Race Is Real

[GMM]

Re: Disagree

How is it fair to tax income and then tax what's left over (wealth)? Its not. The purpose of taxation is not to redistribute money around a society. It is instead to provide money for the government to do what the government should do. It is not fair to create a tax system for the purpose of re-arranging the economic results.

Yet here you use the tired language of anti-gubmint extremists instead of trying to make any rational point.

Yeah, its "extreme" to observe that the government is incompetent when it comes to re-arranging society to meet some goal of "fairness".

Humans have proven time and again that if you allow a few families
to accumulate most of the wealth, then a broad spectrum of people who
have a broad spectrum of the "abilities" you so cherish (as well as work
ethic which you seem to emphasize less) will end up with crumbs.

Not as long as there's freedom. Its usually government, not the free market, that ends up protecting concentrations of wealth and/or power. You obviously believe in a zero-sum game when it comes to wealth. Instead you should know wealth is created and destroyed. As long as a society remains free to create wealth then most everybody will get wealthier. The accumulation of Bill Gates' wealth does not cause anyone to be less free or to end up with crumbs.

We will discuss racial entitlement programs in due time...don't want to hijack this thread for that.

Nice cop out. You could've just said "No, I don't."

 

[qazplm]

lol good call

and as you can see, you struck a nerve by pointing it out.

What I find particularly funny is he links an article that starts out with:

"Why has the West been the most exploratory and innovative civilization in the world for the past 500 years?"

Which is hilarious on multiple levels:

1. It assumes the last 500 years of human existence are all that matters.
2. It ignores the thousands of years when you'd have replaced "West" with "Egypt", or the hundreds of years you'd have put "Arabia/Middle East," or "China," or that civilization started in the Middle East. In fact, the only region who has not, arguably, had their "turn" at leading the world is South America.
3. It ignores that the fact that different parts of the "white" world have been far ahead of other parts of the "white" world as seen by the Roman dominance over the "barbarians" of Germanic/Angl-Saxon/Gaul tribes, or Greece.

It's sad ignorance and hilarious at the same time. Watching GMM try to pretend like he understands the science in this (or science at all) is particularly sad (but funny).

 

[GMM]

Re: lol good call

1. It assumes the last 500 years of human existence are all that matters.

No, it doesn't. But I understand why you have to exaggerate to make your point.

2. It ignores the thousands of years when you'd have replaced "West"
with "Egypt", or the hundreds of years you'd have put "Arabia/Middle
East," or "China," or that civilization started in the Middle East.

What point do you think you're making? It seems like another one of those times where you're pointing out what nobody denies. Do you also realize you are, in an indirect way, bolstering the arguments made by Wade?

In fact, the only region who has not, arguably, had their "turn" at leading the world is South America.

You forgot pre-Columbian North America, sub-Saharan Africa, southeast Asia, and Polynesia.

3. It ignores that the fact that different parts of the "white" world
have been far ahead of other parts of the "white" world as seen by the
Roman dominance over the "barbarians" of Germanic/Angl-Saxon/Gaul
tribes, or Greece.

Once again........what point do you think you're making?

Once again.......Do you also realize you are, in an indirect way, bolstering the arguments made by Wade?

 

[qazplm]

so sad

1. yes, it does, right there in the sentence "why has the West dominated the last 500 years."

2. lol, that you don't understand this is hilarious. So, you think that genetically, the Egyptians were smarter, but then, somehow, the genetics changed, and another race was smarter, and then the genetics changed again, etc. That makes more sense to you then the reality that the fact that different "races" have "led" the world throughout history would tend to show that race matters not at all, and other factors (weather, environment, competition for resources, etc) are what lead to one culture or area leading over another.

For his argument to make sense, some racial groups would have to CONSISTENTLY outperform other racial groups over the entirety of human civilization. IF N. European whites always were technologically ahead of Saharan blacks, THEN, he might have something worth looking at.

3. IF race is a determinant, then it should be uniform across that race. That there are wide variations within would be proof to anyone with a functioning brain that it isn't.

I think we've proved you have a hindstem, and that's about it.

