Considering djfav is some adolescent in his moms basement I do find his comments rather ironic. The only thing he says is the various abbreviations of 'fuck' 'shit' 'asshole' and so on, a child with internet connection.
Anyway, Bronze hae already shown he cant handle to debate real issues, he sits with his colored glasses on ignoring any facts provided.
Gabe, you seriously don't know what views I have, what facts I accept, or anything, do you?
Your trolldom has been, among other things, a long session of me agreeing with the scant bits of evidence you provide, and providing non-magical explanations for them, while you avoid giving us any information whatsoever about your explanation. "Magic" is not an explanation, and neither are non-physical, poorly defined terms like your private definition of "race."
Face it, Gabriel, all you've done is avoid explaining what I already have numerous times: Why are predominantly black regions poor? You can only invoke "race" as if it were a magic spell.
Because they are niggers, Africans are poor and backwards because they do not have the same mental functions we have, we tried to give them our knowledge and in the United States , instead of creating wonderful soceities they ghettos, murdering people and raping white woman.. I see a pattern here.
Some, a FEW, a MINORITY mamanges to get the full capacity we have, very few in numbers, you got that negro golf player, not smart, he hits a ball, wow, and baskeball, once again, very intelligent, and then perhaps one or two negros in the labs, maybe assisting white aryan male that find the cures for disease.
Gabe: Because they are niggers, Africans are poor and backwards because they do not have the same mental functions we have, we tried to give them our knowledge and in the United States , instead of creating wonderful soceities they ghettos, murdering people and raping white woman.. I see a pattern here.
So, then, why don't you settle this by showing me a sampling experiment or something like that that shows brain size, neuron density, and so forth? Why do you have to resort to such indirect methods of measurement that are flooded with other factors? Why is poor experimental design superior to objective, controlled studies? Why is it that your pro-laziness epistemology superior to the most fundamental diligence of the scientific method?
It's like the magic water of homeopathy: The only time their superstitious nonsense appears to have an effect is with poorly designed trials. The better the study (more test subjects, better controls, better blinding procedures, better randomization), the less the effect homeopathy has.
Why do you object to good science?
Some, a FEW, a MINORITY mamanges to get the full capacity we have, very few in numbers, you got that negro golf player, not smart, he hits a ball, wow, and baskeball, once again, very intelligent, and then perhaps one or two negros in the labs, maybe assisting white aryan male that find the cures for disease.
Here's one instance of you ignoring a fact I relayed to you: Tiger Woods isn't "black". He's multiracial, last time I checked. Unless you're changing the definition of "black" away from dominantly African descent.
Of course, I could be wrong. I'm not a sports lover, so I don't feel the need to memorize such useless and, to me at least, uninteresting information.
As for your talk about them being a minority in intellectual pursuits, your explanation defies Occam's razor. Good schools, good upbringing, stable communities, family wealth, and so forth are already known to produce a higher percentage of intellectual people. Heck, last time I checked, one large group of intellectuals known as neurologists have been arguing that intelligence is even more environmental than we give credit for: They've had great difficulty finding any sort of "smart genes" among humans in general, much less any sort of smart gene trend in any one phenotype.
Put simply, Gabe, your explanation falls into the category of supernatural explanations, unless you can provide direct, physical evidence of a significant difference in brain size/density/whatever.
Oh, and quotes from a Nobel Prize winner don't count. It's the experiments, the data, not the person who makes something scientifically meaningful. Science is not messianic in nature. Scientists are normal human beings who only earn trust by showing their hard work. Science, by it's true nature, is a rejection of authority.
The work is more important than who does it. But your postmodernism won't accept that. You focus on me to the point of fetishism that you don't bother to notice that the facts I present come from the collective hard work of countless other human beings. All you have to offer in opposition is a lazy anecdotal glance and some easily explainable facts that the worldwide community already accepts.
So, then, why don't you settle this by showing me a sampling experiment or something like that that shows brain size, neuron density, and so forth? Why do you have to resort to such indirect methods of measurement that are flooded with other factors? Why is poor experimental design superior to objective, controlled studies? Why is it that your pro-laziness epistemology superior to the most fundamental diligence of the scientific method?
