qualified sources. Three of four who are qualified to be considered peer-review did not accept the study as credible. They were critical of the study. That means, not critical of the conclusion, but critical of the methodology. That means the study did not survive peer-review and needs to be republished. Claiming the critiques were answered still leaves the study as not having passed peer-review.

However, don't take my word for it, Ny. Simply explain here what peer-review means and what is required in order for a study to be considered a credible, peer-reviewed source? You're studying engineering so you should know it. Please explain, because you're replies to GnI suggest otherwise.

Well, we dont publish studies in 1st year. It's math, phsyics, basic stuff...
Maybe you'd like to explain how "critical commentary" means rejecting all of the methodology and accepting the whole study as uncredible?

Hmm I would, but I'm afraid you'd just give me indigestion. You're not my type. Ny, now him I'd "eat", and swallow too. ;)

Chill...

I wasnt insulting you. I was saying what you said was stupid. As in the sentences you said rather than you. And I still think what you said is stupid.


You constantly resort to insults, and this kind of "I'm not answering it, because it's stupid' approach.

The fact is - whether or not YOU find my posts stupid, is unlikely to cost me sleep at nights.

And insulting the poster, or attempting to trivialise the post - is NOT an argument.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11018391&postcount=402

Throughout this thread you've been acting like 3 critical comments debunks the study. This claim is stupid. You dont even know IF they rejected the whole study. They might have been just critical of 1 point out of 10 points. But we dont know because you failed to provide a quote of their criticism. Furthermore their criticism is answered. You arent qualified enough to know if authors debunked the criticism.


No. I really haven't

You have - once again - stated 'my position' dishonestly.

I have argued that, if a peice of evidence undergoes a peer review, and is criticised by three out of every four people who critique it, it is likely flawed.


I remember you being in chemisty? You are unqualified in genetic studies, iq studies, social studies and revelant stuff. You might know the chemical make up of genes, but you got no idea how it effects iq and other stuff. So if you think you can claim that this study is worthless without backing your claims with quotes or links of a counter study, but just by yourself, you are suffering from delusions of grandeur. It is also very arrogant to assume you debunked this study with an hour thinking while the study took 30 years by people much more qualified people than you.


You assume that just because I STUDIED Chemistry, I must somehow be immune to other science? I still work in sciences... I still study science... I still follow the sciences... I have even continued gaining 'science-related' qualifications

You assume too much, my friend.

As a working scientist, I do understand peer review... and, in THIS case, peer review does not support the racist agenda.


I checked the other thread and you sure were suggesting they must have left out the effects of diet in their study. This silly claim shows that you havent read the study itself.
When did I suggest it was ONLY genetic? The title of the study I pasted says at least 50% genetic (the rest is environmental factors.) So are you are criticising a study that you havent even read its title, its summary and yeah itself. WOW. WHAT A BIAS!!!



The claim isn't silly. Their coverage of diet was dismissive, and short-sighted. They made no allowances for childhood nutrition, or pre-birth nutrition, for example.


Do you see "both" there? the 3rd percentage group. As you can see the majority of IQ experts believe it's both genetic and environment. Only 17% thinks it's only environment. However 34% and 47% of journalists and editors think it's only environment. Hence unqualified people like you think it's purely environmental (diet, culture, etc....) while the majority of experts disagrees.

Oh an evil agenda? :rolleyes: So it's "evil" to be anti-immigrant but it's "good" to be pro-immigrant? Most westerners acknowledge that immigrants do the jobs locals wont do. So it's "good" to let them do the dirt work? It's "good" to let big companies exploit them as cheap labour? It's "good" to let qualified people immigrate from 3rd world, hence damaging their chance of develpment? Is it also "good" when immigrants abuse welfare state. In many european countries immigrants get more then they contribute. (This is true, for ex: check the case of Holland and Denmark) So if our economies goes bankrupt, who'll even send aid already being sent? I know it's little but it's something. And we are letting massive immigration for decades but poor countries are still poor. So immigration is not working for the majority (the people that stay in their own countries) Besides my anti-immigration views comes with much more aid to developing countries. But these things wont fit your black&white world vision. You are always the "good guy" and anyone disagreeing with you is the "bad guy". How simplistic. You remind me of George Bush. Are going to call me axis of evil as well?


Journalists are not 'experts'. IQ specialists are not experts on race, genetics or nutrition, etc.

You are attempting to argue as though there were some unified arena of support... and it just isn't there.



Umm right. You havent argued anything but "peer review". You havent answered my questions in my last posts. You havent proved any of your claims yourself...

I don't need to 'prove any claims'... I'm not the one who presented the (fatally flawed) 'research', or tried to defend it. As a skeptic, all I have to do is question... and you have failed to answer any of those questions.

Well, we dont publish studies in 1st year. It's math, phsyics, basic stuff...


An admission that your knowledge of science lacks even an understanding of peer review.

And these show why you are biased and a close minded sheep in this matter. You are also very dogmatic. You label something racist then dismiss it. This dogmatic approach is common. You'd be rejecting that Earth isnt flat if you lived a couple centuries before. And you'd be calling those studies blasphemous (as you label a scientific study racist), and you'd reject it, not because you think about it but because you label it blasphemous


okay, lets get some things straight,I am doublting the scientific quality of your source, saying that 30 years of study proves its right is not enough to back a source up-there were 2-300 years of scientific study showing the earth was flat, there were over 30 years of scientific study that the nazi's used to back up their racist claims.
I was also not so much criticism of the science-I agree there are more differences within humans than skin colour such as predisposition to disease-what I was complaining about is people like you using this science to further your own racist aims.As far as im concerned the study uses racial steriotyping, culture education and diet are fair enough reasons for a difference between regional iq levels, claiming that certain'races' have lower iq than others is just stupid.Have i got a lower iq than my boyfriend just because he is chinese and I am a white italian, I dont think so.Iq is dependant on individuals.
If you are wondering why there are so many personal attacks on you, it is not because people are biased, it is because people are repulsed by your racist attitude and the fact that you are trying to suggest that certain races are superior in intelligence than others. Maybe if you argued more coherently than there would not be so many criticisms of you as a person.Nobody is disputing that there are more differences between people than just skin colour, they are just disputing the idea you seem to be presenting that one 'race' is superior to another and the fact that you are highlighting these differences for some racist agenda.If you are not suggesting one 'race' is superior to another then I am sorry,I have misunderstood you-but why start this thread if you were not saying this.

