Very strong evidence of The Bell Curve is everywhere one looks every time one looks.

Now I have admitted that I never read the book. When I say I agree with it, this is what I mean. First, intelligence is of primary importance in determining financial success. Second, it is primarily determined by genes. Third, whites tend to have quite a bit more of it than blacks.

Is there any serious reason for doubting that? Does anyone geuinely doubt it?

When someone claims to have "decisively refuted" The Bell Curve I feel that I have woken up in the morning, turned on the radio, and heard a weatherman tell me that it is a balmy spring morning. Then, when I open the door I see gale force winds, and a freezing rain.

If The Bell Curve is mistaken, why is it that blacks have bottom basement test scores and sky high crime rates everywhere in the world that they live? Why are they so obviously incapable of maintaining a well functioning country without white supervision? No I don't think it is the fault of whites.

 

Right now you are revealing your own lack of intelligence by your obvious inability to understand what I wrote. Eskimos were paleolithic hunters. Consequently, by my definition they were savages. They were not warlike, but they were savages. Nevertheless, fossil evidence and written accounts reveal that paleolithic hunters on the average practiced war more often, and with more lethal effects than modern peoples.

If you still cannot understand that, I see little point in continuing to help you.

 

Will genetic anthropology establish scientific criteria for race or ethnicity?

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other. Indeed, it has been proven that there is more genetic variation within races than exists between them.



http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresource...ration.shtml#7

 

I bet you say that to all the boys....now you've said it to a man.

Nice read BTW......I'll have to let you read the rest to me sometime....perhaps over dinner with a nice Chianti.

What do you get when you cross a nigger with an Eskimo?
A snowblower that doesn't work.

 

Strong evidence of the Bell Curve being right may exist, BUT there is equally strong evidence that shows The Bell Curve theories HAVE NOT yet been proven..Both sides have an equally passionate and verifiable agrument to their case..

I think the problem lies in the fact that you have taken The Bell Curve ideas and interpreted them to suit your OWN racist views..

As X-O has pointed out, and the links I posted show his view to be correct, Until there is a UNBIASED, scientific study done then The Bell Curve findings WILL always be IN-CONCLUSIVE...

Even Charles Murray has stated that The Bell Curve DOES NOT state that the the reason behind LOW I.Q. test results is GENETIC and HEREDITARY

YOU are in a position of being able to say "PROVE ME WRONG" even though there is NO PROVE that you are RIGHT..

Many people would consider this behaviour to be that of an attention-seeking TROLL

 

Hubba hubba hubba hubba.

 

You certainly do like to paint yourself has a victim, your definition of flaming is any comment that you disagree with. (are you sure you are not a sock of baller).

You do realise that the four German inventions that you tout to show they were civilised are all weapons of war? You appear to be be mesmerised by their less than civilised nature, but then you do revere Uncle Adolf don't you.

1928 Schwangerschaftstest first scientific pregnancy test Selmar Aschheim

1931 Elektronenmikroskop electron microscope, Nobel Prize in Physics 1986 Ernst Ruska

1939 DDT DDT Paul H. Müller

1945 Z1-Z4-Rechner Z1-Z4 computers - The Z3 was the first programmable computer Konrad Zuse

Here are a few of their less evil inventions from in and around the same period.

 

I do not see i have a lack of intelligence just beacuse i do not agree with your oppinions and views.
If you read the highlighted part of your post you do not make it clear your talking about Eskimo's as paleolithic hunters. Maybe they are, but you have defined savages as someone that does not practice agriculture, but hunts and fishes for food so that they can survive.
As Eskimo's do not have a chance to practise agriculture i find your views somewhat biased.
After reading your posts and seeing your self oppinionated views on things and not listening to a good argument on a topic, i know for sure you CANNOT help me with anything.
My oppinion of you stays the same, your a sad, lonely, boring, single male that craves attention, that you find in this forum, in other words an attention seeking whore.

sylvia

 

I would expect NOTHING less from a racist who is UNABLE to provide answers to specific questions, or to keep quoting the tired old phrase "REFUTE WHAT I SAY.." The fact still remains that even Charles Murray has stated that The Bell Curve DOES NOT provide any indication of low I.Q. test results being linked to genetics...

As this is the basis of your debate here, It may serve you better to READ the book. Instead of just using random ideas, and theories, that HAVE NO scientific bearing to the book...

To my simplistic way of thinking: If the co-author states that there is NO evidence in the book to suggest that low I.Q. results are caused soley by genetical and hereditary factors, THEN WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN YOUR STANCE...

Do you seriously expect the forum members to believe you, a self styled racist and someone who has already admitted to NOT even reading the book, rather than the co-author of the book..
DO you think that YOU know more about the book than the co-author??

 

Hmm... Distant Lover, many of your assertions are true. For instance, blacks have a higher crime rate statistically and their test scores are the lowest as an ethnic group.

Where my opinion parts from your opinion is that you have not shown that those statistics demonstrate that a genetic predisposition exists... The Bell Curve has been refuted, as well and as such the high crime rates and low test scores have been shown to be related to socioecomic factors rather than genetics.:rose:

Carrie on...