It's like the magic water of homeopathy: The only time their superstitious nonsense appears to have an effect is with poorly designed trials. The better the study (more test subjects, better controls, better blinding procedures, better randomization), the less the effect homeopathy has.
Why do you object to good science?
I do not object to good science, but most experiments have been biased and unobjective so far.
Also, we do not know everything about the brain, we have the facts of how Negros are less intelligent and more animal like then Whites, perhaps we need to learn more about the brain to know why they act more like animals then civilized people?
We certainly need more knowledge on this and I am all for cience to poke into this finding the reason to Negros backwardsness.
Do you want us to have a look at U.S Crime statistics related to Race and then put the amount of Blacks Versus Whites next to it and see what we get.
Perhaps you have an incling on to what the figures of fact will say?
Considering Gabe is some senile racist his children kindly put in a home and gladly forgot about, I do find his comments rather sickening. The only thing he says is the various abbreviations of 'nigger' 'spic' 'fag' and so on, a geriatric with an internet connection.
Gabe: I do not object to good science, but most experiments have been biased and unobjective so far.
You could reasonably suggest that about experiments that explicitly involve race, but that isn't the only place where such problems with your views on race and genetics are: For me to accept your views would require me to reject the results of experimentation on fruit flies.
Also, we do not know everything about the brain, we have the facts of how Negros are less intelligent and more animal like then Whites, perhaps we need to learn more about the brain to know why they act more like animals then civilized people?
1. Humans are animals. "Animal-like" doesn't have much meaning to me, since all human behaviors are included in the already very large set of "animal" behaviors.
2. You've reached this conclusion only by observing very indirect data, ignoring the sampling biases inherent to anecdotes, and failing to control for alternative explanations I provided. These would all be very good reasons for a science journal to reject a study, or grounds for denying a grant, regardless of topic. You're asking me to make an exception to these universal rules just for you, without explanation. Why should I accept your "study" and reject all the explanations that make sense?
We certainly need more knowledge on this and I am all for cience to poke into this finding the reason to Negros backwardsness.
You're assuming your conclusion before you prove it. You're supposed to convince me that some factor of "blackness" causes those problems. I already accept that those problems exist (though you'll deny my agreement on that part): My disagreement is about the cause of those problems. I say it's a collection of social, economic, political, and geographic factors. You say that some nebulous "race" factor plays a part. I've simply been pointing out that you've failed to provide any direct evidence for this cause. When I point out those other factors, you reject the scientific method: You choose to shout your conclusion louder instead of meeting the demands of science by controlling for those influences.
Gabe: Do you want us to have a look at U.S Crime statistics related to Race and then put the amount of Blacks Versus Whites next to it and see what we get.
What controls do you propose to eliminate the competing factors I keep mentioning? The US isn't perfectly homogenized, you know. There's more to the US than a handful of sitcom stereotypes.
Perhaps you have an incling on to what the figures of fact will say?
Yes, I have an inkling: Black crime is higher overall, but my argument that's most likely a cause of many cultural influences in America: Anti-intellectualism, prominent non-intellectual celebrities promising glory from high-risk high-reward jobs like performers and athletes, lingering effects of pre-civil rights poverty in families, discrimination by employers, and so on and so on and so on.
That's why I'd rather cut past all the messiness and objectively measure what you're claiming exists objectively: I want an experiment that compares a lot of people's genes to the specs of their brains.
It's like this: Instead of looking at what the most popular cars on the race track are and presume that they're the best, I want to look at the actual, factual specs: How much horsepower can engine X put out? What's the difference of braking distance of two sets of brakes on otherwise identical cars?
I want to look under the hood, not hear how some driver feels his superstitious voodoo ritual with his corporately sponsored vehicle won him the trophy: It doesn't eliminate the explanation that the guy's just a skilled driver who can compensate for shortcomings.
If you want to talk about "black" brains, find a way to measure "black" brains. I don't want indirect innuendo that involves changing the principles of biology.