Supremacy charges are on big sale this season. Everyone seems to be throwing it. How come I was arguing supremacy? If blacks got lower iq, does it mean they are inferior? No, because intelligence isnt the only thing. Is Stephan Hawking superior than 99.9% of humanity? Certainly not, especially in his wheel chair. I respect him but he's not superior.
Btw blacks are very successful at athletics as most branches are dominated by them. So saying blacks are good at sports is racist? Supremacists? Asians are a bit smarter than whites too, does it mean they are superior to whites? Not to me, because I find most of them unattractive and the ones that are kinda attractive or attractive are less goodlooking than whites. So to me, they are not superior, because looks matter to me. Of course there are other stuff like imminue system etc...
Whatever. Why I did this thread wasnt because arguing supremacy. But to debunk this belief in NS:


It's just skin colour. We are all same. We are human race!!


It's not only skin colour, we arent all same and humanity isnt a race but species. This myth, that is used by many, is stupid, ignorant and most importantly incorrect. And I think this thread (given the poll) proved it. That was my aim.
Now, the summer is here, and it's getting harder and more boring to discuss these issues in such a great weather. So all of you excuse me if I answer your posts late. And Have a nice summer. I might continue my "racist" (!!) threads once the summer is over, this one will be the last one for awhile.

So to me, they are not superior, because looks matter to me.


Believe it or not, we worked THAT part out...


Now, the summer is here, and it's getting harder and more boring to discuss these issues in such a great weather. So all of you excuse me if I answer your posts late. And Have a nice summer. I might continue my "racist" (!!) threads once the summer is over, this one will be the last one for awhile.

In other words, you got fed up with the fact that NSers are, in general, too well-informed to accept your racist manifesto bullshit, so you are going to go look for easier pickings?

Chill...
Ugh, no fun...mais s'il te plait. :p

Well, we dont publish studies in 1st year. It's math, phsyics, basic stuff...
Maybe you'd like to explain how "critical commentary" means rejecting all of the methodology and accepting the whole study as uncredible?

The study did not stand up to criticism. If I wrote a paper that failed among 75% of my peers because of questions on methodology, I'd be embarrassed and fighting to keep my job. Particularly if my study was as badly done as this.

Meanwhile, you still fail to answer the criticisms in this thread with anything more than "I don't understand what you're talking about so I'll just call you unqualified". We know and you know that you don't understand our criticisms well enough to answer them and that's why the study seems reasonable to you. The study was flawed and thtat is why it got the response it did in the scientific community. 3 out of 4 people didn't accept the results due to flaws in methodology.

Supremacy charges are on big sale this season. Everyone seems to be throwing it. How come I was arguing supremacy? If blacks got lower iq, does it mean they are inferior? No, because intelligence isnt the only thing. Is Stephan Hawking superior than 99.9% of humanity? Certainly not, especially in his wheel chair. I respect him but he's not superior.
Btw blacks are very successful at athletics as most branches are dominated by them. So saying blacks are good at sports is racist? Supremacists? Asians are a bit smarter than whites too, does it mean they are superior to whites? Not to me, because I find most of them unattractive and the ones that are kinda attractive or attractive are less goodlooking than whites. So to me, they are not superior, because looks matter to me. Of course there are other stuff like imminue system etc...
Whatever. Why I did this thread wasnt because arguing supremacy. But to debunk this belief in NS:



It's not only skin colour, we arent all same and humanity isnt a race but species. This myth, that is used by many, is stupid, ignorant and most importantly incorrect. And I think this thread (given the poll) proved it. That was my aim.
Now, the summer is here, and it's getting harder and more boring to discuss these issues in such a great weather. So all of you excuse me if I answer your posts late. And Have a nice summer. I might continue my "racist" (!!) threads once the summer is over, this one will be the last one for awhile.

Aw darn. Less racism and threads based on flawed data. I'm so disappointed.

Aw darn. Less racism and threads based on flawed data. I'm so disappointed.
Really? I'm honestly thrilled at the prospect. Back to Stormfront with 'im.

Really? I'm honestly thrilled at the prospect. Back to Stormfront with 'im.

Ny Nordland doesnt belong on Stormfront, at all.

Ny Nordland doesnt belong on Stormfront, at all.
Definitely not.

Really? I'm honestly thrilled at the prospect. Back to Stormfront with 'im.

Yeah, even I think that's an exaggeration. Not all racism is equal. Nordland is just confused.

All I have to say is that people with pale skin and a face with features common and generally unique to those with African heritage (wide, flat nose, large lips, etc) look strange to me. So, race is obviously based on features other than skin color. But I knew that anyway. (most apparent example: the eyes of North Asians, who have a skin color very similar to Caucasians anyway)

"It's not only skin colour, we arent all same and humanity isnt a race but species. This myth, that is used by many, is stupid, ignorant and most importantly incorrect. And I think this thread (given the poll) proved it. That was my aim."

And?

You constantly resort to insults, and this kind of "I'm not answering it, because it's stupid' approach.

The fact is - whether or not YOU find my posts stupid, is unlikely to cost me sleep at nights.

And insulting the poster, or attempting to trivialise the post - is NOT an argument.

No. I really haven't

You have - once again - stated 'my position' dishonestly.

I have argued that, if a peice of evidence undergoes a peer review, and is criticised by three out of every four people who critique it, it is likely flawed.



You assume that just because I STUDIED Chemistry, I must somehow be immune to other science? I still work in sciences... I still study science... I still follow the sciences... I have even continued gaining 'science-related' qualifications

You assume too much, my friend.

As a working scientist, I do understand peer review... and, in THIS case, peer review does not support the racist agenda.


You are attempting to argue as though there were some unified arena of support... and it just isn't there.




I don't need to 'prove any claims'... I'm not the one who presented the (fatally flawed) 'research', or tried to defend it. As a skeptic, all I have to do is question... and you have failed to answer any of those questions.

Questions? What questions? All you argued was peer review. That's hardly plural. And again, I ask u to prove how "critical comments" means they disapproved all of the study and/or methodology...,


The claim isn't silly. Their coverage of diet was dismissive, and short-sighted. They made no allowances for childhood nutrition, or pre-birth nutrition, for example.


The mean Black–White IQ difference in the United States of 85 versus 100
can be, and has been, explained both by the hereditarian model (in terms of some
genetic difference) and by the culture-only model (in terms of nutrition, poverty,
SES, family structure, schooling, racism, and the legacy of slavery). Hence,
initially we were inclined to give both the hereditarian model and the culture-only
model a score of ( ). The hereditarian model, however, also predicted that the
same pattern would be found worldwide, with lower scores for sub-Saharan
Africa than for Black Americans, and that the differences would also be found on
culture-fair tests and on reaction time tasks that measure the speed and efficiency
with which the brain processes information (and which all children can perform
in less than 1 s). These predictions were confirmed. The culture-only hypothesis
is disconfirmed by the differences on culture-fair and reaction time tests. Nor can
the culture-only model easily explain why the East Asian average IQ of 106 is
higher than the average White IQ, including on these same speed-of-processing
tasks. Within the United States, the mean Black–White group difference in IQ has
not changed significantly over the past 100 years despite significant improvements
in the conditions of Black Americans. The same magnitude of difference is
observed as early as age 2 1⁄2 years. Our score for Section 3: hereditarian model
( ); culture-only model (–).



