http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2006_06_17_thenewrepublic.html

 

I begged you to leave ancient history behind, as it had no bearing on the matter at hand. You responded by discussing Marco Polo. I'll take the whole thing as a practical joke, and I hope that's how you intended it.

The only thing you have proven in the above post--is my point. Thank you.

You more than admit that Oriental civilization did fall behind White civilization, but you go on to give a number of excuses as to why it has and why it will eventually catch up. If you gave it some thought, you'd realize none of this holds any importance. As soon as you've admitted that the "smartest" race has been outpaced for so long, and by such a large margin, by a "dumber" race; you realize(or should) that your theory is useless. Or let me put it into a sample sentence that perhaps you'll understand:

"Orientals are the smartest people in the world. Except for when they're not."

Even if you were correct in predicting that Orientals will eventually surpass whites, all you have admitted is that the leading race can fluctuate for any given reason and therefore a measurement of racial IQ is useless when predicting real world outcome. If whites were "dumber" and yet could be "smarter" for centuries(a lovely paradox you've created), then could not blacks who are "dumber" do the same? Latinos? And if any "dumb" race can be the smartest race in the world for any amount of time, is not the entire idea of intellect among the races just smoke and mirrors? Why are you having trouble with such obvious wrinkles? It's just bad thinking.

The theory is dead, it is the very worst and upside-down kind of thinking. Why do you insist on digging it up?

 

Not really. :-| That is merely the intellectualization of his fear and loathing. When faced with someone so painfully insecure about their predisposition as DL is, it's helpful to ask oneself what could possibly drive such a thing. DL appears to be somewhat articulate, appears to have a decent grasp of rational thought, appears to appreciate argument and refutation . . . but as you can plainly see by this thread, these are only appearances (and thinly veiled ones, at that) when it comes to this subject matter.

The black man done him wrong. The black man must be inferior. They must! They MUST be inferior! If it is shown that the vastly physically superior people who beat him and robbed him and exposed his vunerabilities could possibly be as intellectually capable as he views himself . . . oh, my . . . one can only drink so much pain away.

 

Well, that explains the genesis of DL's monomania...but how does it explain his adoration for Jews and "Orientals"? Maybe one of them happened by and called the cops on his cell phone.....

 

Homicide Trends in the U.S. - Trends by Race

In 2005, [murder] rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm

 

Uh huh...why would it change over time?

 

I was nearly murdered once by two black muggers. By chance a black woman who knows me and likes me stopped the attack, got me into her car, and drove me home.

The attack would not have happened in a Jewish or Oriental neighborhood, however.

 

It's all in the Bell Curve - it put blacks at the bottom (where his delicate psyche says they must belong) and it just happened to place those special Jews on the top (followed closely by the Orientals). If the Bell Curve said that scandinavians were superior, he'd be wearing a Norse helmet and extolling the virtues of Odin.

His methodology for rationalization remains intact - he doesn't have to confront the dangerous realm of self-reflection - he piles reinforcing idea on reinforcing idea trying to keep his sandy foundation upright. It's deeply fascinating.

 

I live down the street from here. Mine is an exciting and vibrant neighborhood. :excited:

I still miss my pit bull, though.

 

. . . everything you need to know about the motivation for DL's rabid adherence to irrationality is revealed, once again: https://forum.xnxx.com/showpost.php?p=4647591&postcount=227 :-|

 

What is irritating, rather than fascinating, is the way you try to attribute my obvious grasp of facts and logical reasoning to personal deficiencies.

 

Have you ever been the victim of a serious crime?

 

Well...if nothing else, that right there is a hilarious mental picture.

"KILL THE WABBIT!!"

[youtube]Yxiv3CBMS4M[/youtube]

 

You never did explain why you do not send your children to a predominantly black public school. I am sure that could be arranged. Put your values where your mouth is.

Are there any blacks at all in the school/s your children attend?

 

I didn't explain it because both the question and my answer to it are irrelevant.

But if it makes you happy, I live in a rural area where such schools are nonexistent, so the question has never arisen. The fact that I'm unwilling to send my children 300 miles to a public school in Los Angeles has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever.

Why don't you answer MY question? Why should the homicide rate among African-Americans change over time? In fact, from your own graph, if you pick the right time frame, it has dropped by 50%. Why?

 

Somehow I was under the impression that you lived in Marin County.

The black murder rate rose during the 1980s because of the crack epidemic. It seems to be stabilizing at eight times the white rate.

 

As always, you are cherry-picking factual snippets that serve your predispositions.

Your insistence that farming started 10,000 years ago, and only among "caucasian" Africans, is a case in point.

You have found one Wikipedia article, which sets the start of Sub-Saharan agriculture at 9,000 B.C. (yes, I have seen it, and that would make it 11,000 years, by the way), and you've pinned your embrace of Cochran and Harpending on that one factoid.

You know, I never did mean to imply that Sub-Saharan humans practiced massive scale, slash-and-burn cultivation 40,000 years ago. I said they cultivated yams and other root vegetables, in situ, because it was easy and because it fit their technology level.

Technology developed slowly over time.

Do you really think that, 10,000 years ago, segments of the human race suddenly woke up, ceased their hunter-gatherer existence, and decided to tether yokes to oxen? It did not work that way. Technology developed gradually. Even the crafting of cutting edges evolved slowly, over tens of thousands of years, from the paleolithic all the way through the neolithic.

Dogs. Humans first domesticated wolves at least 60,000 years ago. They had to have done, because they brought domesticated dogs across the Bering Strait.

Cats. The Abyssinian, the first known "modern" breed, is at least 5,000 years old. But it could not have been the first. If nothing else, we have physical evidence that domestication (and indeed deification) of cats began at least 5,000 years before the Abyssinian, because the Sphinx predates the Great Pyramids by many thousands of years.

Our first written record of modern city states (principally in the Tigris/Euphrates delta) dates back at least 6,000 years (to the Sumerian/Mesopotamian societies). But we have to have been dabbling with the rudiments of civilization for much longer than that. Sumer could not have sprung spontaneously from savagery.

Now you'll want sources, and proof. But it is tiresome and pointless, as demonstrated by your obstinate views on the so-called Dark Ages, for which overwhelming contrary evidence exists in the written record.

 

You mean that environmental, socioeconomic factors could cause the murder rate among African-Americans to DOUBLE?? I'm SHOCKED!!

Are you so blind that you can't see that this fact alone destroys your entire thesis?

 

Now let's consider the unemployment rate...isn't it possible that the high historical rate of unemployment among blacks might have a bearing on the homicide rate? Not to mention the relatively low income and much lower accumulation of wealth? Or is that all just because they're so stupid?

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v64n4/v64n4p1.html

 

What happened to him appears to have been terrible.

He insists it could not have happened in Oriental or Jewish neighborhoods. That is just plain wrong. Orientals are known to do terrible things. Jews are known to do terrible things. "Whites" (defined here as everyone else) are known to be real shits.

Yet I also know wonderful blacks. And Orientals. And whites. And Jews.

I think he's playing us at this point. I am still not entirely convinced that he is racist. I think he is just arguing the point robustly, and enjoying himself doing it.