Kind of reminds me of 9/11 twoofers who, rather than argue about the capabilities of explosives or the structural integrity of the WTC towers, choose to talk about who benefited from the event, as if such indirect measurements can change the laws of physics.
I've just gotten back from doing some neat research on some 11th Century scholars who discovered the basic principles of modern Geology and Astronomy, developed and first applied the experimental scientific method to disciplines like Mechanics, and even came up with evolution and Malthusian principles a good eight hundred years before the West. Guys like Abū Rayhān Bīrūnī, Avicenna, and Shen Kuo.
Then I come here to find Gabe spouting the usual nonsense about how science is "white."
Gabe, either learn your history or STFU. While your European ancestors were enslaving each other and trying to find new ways to kill brown people, the Eastern world was working 700 years ahead of the curve.
By the way, if you've ever taken cortisone or corticosteroids, or if you've ever benefited from birth control pills, then you can thank "nigger" Percy Julian, whose work made it possible to synthesize hormones on a large scale. While his cracker-ass colleagues were looking for new ways to deny him promotions, he solved all the intractable problems that they'd been struggling with for years. "Just assisting" my ass.
Verification word: saniest; certainly not a description of Gabe.
Hey Tom, I'd be interested in reading about those guys. The only name on that list is Avicenna. Care to list some of your sources, online or off? Anyway, I wouldn't mind you posting here or emailing me at rhoadan at gmail dot com.
"Seriously, can't we let this fucker die in obscurity without letting him leave anymore 1s and 0s behind?
Do it for the children."
Yeah, I second this Bronze. I'm finding that I don't visit here so much any more because Gabe is a hopelessly lost case and his goal main goal it seems is to remain wilfully ignorant and to derail every thread with his racist garbage.
I don't know if you consider him your pet project or something, but if you're indulging him because he is an excellent example to others, I suggest that you have made your point and Gabe has outlived his usefulness. Someone who learns nothing from a 100 page refutation of Gabe's bullshit, isnt suddenly going to 'get it' from the 101st page.
Its your site and of course, you're welcome to do whatever you like, but my time is too precious to spend another moment humouring Gabe.
Yeah, I'm getting the message. Joke's wearing a bit thin.
So, here's the deal, Gabe: You're the first person on my ban list, now, but you can get unbanned if you'll criticize what I actually believe, which means you'll have to come up with some radically different arguments than the tired old straw men and subject changes you've been endlessly looping.
Gabe, all I can say is you are assuming your own conclusion, and have been from the start. If your evidence that "black people are inferior" is just "because they are inferior" and you aren't even willing to acknowledge the possibility that accidents of history are a possible explanation for certain nations prospering over others, then that is a failure on your own part.
Oh, and your attempt at contrition over "exception" is downright ignorant, plus an attempt to simply deny the facts outright. You seem to conclude, in the face of me pointing out that there ARE successful members of your "inferior race", that it's as though there's just a handful of such successes, and then in the same breath attempt to claim that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those cases is actually just them leeching on the success of others, or belittle it some other way. I don't even care about sports stars, never did. To say that Neil DeGrasse, for example, is just a moron getting credit for other scientist's work is, well, utterly baseless. What manner of conspiracy are you suggesting that these black scientists, engineers, doctors, politicians, and so on are simply being "covered" for, and for what motive?
You're asking us to buy a lot when you make such grand and baseless attempts to discredit evidence that clearly bothers you. The attempt at both saying it's not relevant AND is in very small numbers, aside from both being false, is telling. I mean if it's not relevant, why bother also trying to diminish their number?
It's all beside the point. The presence of perfectly successful people of your "inferior" races is a bonus, not even necessary to establish that humans, on the whole, are mentally equipped the same way. There are variations, but no signs at all that these variations have anything to do with any superficial visual genetic differences.
Your job is to establish otherwise. We've put forward the challenge, and you are unable to meet it. Have been unable to even address that there may be problems with it. It's all for naught. This outdated idea of racial "superiority" is dying. It's barely a whisper in the public conciousness. The occasional flare serves only to remind us of the evils that such ideas result in.