Journalists are not 'experts'. IQ specialists are not experts on race, genetics or nutrition, etc.


Yeah, journalists arent experts hence more of them think it's purely environmental in the poll, that was my point...Their editors are even more ignorant. And both of them misrepresent the facts (media brainwashing)


A 2004 study found widespread and systematic research misinterpretation regarding one of the more popular explanations for the IQ gap.[28] Introducing stereotype threat to a test-taking environment has been shown to increase the existing gap between Blacks or Whites in relation to Whites or Asians respectively, and has thus been offered as a potential contributor to the gap.[29] However, 88% of accounts in the popular media, 91% in scientific journals, and 67% in psychology textbooks misinterpreted the findings as that eliminating the introduced stereotype threat eliminated the Black-White gap, when in fact the students had already been matched according to prior scores.[30] The authors suggest the appeal of the misinterpreted findings may have been a factor, and that such research results in general may in this way be systemically more readily accepted.[31]


As for expert opinion...


In a 1987 survey of scholars in specialties related to IQ in Education, Psychology, Sociology, and Cognitive Science, given four choices, 52.9% of respondents supported the "partly genetic" position, 1.2% of respondents supported the "entirely genetic" position, 17.7% supported the "entirely environmental" position, and 28.2% responded that there was insufficient data "to support any reasonable opinion"[87]. Respondents on average called themselves slightly left of center politically, but political and social opinions accounted for less than 10% of the variation in responses.


There seems to be no newer survey? Political Correctness requires censorship perhaps?


Supporters of race and intelligence research have accused other scientists of suppressing scientific debate for political purposes. Behavioral geneticist Glayde Whitney argued in his controversial 1995 presidential address to the Behavior Genetics Association that suppression of debate on both individual and group hereditary differences has occurred as a result of a larger ideology of "environmental determinism for all important human traits ... [a] 'Marxist-Lysenkoist' denial of genetics."[7]

Scientists who openly support the hereditary hypothesis have in a number of occurrences faced harassment and interference with their work or funding. Critic of race science William H. Tucker considers these events to be unjustified, "intolerable violation of academic freedom” (Tucker 2002). When J. Phillipe Rushton was being censured by superiors at his University of Western Ontario in 1989 "despite," as Tucker notes, "being the recipient of a prestigious Guggenheim fellowship and having one of the most productive records of peer-reviewed publication in his department," even notable scientists who had criticized his work, such as James Flynn and Jack Block, wrote to the university on his behalf (Tucker 2002).

The study did not stand up to criticism. If I wrote a paper that failed among 75% of my peers because of questions on methodology, I'd be embarrassed and fighting to keep my job. Particularly if my study was as badly done as this.

Meanwhile, you still fail to answer the criticisms in this thread with anything more than "I don't understand what you're talking about so I'll just call you unqualified". We know and you know that you don't understand our criticisms well enough to answer them and that's why the study seems reasonable to you. The study was flawed and thtat is why it got the response it did in the scientific community. 3 out of 4 people didn't accept the results due to flaws in methodology.

You misrepresent the facts. 75% of peers? That sounds like 75% of ALL scientists rejected it rather than the opinions of 3 people in the PUBLISHED study. I again ask you as well how "critical comments" means they rejected ALL of methodology...

All I have to say is that people with pale skin and a face with features common and generally unique to those with African heritage (wide, flat nose, large lips, etc) look strange to me. So, race is obviously based on features other than skin color. But I knew that anyway. (most apparent example: the eyes of North Asians, who have a skin color very similar to Caucasians anyway)

Where from? I guess somewhere in E. Europe, from your nick...Baltics?

Questions? What questions? All you argued was peer review. That's hardly plural. And again, I ask u to prove how "critical comments" means they disapproved all of the study and/or methodology...,







Yeah, journalists arent experts hence more of them think it's purely environmental in the poll, that was my point...Their editors are even more ignorant. And both of them misrepresent the facts (media brainwashing)



As for expert opinion...



There seems to be no newer survey? Political Correctness requires censorship perhaps?

Wow, it's amazing how one can manage to only see what he wants to see. I notice that the part outside the bolding points out that scientists supported him (writing the university on his behalf, even though they were critical of his work) while administrators didn't (his superiors). You think that's unique to science? You really must be young.

Meanwhile, the study you actually presented failed peer review. Peer review reviews methodology, it's not a question of whether one likes the conclusion. Yes, the fact that it failed peer review means there was a problem in methodology and invalidates the conclusion. And in peer review, I can't just say I don't like it. I write a review that says specifically what problems I saw in the methodology, the beginning assumptions and the way the conclusion was drawn. It's a review of the science. You haven't answered those problems and, in fact, you've adequately demonstrated that you don't understand the actual problem of a peer review failure.

Meanwhile, you further advocate conspiracy theories by presenting information not related to the peer review to SUGGEST (with no real evidence) that perhaps the problem is one of politics. Unfortunately, it's a completely weak case. It's like showing that because the majority of scientists in the US are Christians and Jews that evolution must be affected by Creation. You've haven't linked them at all.

Conspiracy theories don't help your case, Nordland, and give further evidence that you are simply willing to accept anything you think supports your case unchewed while coughing up all rational evidence to the contrary.

You misrepresent the facts. 75% of peers? That sounds like 75% of ALL scientists rejected it rather than the opinions of 3 people in the PUBLISHED study. I again ask you as well how "critical comments" means they rejected ALL of methodology...

It might sound like that to you, but that's because you don't understand what peer review is. No one ever gets reviewed by all scientists or even a large sampling. 75% of reviewers rejected the study. That's implied in my statement to anyone who understands how peer review works.

Meanwhile, where did I say ALL. If some of the methodology does not stand up that proves that the study was flawed and the conclusion is unrealiable. It doesnt' mean he has to throw out all of his work. It means he needs to address the critiques and try again. You haven't presented a published study that shows these/this scientist(s) did that. Instead, you've presented a flawed study that didn't stand up to peer review. That means the conclusion is not going to be accepted by anyone who actually gets how the process works. That's not an assumption. That's a fact.