 

[GMM]

Re: so sad

1. yes, it does, right there in the sentence "why has the West dominated the last 500 years."

Where does it say that the last 500 years "are all that matters". Nowhere. Stop exaggerating.

So, you think that genetically, the Egyptians were smarter, but then,
somehow, the genetics changed, and another race was smarter, and then
the genetics changed again, etc.

I get it. You don't believe in human evolution. You are a Liberal Creationist.

For his argument to make sense, some racial groups would have to
CONSISTENTLY outperform other racial groups over the entirety of human
civilization.

No, for his argument to make sense human evolution would have to be a constantly changing phenomenon. Which fits in with the theory of evolution for all other species.

IF N. European whites always were technologically ahead of [sub]-Saharan blacks, THEN, he might have something worth looking at.

FWIW, name the evidence that shows the time period where sub-Saharan blacks were technologically ahead of northern Europeans. Not that it would disprove Wade's theory or anything.

3. IF race is a determinant, then it should be uniform across that
race. That there are wide variations within would be proof to anyone
with a functioning brain that it isn't.

No, it doesn't have to be uniform. You are a perfect example of Lewontin's Fallacy.

Men are taller than women. This is because of genetics. It doesn't have to mean that ALL men are taller than ALL women. Just that there are measurable group characteristics and they differ because of genes.

 

[qazplm]

sigh

1. if the last 500 years weren't all that mattered, then selecting it would be pretty nonsensical unless you had an agenda since over the entirety of human civilization all sorts of "races" have had their "turn" leading.

2. I believe in evolution. I understand evolution. You clearly do not white supremacist.

3. Lol, evolution does not work that way remotely. See 2.

4. Love the way your racist mind tries to distinguish N. Africa from S. Africa. There were several advanced "sub-Saharan" African cultures contemporaneous to the Egyptian dominance. The Sao in the 6th century BC worked in bronze. The Kush, Songhai, plenty of examples of equivalent cultures.

5. Uniform? lol there's no correlation AT ALL. You are a perfect example of racist idiocy (sorry no link).

6. MOST men are taller than MOST women. GENDER has a TON more genetic differentiation than RACE. In fact, one gender has a completely different chromosome than the other. You should slap every science teacher you've ever had. Twice.

 

[ecouch]

Re: no u

You are doing an excellent job. Your training has stuck. Now, you are a martyr against the conformist scolds.

Your handlers would have preferred you take a less aggressive initial stance because you gave away too much, too quickly. You can't recruit effectively if you bring out the big guns in the early stages. Cult Leadership 101. That was a rookie mistake. But, as I have said, the training seems to have taken hold. So, there is that.

 

[db]

Re: Disagree

Aw, GMM...you are making even less sense than before.

Please, when I take the time to write out a thoughtful response to something you say, wait to respond until you have time to form a cogent response.

Every one of the "points" in the post you just made either misquotes what I said or is provably false. You are discouraging me from wasting time on you.

 

[ecouch]

I saw this on my twitter feed the other day. As a follow up, it appears if the scientists whose work was cited in Wade's book aren't taking his manipulation of their work sitting down.

"Our findings do not even provide a hint of support in favor of Wade's guesswork."

Geneticists disagree with leaps made by Wade

 

[Bill4411]

This author's theories have been present since at least the 19th century. I remember reading an article on race from a 1905 encyclopedia that advanced pretty much the same conclusions-but one thing was clear in that encyclopedia was that the white man was the clearly the standard for superiority among all the races. The encyclopedia article did recognize that Asian's had pretty good memories but then but were unable to think logically but they sure could memorize, kind of like Myna birds, I suppose.

Then in the 70's Linus Pauling started exposing the same sort of thing and it was very poorly received by critics and the public-so the author is advancing nothing new and has little real supporting evidence to back up what he is saying. Linus Pauling sure tarnished his legacy with his later ramblings on race; he had won two Noble prizes in science. Pauling also said that massive doses of vitamin "c" cured cancer.

This post was edited on 8/20 2:59 PM by Bill4411

This post was edited on 8/20 3:20 PM by Bill4411

This post was edited on 8/20 3:20 PM by Bill4411