Here is my final note. Even if there WAS evidence that one could easily tell a mentally inferior person from a mentally superior person, and there were metrics OF what attributes of intelligence, specifically, this superiority was in, I STILL would not support the notion that this justified any sort of oppression of either side by the other, or seperation. I would still be in full support of equal opportunities FOR both parties, that even if they could be established as mentally "inferior", they still should be given the CHANCE to overcome it.
Heh, I bet warching Naruto would make your head explode in rage. That whole series is a rejection of racist ideals in a world where genetic "failures" survive in the face of doubt and lack of "natural talent" to become legends.
Gabriel can't write a grammatically correct sentence and considers himself part of an elite?!!?!? (The Dunning-Kruger Effect?)
But seriously, what is it with considering groups (in this case, ill-defined groups) as single entities rather than populations of individuals? Even if you could rigorously define a group (which you can't here) and even if there were evidence saying that the group is better or worse on average, that doesn't say anything about an individual. To indulge in a few stereotypes: If blacks are statistically better at basketball than whites, does that mean that whites shouldn't be allowed to play basketball? If men are statistically better than women at math, should we not teach girls math? If women are statistically better at verbal skills than men, should we not teach boys to read & write or even to speak? (Hmmm. Maybe Gabe fell victim to that last one.)
Seems Blogger hasn't been informing me of moderated comments from old threads. Got 21 listed. Get ready for a flood of pent up Gabriel.
22 comments:
Fuck Gabe. I'm not going to read his shit.
You hear that, Gabe! I'm not going to read anything you post.
Who's with me?
Considering djfav is some adolescent in his moms basement I do find his comments rather ironic. The only thing he says is the various abbreviations of 'fuck' 'shit' 'asshole' and so on, a child with internet connection.
Anyway, Bronze hae already shown he cant handle to debate real issues, he sits with his colored glasses on ignoring any facts provided.
Seriously, can't we let this fucker die in obscurity without letting him leave anymore 1s and 0s behind?
Do it for the children.
Gabe, you seriously don't know what views I have, what facts I accept, or anything, do you?
Your trolldom has been, among other things, a long session of me agreeing with the scant bits of evidence you provide, and providing non-magical explanations for them, while you avoid giving us any information whatsoever about your explanation. "Magic" is not an explanation, and neither are non-physical, poorly defined terms like your private definition of "race."
Face it, Gabriel, all you've done is avoid explaining what I already have numerous times: Why are predominantly black regions poor? You can only invoke "race" as if it were a magic spell.
Because they are niggers, Africans are poor and backwards because they do not have the same mental functions we have, we tried to give them our knowledge and in the United States , instead of creating wonderful soceities they ghettos, murdering people and raping white woman.. I see a pattern here.
Some, a FEW, a MINORITY mamanges to get the full capacity we have, very few in numbers, you got that negro golf player, not smart, he hits a ball, wow, and baskeball, once again, very intelligent, and then perhaps one or two negros in the labs, maybe assisting white aryan male that find the cures for disease.
Face it.
Fucking shit. I can't help but stop and stare at a train wreck.
I see that Gabe doesn't have any new material. If he leaves anymore 1s and 0s lingering on the net, they will be redundant. Perhaps that it worse.
And Gabe, you forgot the cocaine. Raping white women and cocaine. That's some old propaganda.
Gabe: Because they are niggers, Africans are poor and backwards because they do not have the same mental functions we have, we tried to give them our knowledge and in the United States , instead of creating wonderful soceities they ghettos, murdering people and raping white woman.. I see a pattern here.
So, then, why don't you settle this by showing me a sampling experiment or something like that that shows brain size, neuron density, and so forth? Why do you have to resort to such indirect methods of measurement that are flooded with other factors? Why is poor experimental design superior to objective, controlled studies? Why is it that your pro-laziness epistemology superior to the most fundamental diligence of the scientific method?
It's like the magic water of homeopathy: The only time their superstitious nonsense appears to have an effect is with poorly designed trials. The better the study (more test subjects, better controls, better blinding procedures, better randomization), the less the effect homeopathy has.