Why is this thread still hanging on? I got called away by reality for a few days, and when I come back, I find only two pages added -- and from the content, I'm wondering how you all managed that much. The argument has clearly devolved down to wrestling with Ny's obstinacy again, and I think we've learned by now how pointless that is.

Ny, I promised I would show you where in this thread your earlier claims were debunked by other posters. However, I am very busy in the real world right now and don't have time to do the reading, and the point doesn't seem relevant anymore. The argument has meandered on. I will do it if you still want me to, but not today. I have family stuff to do. It may be a day or two before I can get to it.

Do we still care? Do we think this thread will still be alive in 2 days?

Why is this thread still hanging on? I got called away by reality for a few days, and when I come back, I find only two pages added -- and from the content, I'm wondering how you all managed that much. The argument has clearly devolved down to wrestling with Ny's obstinacy again, and I think we've learned by now how pointless that is.

Ny, I promised I would show you where in this thread your earlier claims were debunked by other posters. However, I am very busy in the real world right now and don't have time to do the reading, and the point doesn't seem relevant anymore. The argument has meandered on. I will do it if you still want me to, but not today. I have family stuff to do. It may be a day or two before I can get to it.

Do we still care? Do we think this thread will still be alive in 2 days?

Those of us who have followed the thread have seen the evidence for your claims. Do you honestly think there is any evidence you can present that will even slightly modify Nordland's position? As of yet, I've seen even the clearest and most compelling of evidence waved away by Nordland with little more than completely misrepresenting it and then pretending like that somehow addresses the issue. Honestly. If you're busy, why bother? It's a waste of your time. It's entertaining, of course, but you've better things to do. Enjoy your time with your family and don't worry about it.

Those of us who have followed the thread have seen the evidence for your claims. Do you honestly think there is any evidence you can present that will even slightly modify Nordland's position? As of yet, I've seen even the clearest and most compelling of evidence waved away by Nordland with little more than completely misrepresenting it and then pretending like that somehow addresses the issue. Honestly. If you're busy, why bother? It's a waste of your time. It's entertaining, of course, but you've better things to do. Enjoy your time with your family and don't worry about it.
No, of course, I don't think it's possible to change Ny's mind (obvious jokes permitted ;)). I just don't feel comfortable saying I'm going to do something and then just not doing it. If he wants me to post yet another way in which he is wrong, I will, but it will be an empty gesture at this point.

Oh, and I am definitely enjoying my family time. We're having fabulous weather after weeks of rain in Massachusetts, and it's the holiday weekend, and we're all basking in the fresh air and sunshine. :cool:

Wow, it's amazing how one can manage to only see what he wants to see. I notice that the part outside the bolding points out that scientists supported him (writing the university on his behalf, even though they were critical of his work) while administrators didn't (his superiors). You think that's unique to science? You really must be young.

Meanwhile, the study you actually presented failed peer review. Peer review reviews methodology, it's not a question of whether one likes the conclusion. Yes, the fact that it failed peer review means there was a problem in methodology and invalidates the conclusion. And in peer review, I can't just say I don't like it. I write a review that says specifically what problems I saw in the methodology, the beginning assumptions and the way the conclusion was drawn. It's a review of the science. You haven't answered those problems and, in fact, you've adequately demonstrated that you don't understand the actual problem of a peer review failure.

Meanwhile, you further advocate conspiracy theories by presenting information not related to the peer review to SUGGEST (with no real evidence) that perhaps the problem is one of politics. Unfortunately, it's a completely weak case. It's like showing that because the majority of scientists in the US are Christians and Jews that evolution must be affected by Creation. You've haven't linked them at all.

Conspiracy theories don't help your case, Nordland, and give further evidence that you are simply willing to accept anything you think supports your case unchewed while coughing up all rational evidence to the contrary.

Ok, basically you and GnI were arguing that this study is worthless because of the opinions of 3 people. This claim is rather stupid. Peer review isnt the ultimate authority. There are criticisms of peer review as well:


In addition, some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy. The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream'" theories. Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, elite scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. As a result, it has been argued, ideas that harmonize with the elite's are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones, which accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.



While some believe passing the peer-review process is a certification of validity, those who study that process often hold a far more skeptical view. Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986. [1]. We still don't know how well the peer-review process works, he says, although one thing is clear: "There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print." [2]


Here are the critisizms:

http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/295-2.html (THERE ARE NO PUBLIC-POLICY IMPLICATIONS)

http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/302-2.html (HEREDITY, ENVIRONMENT, AND RACE DIFFERENCES IN IQ)

http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/320-2.html (THE CULTURAL MALLEABILITY OF INTELLIGENCE AND ITS IMPACT ON THE RACIAL/ETHNIC HIERARCHY)

The author's answer:

http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/328-2.html (WANTED
MORE RACE REALISM, LESS MORALISTIC FALLACY)

Again, neither you nor GnI is qualified enough to conclude that this study has been debunked. The criticism were answered and you can not conclude which side is correct. The critisizm itself might have been dubunked. You gotta link me some scientific consensuss.

No, of course, I don't think it's possible to change Ny's mind (obvious jokes permitted ;)). I just don't feel comfortable saying I'm going to do something and then just not doing it. If he wants me to post yet another way in which he is wrong, I will, but it will be an empty gesture at this point.

Oh, and I am definitely enjoying my family time. We're having fabulous weather after weeks of rain in Massachusetts, and it's the holiday weekend, and we're all basking in the fresh air and sunshine. :cool:

LOL. I think the same thing about you guys. That your mind can not be changed at all...

edit: Enjoy the weather when you can. The "peer review" thing is being addressed.

LOL. I think the same thing about you guys. That your mind can not be changed at all...

edit: Enjoy the weather when you can. The "peer review" thing is being addressed.
Bene. If you guys are still fencing with each other by Wednesday, I'll jump back in. Maybe by then, I'll have had time to do with the stuff you just posted, above, what I was going to do with the old stuff. Thanks for the fresh material.

Bene. If you guys are still fencing with each other by Wednesday, I'll jump back in. Maybe by then, I'll have had time to do with the stuff you just posted, above, what I was going to do with the old stuff. Thanks for the fresh material.

Are you thanking me? I thought we were in a blood feud? :D

Ok, basically you and GnI were arguing that this study is worthless because of the opinions of 3 people. This claim is rather stupid. Peer review isnt the ultimate authority. There are criticisms of peer review as well:





Here are the critisizms:

http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/295-2.html (THERE ARE NO PUBLIC-POLICY IMPLICATIONS)

http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/302-2.html (HEREDITY, ENVIRONMENT, AND RACE DIFFERENCES IN IQ)

http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/320-2.html (THE CULTURAL MALLEABILITY OF INTELLIGENCE AND ITS IMPACT ON THE RACIAL/ETHNIC HIERARCHY)

The author's answer:

http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/328-2.html (WANTED
MORE RACE REALISM, LESS MORALISTIC FALLACY)

Again, neither you nor GnI is qualified enough to conclude that this study has been debunked. The criticism were answered and you can not conclude which side is correct. The critisizm itself might have been dubunked. You gotta link me some scientific consensuss.