 

..Now ain't that sumpin.......buncha crackers spout racist, sexist crap and suddenly no one wants them teaching.............imagine that.

Cmon DL.........now we hear (again) about the Washington school system, and no child left behind? What are you saying, throwing money at the problem solves it? Cept of course buncha "Negros" get in the way of success.

You still have not explained how Millions of "more intelligent than whites" became barbarians for the better part of a decade, or how them UUber intelligent Europeans decided Genocide was a less violent approach to their imagined problem.Or how them Cambodians decided murdering a few million countrymen made sense.

I thought it was already well settled that the reason women tend to do less well than men at math.........assuming that is in fact true.........was that from an early age teachers did not work with women at the same level as men in science and math. Which also explains why there are fewer women engineers. But, according to your logic the only rational explanation is genetics.

And don't even get me started on why there are no professional women football players in the NFL. Or professional Bull riders for that matter. Or male surrogate mothers or.........oh don't get me started.

The genetic differences between nationalities, races, and sex are evident..............its why I LIKE women and not men in my bed.And why Scandanavians very rarely have kinky black hair.

But when one leaps from genetic difference to "Niggers is stoopid" one risks being labeled a racist.

And when one sees by example that any individual, or group of individuals, can excel (or fail miserably) at any given time one realizes that not only is it racist to argue genetics is the cause, but flat out illogical.

It's often entertaining, some times amusing, but never the less............

The more you do the wrong thing right, the wronger you end up.

 

So, let's look at this thing from another angle.

Let's say that the book is 100% correct and really the sub-Saharan African people and their distant descendants in the USA have inferior genetic material for intelligence on average - what practical acts should be done in this regard? In what way would you like to see some policies or rules implemented to make some practical use of this knowledge?

In other words - what would the info in the "Bell Curve" serve for? Apart from making the whites feel intellectually superior on average.

What about the "exceptions" - the above average or even genius "Negroes"? The long list of black scientists, inventors, astronauts, teachers, genius musicians and other artists, etc.?

Would you wish to see some legislation to limit the rights of black students, based on (faulty) premises from the Bell Curve and also make it even more difficult or impossible for the bright "Negroes" to succeed?

 

You're all still arguing with a person who is psychologically incapable of setting aside his deeply rooted prejudice. You're making the classic mistake of believing that he is coming from a rational point of view just because he appears articulate. It's like arguing with a signpost, you will never convince him to believe anything other than what he believes - his delicate psyche relies on his conclusion to be true. But, good luck if you choose to continue.

 

The issue of whether to argue or not is really settled when you realise how insidious the opponent is, the way he can make himself look respectable and still spout off crap that genetics are the cause of low IQ tests and criminality within the black communities, I have spoken to a few people on here telling them I believed DL to be racist and they appeared to be astonished that I thought that way, till they actually read some of his more despicable posts.

 

You don't feel any pity for someone so intellectually hobbled by a traumatic experience? I'm not sure I could say with complete confidence that I wouldn't be spouting Bell Curve dogma had I been mugged nearly to death by the black man.

I'd wager more people see DL clearly than do not around here - I'd even bet the resident admitted racists secretly root for him to prove how lowly the negro is :laughing: - of course none have the chops to engage in a discussion that doesn't begin and end with a handful of "nigger"s tossed about.

 

No, zero pity for him.

 

I welcome debatable points, but you seldom post them. I have already explained my nuanced appraisal of Adolf Hitler. You can't understand it, so I see no point in repeating myself. What you demonstrate with your posts here is that military research promotes scientific advances.

Heraclitus wrote, "War is the father of all things." By this he meant that war has always been a major factor in the development of new technologies and even societies.

Neolithic societies had military advantages over paleolithic societies because the political unit of a neolithic society is the tribe. The political unit of a paleolithic society is is the hunting band. A hunting band rarely has over one hundred members. A tribe may number in the several tens of thousands.

Tribes can usually defeat hunting bands. In Africa the Bantu began experimenting with agriculture about four thousand years ago. Two and a half thousand years ago they acquired iron age technology. These enabled them to spread throughout Africa at the expense of stone age hunters in what is called "the Bantu expansion."

When tribes speaking the same languages joined together and built cities they had an even greater military advantage because they could put armies of full time soldiers in the field. Men in neolithic tribes had to spend most of their time farming and herding animals.

Nevertheless, because of the division of labor, violence became less important in achieving status. That is why populations with one or more thousand of years of civilization behind them generally have lower crime rates than populations who emerged more recently from a hunter gatherer existence.

A major reason that science developed faster in the West than in the Orient was that warfare was less important in the Orient. Military men have understood that the research of the scientists had military applications.

 

Yeah ..... what Old Tool said.

 

.........Shooter wanders by.............he sees that DL is still ignoring questions about how the Orientals went rogue for more than a decade.

and he sees that DL is still spouting.............stuff.......................

Shooter looks elsewhere for his entertainment