Why do you object to good science?
Some, a FEW, a MINORITY mamanges to get the full capacity we have, very few in numbers, you got that negro golf player, not smart, he hits a ball, wow, and baskeball, once again, very intelligent, and then perhaps one or two negros in the labs, maybe assisting white aryan male that find the cures for disease.
Here's one instance of you ignoring a fact I relayed to you: Tiger Woods isn't "black". He's multiracial, last time I checked. Unless you're changing the definition of "black" away from dominantly African descent.
Of course, I could be wrong. I'm not a sports lover, so I don't feel the need to memorize such useless and, to me at least, uninteresting information.
As for your talk about them being a minority in intellectual pursuits, your explanation defies Occam's razor. Good schools, good upbringing, stable communities, family wealth, and so forth are already known to produce a higher percentage of intellectual people. Heck, last time I checked, one large group of intellectuals known as neurologists have been arguing that intelligence is even more environmental than we give credit for: They've had great difficulty finding any sort of "smart genes" among humans in general, much less any sort of smart gene trend in any one phenotype.
Put simply, Gabe, your explanation falls into the category of supernatural explanations, unless you can provide direct, physical evidence of a significant difference in brain size/density/whatever.
Oh, and quotes from a Nobel Prize winner don't count. It's the experiments, the data, not the person who makes something scientifically meaningful. Science is not messianic in nature. Scientists are normal human beings who only earn trust by showing their hard work. Science, by it's true nature, is a rejection of authority.
The work is more important than who does it. But your postmodernism won't accept that. You focus on me to the point of fetishism that you don't bother to notice that the facts I present come from the collective hard work of countless other human beings. All you have to offer in opposition is a lazy anecdotal glance and some easily explainable facts that the worldwide community already accepts.
So, then, why don't you settle this by showing me a sampling experiment or something like that that shows brain size, neuron density, and so forth? Why do you have to resort to such indirect methods of measurement that are flooded with other factors? Why is poor experimental design superior to objective, controlled studies? Why is it that your pro-laziness epistemology superior to the most fundamental diligence of the scientific method?
It's like the magic water of homeopathy: The only time their superstitious nonsense appears to have an effect is with poorly designed trials. The better the study (more test subjects, better controls, better blinding procedures, better randomization), the less the effect homeopathy has.
Why do you object to good science?
I do not object to good science, but most experiments have been biased and unobjective so far.
Also, we do not know everything about the brain, we have the facts of how Negros are less intelligent and more animal like then Whites, perhaps we need to learn more about the brain to know why they act more like animals then civilized people?
We certainly need more knowledge on this and I am all for cience to poke into this finding the reason to Negros backwardsness.
Do you want us to have a look at U.S Crime statistics related to Race and then put the amount of Blacks Versus Whites next to it and see what we get.
Perhaps you have an incling on to what the figures of fact will say?
Well then, Gabe, show us this "good science" that comes to a predetermined conclusion. That's what you were asked to do.
I predict that you will do no such thing.
You are full of shit.
And while you're at it, please tell us which experiments you think were "biased and unobjective" and why.
Again, I predict that you will not do this. You can't. Because you are full of shit.
Heh.
Considering Gabe is some senile racist his children kindly put in a home and gladly forgot about, I do find his comments rather sickening. The only thing he says is the various abbreviations of 'nigger' 'spic' 'fag' and so on, a geriatric with an internet connection.
See what I did there?
Gabe: I do not object to good science, but most experiments have been biased and unobjective so far.
You could reasonably suggest that about experiments that explicitly involve race, but that isn't the only place where such problems with your views on race and genetics are: For me to accept your views would require me to reject the results of experimentation on fruit flies.
Also, we do not know everything about the brain, we have the facts of how Negros are less intelligent and more animal like then Whites, perhaps we need to learn more about the brain to know why they act more like animals then civilized people?
1. Humans are animals. "Animal-like" doesn't have much meaning to me, since all human behaviors are included in the already very large set of "animal" behaviors.