I'm gonna let this stand on its own. I believe you've made my case for me. Yes, the argument is that bad. I have enough faith in my fellow reader to see the utter flaw in your conspiracy theories. Yes, peer-review is flawed. However, it is the ONLY way we currently have to determine whether a study has scientific flaws. This study has a plethora of them. Some we've presented to you which your only reply was "You're not qualified". Meanwhile, the people who ARE qualified also came to the conclusion we did.

I'll show one huge flaw in this type of study. It analyzes correlation as a justification for badly grouping people. Correlation is not the same as causation.

For example, perhaps I do a study on obesity and IQ. It's highly likely that if I did such a study because a number of factors that I would find some small difference in IQ between the obese and the non-obese. Some difference in cranial capacity. And a number of other factors that I could claim show some form of relationship, but the flaw is that those differences account for less of a difference than one would expect to see in other more sensible groupings (which is what has been presented to you several times).

Pick the grouping. Liberal and conservative posters on NS would likely have similar differences in such things. The study uses no control groupings to show this is more than just what one would expect to see in any social grouping.

That's just one of many criticisms throughout this thread you haven't addressed. And you can't. Know why? The study is flawed. Everyone here can see but you. The fact that sometimes peer review fails doesn't change the fact that 3 out of 4 reviewers found it flawed. Conspiracy theories aside, no one would consider this a valid study.

Are you thanking me? I thought we were in a blood feud? :D

As I said earlier, I don't think you're Hitler and I imagine M doesn't think so either. You're just a young kid whose been scrubbed by some ideologies and is confused. When you're ready to actually view the evidence, these threads will likely be quite amusing to you as well.

By the way, did you show your analysis of the population data to any of your professors? There must be someone you deem qualified in your university, no?

Where from? I guess somewhere in E. Europe, from your nick...Baltics?

No, I'm actually from Massachusetts.

Ok, basically you and GnI were arguing that this study is worthless because of the opinions of 3 people. This claim is rather stupid. Peer review isnt the ultimate authority. There are criticisms of peer review as well:

Here are the critisizms:

http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/295-2.html (THERE ARE NO PUBLIC-POLICY IMPLICATIONS)

http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/302-2.html (HEREDITY, ENVIRONMENT, AND RACE DIFFERENCES IN IQ)

http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/320-2.html (THE CULTURAL MALLEABILITY OF INTELLIGENCE AND ITS IMPACT ON THE RACIAL/ETHNIC HIERARCHY)

The author's answer:

http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/328-2.html (WANTED
MORE RACE REALISM, LESS MORALISTIC FALLACY)

Again, neither you nor GnI is qualified enough to conclude that this study has been debunked. The criticism were answered and you can not conclude which side is correct. The critisizm itself might have been dubunked. You gotta link me some scientific consensuss.

The three critical responses are not deflated by the wishes of the author.

The simple fact that three of four reviewers found SIGNIFICANT cause for concern in the study, should be considered a strong indicator that the methodology is visibly flawed... or that the results should - at the VERY least - be considered in context of heavy mitigation.

Those claims do not get put aside JUST because the author says they consider such criticisms unfair.

As it is - the article cited has four peer reviews. Three are heavily critical. If you believe that is an unfair sample - the onus is on YOU to provide sampling evidence that agrees with you.


Also - I work in the sciences. You, unless you have misrepresented yourself - do not. Which of us is better 'qualified' to debate peer review?

well technically we are all the same "race" and no i dont mean species i mean "race" we all came from the middle east and africa region some maybe even indian but women are considered minorities as well.

I'm too lazy to work my way through 32 pages to see if someone else made this point -

Those pictures you displayed aren't albino. Albino's have WHITE hair, RED eyes.

These are either black people with white makeup on them, which it looks like or computer generated, which I am not going to rule out.

To make these statements that race is more than just skin color is ignorant and racist. Scientist HAVE found that the only difference genetically among people is the skin color. Nothing else. A white person can have the "black nose" just like a black person can be thin-lipped. There is no difference in intelligence, nor physical ability. Stereotypes have created these myths that Asians are better at math, Indians are good doctors, Blacks are atheletic, Native Americans are drunks, and Whites are "da man".

The three critical responses are not deflated by the wishes of the author.

The simple fact that three of four reviewers found SIGNIFICANT cause for concern in the study, should be considered a strong indicator that the methodology is visibly flawed... or that the results should - at the VERY least - be considered in context of heavy mitigation.

Those claims do not get put aside JUST because the author says they consider such criticisms unfair.

As it is - the article cited has four peer reviews. Three are heavily critical. If you believe that is an unfair sample - the onus is on YOU to provide sampling evidence that agrees with you.


Also - I work in the sciences. You, unless you have misrepresented yourself - do not. Which of us is better 'qualified' to debate peer review?
Have you noticed how this goes further and further down the road of a conspiracy? "Sometimes peer review is unfair, so this peer review is unfair." "You guys just reject the evidence because you belief the myth that race doesn't exist." "It's the scientific community trying to suppress the evidence."

Meanwhile, he keeps calling for 'qualified" people, and the "qualified" people have majoritively rejected this evidence. It's amazing how qualifications are all that matter until it hurts his argument. When it's a discussion of us, qualifications make you automatically right.

Have you noticed how this goes further and further down the road of a conspiracy? "Sometimes peer review is unfair, so this peer review is unfair." "You guys just reject the evidence because you belief the myth that race doesn't exist." "It's the scientific community trying to suppress the evidence."

Meanwhile, he keeps calling for 'qualified" people, and the "qualified" people have majoritively rejected this evidence. It's amazing how qualifications are all that matter until it hurts his argument. When it's a discussion of us, qualifications make you automatically right.

I'm almost to the point of letting it stew in it's own juices... I'm now only really 'fighting this fight', so that people aren't left with some poor-quality, flawed-science racist platform looking like it has been 'vindicated'.

Curiously... I've actually tried googling some of the assertions and phrasings Ny makes... like 'albino blacks' and 'Black White IQ'... that kind of thing. I'm just trying to work out what 'route' leads Ny to his evidence sources... and I keep ending up at Stormfront, or at racial superiority platforms like National Vanguard, that make almost identical claims to Ny - with similarly poor grasp of the 'science' behind it:

"The bell curves describing the distribution of IQ (and also other characteristics) within each race do overlap. And it is true, as the multiracialists say, that the distance from one extreme to the other on each curve is often greater than the average distance between the curves.