2. You've reached this conclusion only by observing very indirect data, ignoring the sampling biases inherent to anecdotes, and failing to control for alternative explanations I provided. These would all be very good reasons for a science journal to reject a study, or grounds for denying a grant, regardless of topic. You're asking me to make an exception to these universal rules just for you, without explanation. Why should I accept your "study" and reject all the explanations that make sense?
We certainly need more knowledge on this and I am all for cience to poke into this finding the reason to Negros backwardsness.
You're assuming your conclusion before you prove it. You're supposed to convince me that some factor of "blackness" causes those problems. I already accept that those problems exist (though you'll deny my agreement on that part): My disagreement is about the cause of those problems. I say it's a collection of social, economic, political, and geographic factors. You say that some nebulous "race" factor plays a part. I've simply been pointing out that you've failed to provide any direct evidence for this cause. When I point out those other factors, you reject the scientific method: You choose to shout your conclusion louder instead of meeting the demands of science by controlling for those influences.
Continued below...
Gabe: Do you want us to have a look at U.S Crime statistics related to Race and then put the amount of Blacks Versus Whites next to it and see what we get.
What controls do you propose to eliminate the competing factors I keep mentioning? The US isn't perfectly homogenized, you know. There's more to the US than a handful of sitcom stereotypes.
Perhaps you have an incling on to what the figures of fact will say?
Yes, I have an inkling: Black crime is higher overall, but my argument that's most likely a cause of many cultural influences in America: Anti-intellectualism, prominent non-intellectual celebrities promising glory from high-risk high-reward jobs like performers and athletes, lingering effects of pre-civil rights poverty in families, discrimination by employers, and so on and so on and so on.
That's why I'd rather cut past all the messiness and objectively measure what you're claiming exists objectively: I want an experiment that compares a lot of people's genes to the specs of their brains.
It's like this: Instead of looking at what the most popular cars on the race track are and presume that they're the best, I want to look at the actual, factual specs: How much horsepower can engine X put out? What's the difference of braking distance of two sets of brakes on otherwise identical cars?
I want to look under the hood, not hear how some driver feels his superstitious voodoo ritual with his corporately sponsored vehicle won him the trophy: It doesn't eliminate the explanation that the guy's just a skilled driver who can compensate for shortcomings.
If you want to talk about "black" brains, find a way to measure "black" brains. I don't want indirect innuendo that involves changing the principles of biology.
Kind of reminds me of 9/11 twoofers who, rather than argue about the capabilities of explosives or the structural integrity of the WTC towers, choose to talk about who benefited from the event, as if such indirect measurements can change the laws of physics.
Gabe fails in 3...2...1...
I've just gotten back from doing some neat research on some 11th Century scholars who discovered the basic principles of modern Geology and Astronomy, developed and first applied the experimental scientific method to disciplines like Mechanics, and even came up with evolution and Malthusian principles a good eight hundred years before the West. Guys like Abū Rayhān Bīrūnī, Avicenna, and Shen Kuo.
Then I come here to find Gabe spouting the usual nonsense about how science is "white."
Gabe, either learn your history or STFU. While your European ancestors were enslaving each other and trying to find new ways to kill brown people, the Eastern world was working 700 years ahead of the curve.
By the way, if you've ever taken cortisone or corticosteroids, or if you've ever benefited from birth control pills, then you can thank "nigger" Percy Julian, whose work made it possible to synthesize hormones on a large scale. While his cracker-ass colleagues were looking for new ways to deny him promotions, he solved all the intractable problems that they'd been struggling with for years. "Just assisting" my ass.
Verification word: saniest; certainly not a description of Gabe.
Hey Tom, I'd be interested in reading about those guys. The only name on that list is Avicenna. Care to list some of your sources, online or off? Anyway, I wouldn't mind you posting here or emailing me at rhoadan at gmail dot com.
Verification word: spira
Agnew's sister.
djfav said,
"Seriously, can't we let this fucker die in obscurity without letting him leave anymore 1s and 0s behind?
Do it for the children."