So, since the bell curve describing White IQ goes from, say 50 on the extreme low end, to say 150 on the extreme high end; and since the Black IQ curve is only 15 or 20 points below the White curve on average; it is therefore true to say that the maximum difference possible between White IQs (100 points) is much greater than the average difference between Blacks and Whites (15 points).

But that statement is quite deceptive, unless you at the same time relate that living in a Black society -- which would have a tiny fraction of the geniuses, and many times more borderline morons -- is vastly different from living in a White society".

http://nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=7599

See how it fails to account for the cultural loading of the testing? See how it equates 'IQ' with 'intelligence'. See how it ignores factors like spatial awareness as a contributing factor... how different mindsets affect HOW we analyse patterns... which have largely been concluded as artifacts of CULTURE, rather than race (e.g. in Western culture, we might apply 'systematic' processes - we look for progressions, and remember sequences - but sub-Saharan cultures are more likely to look at a general approach - looking for completeness, and remembering the entirety).

Ny uses the same fallacies in his arguments... and fails to see the same flaws.

Bill Nye says it's just skin color. So he must be right.

Bill Nye says it's just skin color. So he must be right.

I concur.:p :D

I've heard "it's just skin colour" claim many times on this forum and it's really ridiculous and ignorant. So here comes your poll. If you will debate that race doesnt exist (which there is no large scientific consenssus), I'll say different groups of humans in the poll not to effect results. Besides skin colour and other physical differences, like face features, noses, skulls, athletic abilities (blacks being better at some sports) and stuff, there are also differences like who is more prone to a cetain disease/condition or other medical stuff like that. Also there are average iq differences. And probaly many more that I dont know of or havent been researched yet...



Summary: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-04/cdri-bai042505.php

Full Report:
http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

But they say a picture is worth 1000 words. So here are some albino blacks. Their skin is white but they are clearly not "white". Same goes for some east asians who got kinda white skin but they arent "white" neither.

http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/6383/item187pa.jpg

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/6510/item218se.jpg

http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/200/item284zs.jpg

http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/4800/item307ag.jpg

Keep in mind that I'm in no way making fun of these people. I'm just saying they arent white, which of course isnt an insult.
Also keep in mind that I just stated plain facts in this thread, no negative nor positive comments. If you are going to say facts are racist, then go ahead, you will just prove my point...

They are NOT albinos. Albinos have NO pigment in their skin so their skin is ivory/slightly pinkish, burns fast, their hair is white with no pigmentation, and their eyes are red/pink for the same reason.

These people have brown eyes. They are therefore CLEARLY not albino.

Please correct your basic assumptions.

They are NOT albinos. Albinos have NO pigment in their skin so their skin is ivory/slightly pinkish, burns fast, their hair is white with no pigmentation, and their eyes are red/pink for the same reason.

These people have brown eyes. They are therefore CLEARLY not albino.

Please correct your basic assumptions.

Incorrect, even though you used many capital letters to make your point...


There are two main categories of albinism in humans: oculocutaneous and ocular. In ocular albinism, only the eyes lack pigment. In oculocutaneous albinism, pigment is missing from the hair, eyes, and skin. People who have ocular albinism have normal skin/hair color and many have normal eye color. People with oculocutaneous albinism can have no pigment to almost normal. Some may even tan.
The eyes of a person with albinism occasionally appear red due to the underlying blood vessels showing through where there is not enough pigment to cover them. In humans this is rarely the case, as a human eye is quite large and thus produces enough pigment to lend opacity to the eye. However, there are cases in which the eyes appear red or purple, depending on the amount of pigment present.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albino

Of course race is not just skin colour...

Everybody knows that black little things come from apes (that's why they have nice chunky big lips), while all white little things come from Adam and Eve (who screwed each-other senselessly to populate Europe, until they turned pale and weak) and that Asian little things come from Mars (where they are called Marsasians).

I'm not quite sure where Arabs come from. Maybe Eve was up to no good with the apes...

There are also other characteristics that define race, like the protruding horns and back hair that can be found on myself and most of my little things, who also have a natural skill of detecting race differences... Tools of the trade.

Incorrect, even though you used many capital letters to make your point...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albino

At least one of them, and perhaps more of them, appears to be of mixed decent, however.

The more important part of this is that recognizing that there are some similarities in bone structure and what not is not evidence of anything. The genocide in Africa is based on facial features with which they created a whole new social set of groups. Their social groups are no more evidence of a genetic race than yours are. Their groupings and your groups are a less efficient grouping than just about any other grouping we can find because the average differences within a racial group are greater than the average differences between the averages of the two groups. This suggests a poor grouping. A point you've yet to even remotely address other than claiming monkeys are similar to us too.

Race is culture.
Race is religion.
Skin colour is just skin colour.
Technically if you used the 'colour' issue - then wouldn't all racists burn anything, even an object, that was not coloured white?

It's just a generalization of a culture.

I'm gonna let this stand on its own. I believe you've made my case for me. Yes, the argument is that bad. I have enough faith in my fellow reader to see the utter flaw in your conspiracy theories. Yes, peer-review is flawed. However, it is the ONLY way we currently have to determine whether a study has scientific flaws. This study has a plethora of them. Some we've presented to you which your only reply was "You're not qualified". Meanwhile, the people who ARE qualified also came to the conclusion we did.

I'll show one huge flaw in this type of study. It analyzes correlation as a justification for badly grouping people. Correlation is not the same as causation.

For example, perhaps I do a study on obesity and IQ. It's highly likely that if I did such a study because a number of factors that I would find some small difference in IQ between the obese and the non-obese. Some difference in cranial capacity. And a number of other factors that I could claim show some form of relationship, but the flaw is that those differences account for less of a difference than one would expect to see in other more sensible groupings (which is what has been presented to you several times).

Pick the grouping. Liberal and conservative posters on NS would likely have similar differences in such things. The study uses no control groupings to show this is more than just what one would expect to see in any social grouping.

That's just one of many criticisms throughout this thread you haven't addressed. And you can't. Know why? The study is flawed. Everyone here can see but you. The fact that sometimes peer review fails doesn't change the fact that 3 out of 4 reviewers found it flawed. Conspiracy theories aside, no one would consider this a valid study.

Of course you are again assuming. Not only you are assuming there might be some differences of iq between liberal (lol..americans... :rolleyes: ) and conservatives, you are also assuming racial correlation is trivial...With such huge assumptions you can "disprove" anything....
The study uses "controlled groupings" as you put it, because it contrasts hereditary model with cultural model. If the difference between "groupings" were only social ,as you suggested like "one would expect to see in any social grouping." , then cultural model shouldnt have been short of hereditary 1 in explaining stuff...

As I said earlier, I don't think you're Hitler and I imagine M doesn't think so either. You're just a young kid whose been scrubbed by some ideologies and is confused. When you're ready to actually view the evidence, these threads will likely be quite amusing to you as well.

By the way, did you show your analysis of the population data to any of your professors? There must be someone you deem qualified in your university, no?

Have you contacted US Cencus and told them their projections is wrong? Besides, about that matter, the ball is in your court....

I'm almost to the point of letting it stew in it's own juices... I'm now only really 'fighting this fight', so that people aren't left with some poor-quality, flawed-science racist platform looking like it has been 'vindicated'.

Curiously... I've actually tried googling some of the assertions and phrasings Ny makes... like 'albino blacks' and 'Black White IQ'... that kind of thing. I'm just trying to work out what 'route' leads Ny to his evidence sources... and I keep ending up at Stormfront, or at racial superiority platforms like National Vanguard, that make almost identical claims to Ny - with similarly poor grasp of the 'science' behind it:


Funny, isn't it?

He's the most racist non-racist I've never seen. ;)

Have you contacted US Cencus and told them their projections is wrong? Besides, about that matter, the ball is in your court....

Ha. Everyone who actually understands my calculations know that I proved it. Projections rely on more than what is currently happen. It takes all kinds of other population data into account. You claimed it was occurring. Their projections for a decline in the white race in the US doesn't even apply for another forty years. That means the people who won't be having enough children aren't even of childbearing age yet.

That's not the point. Did you show it someone who is 'qualified' in your mind? Because everyone on here who understand statistics agreed with me. I don't know of any mathematician who can't see the flaw in your 'proof' except you. So again, please show it someone who knows what they're talking about. You've admitted that's not you.

And it's not in my court. I was asked to stop bullying you. People started feeling sorry for you.

*snips*
I thought you'd taken your ball and gone home already.

Of course you are again assuming. Not only you are assuming there might be some differences of iq between liberal (lol..americans... :rolleyes: ) and conservatives, you are also assuming racial correlation is trivial...With such huge assumptions you can "disprove" anything....
The study uses "controlled groupings" as you put it, because it contrasts hereditary model with cultural model. If the difference between "groupings" were only social ,as you suggested like "one would expect to see in any social grouping." , then cultural model shouldnt have been short of hereditary 1 in explaining stuff...

It doesn't use a controlled grouping because it has to show that other social groupings wouldn't show similar trends.

And I'm not assuming. These are issues that any reasonable scientist would bring up because their evidence isn't compelling in absence of a control. There is no evidence that what they found is any different than any other social grouping we KNOW isn't genetic.

Meanwhile, we KNOW and you've been shown in this thread and others that the grouping of race is based on less of a difference than other more natural groupings. I'm not assuming racial correllation is trivial. It's been shown to you several times and the only response you have is to CLAIM without demonstrating how, that the study addressed it. I'm sorry, but your replies evidence the FACT that you don't have a good understanding of what is required for such a study. You're not just disagreeing. Your replies don't address my points at all. Seriously, you replies don't assuage the flaws I evidenced in any way. Moreso, they are so far from addressing them, one can't help but wonder if you really understand what the problem is.

Funny, isn't it?

He's the most racist non-racist I've never seen. ;)


I'm still torn as to whether we are being 'trolled'.... if this IS just trolling, it is remarkably clumsy - bring back HerPower, I say. At least, in the 'good old days', our trolls used to put some serious work into their arguments.

On the other hand - if this fellow is GENUINE... I don't know if I'm more distressed at the racism, the denial, or the lack of understanding of what would make a good argument...

I'm still torn as to whether we are being 'trolled'.... if this IS just trolling, it is remarkably clumsy - bring back HerPower, I say. At least, in the 'good old days', our trolls used to put some serious work into their arguments.

On the other hand - if this fellow is GENUINE... I don't know if I'm more distressed at the racism, the denial, or the lack of understanding of what would make a good argument...

The crazy part to me is that he could argue something as basic as mathematics. It's not like my proofs were based on opinion. It was just odd. Most trolls choose the route of an emotional argument or flawed science (he does that too), but he also takes actual reliable science and math and just declares it says what he claims regardless of what it actually says. It's kind of flabberghasting.

The crazy part to me is that he could argue something as basic as mathematics. It's not like my proofs were based on opinion. It was just odd. Most trolls choose the route of an emotional argument or flawed science (he does that too), but he also takes actual reliable science and math and just declares it says what he claims regardless of what it actually says. It's kind of flabberghasting.

:) See this? It says "mongoose".

:( Erm... no... it clearly spells "Octopus".

:) Nope. Mongoose.

:( Erm.. but it's spelled "Oh-see-tee-oh-pee-you-ess"..?

:) Exactly. "Mongoose"

:( Erm... ?

:) See this? It says "mongoose".

:( Erm... no... it clearly spells "Octopus".

:) Nope. Mongoose.

:( Erm.. but it's spelled "Oh-see-tee-oh-pee-you-ess"..?

:) Exactly. "Mongoose"

:( Erm... ?

Well, it is a pretty hard argument to refute. Incidentally, do you notice it elsewhere as well?

"They don't outright reject God, but they don't mention him so it's clear they don't consider him an option."
"That's because God can't be considered by science. It doesn't reject God."
"Can't you read? I've openly stated that I don't think God can be considered by science nor is He rejected by science. Meanwhile, because they don't consider Creation a viable theory they are creating atheists by teaching evolution to children."
"Um, that's because Creation relies on God and science can't address God so evolution is the leading theory."
"What are you talking about? I know science can't address God. Why do you keep telling me what I already said. However, naturalists scientists keep looking for evidence of something other than Creation. And evolution is only the leading theory because science rejects God. "

And so on...

It's so odd because it seems like the new method is simply to declare the other person wrong by just repeating the same argument and acting like anyone who doesn't agree doesn't understand what you're trying to say. It's the strangest method of argument I've ever seen.

Well, it is a pretty hard argument to refute. Incidentally, do you notice it elsewhere as well?

"They don't outright reject God, but they don't mention him so it's clear they don't consider him an option."
"That's because God can't be considered by science. It doesn't reject God."
"Can't you read? I've openly stated that I don't think God can be considered by science nor is He rejected by science. Meanwhile, because they don't consider Creation a viable theory they are creating atheists by teaching evolution to children."
"Um, that's because Creation relies on God and science can't address God so evolution is the leading theory."
"What are you talking about? I know science can't address God. Why do you keep telling me what I already said. However, naturalists scientists keep looking for evidence of something other than Creation. And evolution is only the leading theory because science rejects God. "

And so on...