Yeah, I second this Bronze. I'm finding that I don't visit here so much any more because Gabe is a hopelessly lost case and his goal main goal it seems is to remain wilfully ignorant and to derail every thread with his racist garbage.
I don't know if you consider him your pet project or something, but if you're indulging him because he is an excellent example to others, I suggest that you have made your point and Gabe has outlived his usefulness. Someone who learns nothing from a 100 page refutation of Gabe's bullshit, isnt suddenly going to 'get it' from the 101st page.
Its your site and of course, you're welcome to do whatever you like, but my time is too precious to spend another moment humouring Gabe.
Yeah, I'm getting the message. Joke's wearing a bit thin.
So, here's the deal, Gabe: You're the first person on my ban list, now, but you can get unbanned if you'll criticize what I actually believe, which means you'll have to come up with some radically different arguments than the tired old straw men and subject changes you've been endlessly looping.
Rhoadan: Much to Gabe's chagrin, you might as well start with Wikipedia; I did.
Abū Rayḥān Bīrūnī
Avicenna
Shen Kuo
Perhaps you could also allow for him actually answering the question he has been ducking for months:
Exactly who does he mean when he says 'white'?
Gabe, all I can say is you are assuming your own conclusion, and have been from the start. If your evidence that "black people are inferior" is just "because they are inferior" and you aren't even willing to acknowledge the possibility that accidents of history are a possible explanation for certain nations prospering over others, then that is a failure on your own part.
Oh, and your attempt at contrition over "exception" is downright ignorant, plus an attempt to simply deny the facts outright. You seem to conclude, in the face of me pointing out that there ARE successful members of your "inferior race", that it's as though there's just a handful of such successes, and then in the same breath attempt to claim that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those cases is actually just them leeching on the success of others, or belittle it some other way. I don't even care about sports stars, never did. To say that Neil DeGrasse, for example, is just a moron getting credit for other scientist's work is, well, utterly baseless. What manner of conspiracy are you suggesting that these black scientists, engineers, doctors, politicians, and so on are simply being "covered" for, and for what motive?
You're asking us to buy a lot when you make such grand and baseless attempts to discredit evidence that clearly bothers you. The attempt at both saying it's not relevant AND is in very small numbers, aside from both being false, is telling. I mean if it's not relevant, why bother also trying to diminish their number?
It's all beside the point. The presence of perfectly successful people of your "inferior" races is a bonus, not even necessary to establish that humans, on the whole, are mentally equipped the same way. There are variations, but no signs at all that these variations have anything to do with any superficial visual genetic differences.
Your job is to establish otherwise. We've put forward the challenge, and you are unable to meet it. Have been unable to even address that there may be problems with it. It's all for naught. This outdated idea of racial "superiority" is dying. It's barely a whisper in the public conciousness. The occasional flare serves only to remind us of the evils that such ideas result in.
Here is my final note. Even if there WAS evidence that one could easily tell a mentally inferior person from a mentally superior person, and there were metrics OF what attributes of intelligence, specifically, this superiority was in, I STILL would not support the notion that this justified any sort of oppression of either side by the other, or seperation. I would still be in full support of equal opportunities FOR both parties, that even if they could be established as mentally "inferior", they still should be given the CHANCE to overcome it.
Heh, I bet warching Naruto would make your head explode in rage. That whole series is a rejection of racist ideals in a world where genetic "failures" survive in the face of doubt and lack of "natural talent" to become legends.
Gabriel can't write a grammatically correct sentence and considers himself part of an elite?!!?!? (The Dunning-Kruger Effect?)
But seriously, what is it with considering groups (in this case, ill-defined groups) as single entities rather than populations of individuals? Even if you could rigorously define a group (which you can't here) and even if there were evidence saying that the group is better or worse on average, that doesn't say anything about an individual. To indulge in a few stereotypes: If blacks are statistically better at basketball than whites, does that mean that whites shouldn't be allowed to play basketball? If men are statistically better than women at math, should we not teach girls math? If women are statistically better at verbal skills than men, should we not teach boys to read & write or even to speak? (Hmmm. Maybe Gabe fell victim to that last one.)
Post a Comment