It's so odd because it seems like the new method is simply to declare the other person wrong by just repeating the same argument and acting like anyone who doesn't agree doesn't understand what you're trying to say. It's the strangest method of argument I've ever seen.

:)

I actually commented on it in 'that' thread also... It reminds me of the Monty Python 'contradiction' sketch...

http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm

"M: Oh look, this isn't an argument."
"A: Yes it is."
"M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction."
"A: No it isn't...."

:D

:)

I actually commented on it in 'that' thread also... It reminds me of the Monty Python 'contradiction' sketch...

http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm

"M: Oh look, this isn't an argument."
"A: Yes it is."
"M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction."
"A: No it isn't...."

:D

Yes, and I remember you used that example before. Is it just me? Don't you remember the 'competition' being more on their game?

Yes, and I remember you used that example before. Is it just me? Don't you remember the 'competition' being more on their game?

We're having the same conversation on two different threads... :)

Sorry - that's just making me smile a big stupid smile...

We're having the same conversation on two different threads... :)

Sorry - that's just making me smile a big stupid smile...

I know and we're not saying exactly the same thing on both threads so it must be really hard to follow for those not in both threads. *smiles*

Quite a few years back, there as a big stink like this over the Stanford Binet IQ test showing blacks to have lower average IQ than whites and asians. The data was clear, but many people objected, saying that the test must be flawed if any difference was shown. The thing is, the test (as well as most IQ tests) was designed for a specific purpose, and you have to know what that purpose is to get anything meaningful out of the test results. IQ tests do not measure general intelligence! The Stanford Binet is the english version of the French Binet test, which very nicely measured aptitude for the French public school system. So all you can really conclude is that American blacks would do worse in the French public schools than American asians.

I mean, of course all races are different from each other. But only physically. Blacks generally have larger lips, Asians have flat faces and tiny eyes, whites have pointy noses, etc... BUT mentally, everyone's capable of the same things, and just our culture hinders certain races from doing certain things.

I know and we're not saying exactly the same thing on both threads so it must be really hard to follow for those not in both threads. *smiles*

I'd imagine it's quite a trip for anyone that IS reading both threads... 'hey, didn't they JUST say something about that...?' :)

According to plenty of sociologists and anthropologists, race is by definition a social construct.

There is always an exception somewhere. Biological differences occur between these "races" (a white guy with a negroid or mongoloid skull, a black guy with straight hair). Ethnicities are far greater in number than races, and that's where many of the differences lie, based on culture. Culture comes from a long line of predecessors, and everything influences it, so I'll not explain that any more.

The fact that American blacks score lower on average in IQ tests and the like than American whites doesn't surprise me. Not one bit. It wasn't until the 50's (and to be honest, still isn't true entirely) that African Americans were given equal education standards. There's no United Whitefolks College fund. There doesn't NEED to be one.

Course, then there's Morgan Park High School here in Chicago. "Out of more than 15,000 high schools in 31 countries worldwide, more African American students at Morgan Park passed their AP exams in two courses- English language composition and European history- than at any other high school in the nation or in the world." (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/il01_rush/morganpark.html) At least good things are starting to happen. That AP Euro test isn't easy, lemme tell ya. Not for a Public HS student anyway. The longer the "races" are more integrated in mainstream society, the more that the boundaries dividing them will come down. Less of these apparent differences will be present.

According to plenty of sociologists and anthropologists, race is by definition a social construct.

There is always an exception somewhere. Biological differences occur between these "races" (a white guy with a negroid or mongoloid skull, a black guy with straight hair). Ethnicities are far greater in number than races, and that's where many of the differences lie, based on culture. Culture comes from a long line of predecessors, and everything influences it, so I'll not explain that any more.

The fact that American blacks score lower on average in IQ tests and the like than American whites doesn't surprise me. Not one bit. It wasn't until the 50's (and to be honest, still isn't true entirely) that African Americans were given equal education standards. There's no United Whitefolks College fund. There doesn't NEED to be one.

Course, then there's Morgan Park High School here in Chicago. "Out of more than 15,000 high schools in 31 countries worldwide, more African American students at Morgan Park passed their AP exams in two courses- English language composition and European history- than at any other high school in the nation or in the world." (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/il01_rush/morganpark.html) At least good things are starting to happen. That AP Euro test isn't easy, lemme tell ya. Not for a Public HS student anyway. The longer the "races" are more integrated in mainstream society, the more that the boundaries dividing them will come down. Less of these apparent differences will be present.

I assumed you were a puppet of Nordland when I saw you'd posted. I'm so glad I took the time to read your post instead of resting on that assumption. While I don't agree with everything you said here, and much of it wasn't particularly new, I do like the way you present your ideas and I enjoyed reading it.

Nice tea party going there, GnI & Jocabia. Do u giggle and nod to your irrevelant points like school girls too? Anyway, I'll answer your points later, as I'm busy in other threads and other stuff. Meanwhile you are repeating yourself Jocobia, you might want to edit your posts. You are again bringing points I answered before....

Nice tea party going there, GnI & Jocabia. Do u giggle and nod to your irrevelant points like school girls too? Anyway, I'll answer your points later, as I'm busy in other threads and other stuff. Meanwhile you are repeating yourself Jocobia, you might want to edit your posts. You are again bringing points I answered before....

No, bringing up points you never answered and just dismissed with irrelevant tripe. We are quite aware that if you don't like the conclusion evidence should lead you to, you just declare it leads to a different conclusion, but it doesn't change the fact that you have established nothing of value in this thread. Your study is flawed according to all the credible people who have viewed it, including the peers. Your response is to post a conspiracy theory. A bit less than compelling, methinks.

Keep declaring that O-C-T-O-P-U-S spells mongoose, but the rest of us aren't fooled.

*snips*
Weren't you taking your leave of us for the summer? Why are you still here, propping up this cadaver of a thread, anyway?

I'd imagine it's quite a trip for anyone that IS reading both threads... 'hey, didn't they JUST say something about that...?' :)
:eek: Whoooooooaaaa! Dudes, you just blew my mind! :cool:

Nice tea party going there, GnI & Jocabia. Do u giggle and nod to your irrevelant points like school girls too? Anyway, I'll answer your points later, as I'm busy in other threads and other stuff. Meanwhile you are repeating yourself Jocobia, you might want to edit your posts. You are again bringing points I answered before....

Yes. We giggle.

I'm way over six feet, more than 220 lbs. I wear a lot of black, and I look like a viking.

And this is me, 'giggling'.

Just wanted to burn that image into your mind.