No, you're not getting the point that equality among races isn't a matter of OH WELL THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE SCORES HIGHER ON AN IQ TEST THAN THIS GROUP, it's a moral claim. OF COURSE not every single fucking person on the planet is equal, but this doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated equally. You're ignoring the difference between a descriptive and normative claim, and completely trash the point of the "stupid liberal viewpoint." The things you are saying here are not only laughable, they're horrifying and completely ignore what things like equality and egalitarianism ARE: MORAL POSITIONS.

“Although every race has evolved independently and are entirely different biologically they all have exactly the same brains.  Although this has no evidence supporting it and a lot disproving it, this is irrelevant, because we don‘t want to believe it”
This ISN'T the liberal viewpoint in regards to things like EQUALITY, of course people have different brains, some people are smarter than others, etc, the liberal point of view is that HEY EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT NOT TO BE HARASSED AND TORMENTED, ENSLAVED ETC ON THE BASIS OF THEIR RACE

BUT WHATEVER IT'S A HUGE HIPPIE CONSPIRACY LMAO

I can't believe you take this to be some kind of PROFOUND knowledge comparable to knowing that the earth isn't flat. REALLY? WELL NOW WE KNOW SOMETHING REALLY COOL. You come on here and yell about your really boring claims and try to lump it against important and significant ethical beliefs that have granted millions of human beings the right to live with equal opportunity amongst other different humans, completely ignoring that whether or not intelligence level correlates with race has nothing to do with the philosophical perspective of things like egalitarianism that you've managed to trash alongside your hamfisted discussion.

Show me some contradicting evidence fuckwit

ppkay wait right here i'll brb and get it okay?

Hidden content (Click to reveal)

Hey guys

I'm Afura's flatmate.

So by definition racism is the belief that your race is superior to all others genetically.  My belief is just that people of different races have different mentalities and intelligences and that this is not entirely due to environment but partly due to their genetics.  Therefore i'm not racist.  Some may say this is the same thing as studies show whites are more intelligent than blacks.  However I would argue that studies also show north east asians are in fact smarter again, making whites not the most intelligent race and therefore not the "master race" talked about by nazis and most traditional white supremist organisations.

The fact that different races have different mentalities and intelligences is a widely accepted fact and is proven by every study ever done on intelligence difference between races.  The part that is controversial, however, is the cause of this difference.  The behaviouralists believe that this is entirely due to their environment and that the reason african americans end up with lower paying jobs and do worse in school in the united states is due to "the white man keeping them down".  This view is not based on any evidence, however, and is only the most widely held view because it is what people want to believe.  As can be seen in this journal (http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/235-2.html), there is an overwhelming amount of research that proves there is an indisputable correlation between IQ and race.  I'm not going to go into detail about each experiment because it'd take too much time; if you're interested read the article.

A common argument to this point is that IQ and race are both abstract social constructions.  You may try and discredit IQ tests and say they only prove you're good at taking IQ tests but there is also an indisputable correlation between your IQ and academic success and between IQ and average income.  So although its hard to define "intelligence" or a way to unquestionably test it, we can say that these tests prove your chance of academic success and earning potential.  The idea that race is also an abstract social construction is based on the idea that people have more of a continuous variation in their genes and traits rather than clear cut categories.  This is true now partly due to mixing of races.  However, I would still argue people can be categorised into logical "races" by their physical traits, historical geographic origin and particularly genetic make up.  These races are rational and are not abstract due to the fact that aside from half casts everyone falls into an indisputable category.  You can't say an african is an asian anymore than you can say a cat is a dog.  It's not abstract its a fact that can be seen by their physical characteristics and indisuptable proved by their DNA.  Half casts now don't fall into one of these categories and may belong to two or more categories meaning they have genes made up from all these races.

So I conclude that these logical 'races' have been proven to have different IQs and they are an indication of their academic and financial success.



This view is very unpopular in modern society.  Today's media pushes the idea that anything said by a white person that is negative towards another race is automatically "racist" and therefore the person saying it must be very stupid, as evil as hitler and deserves to die a painful death.  We are all for freedom of speech but if it's racist then that person must be silence, right?
I would also like to add that this conclusion doesn't mean that anyone is any less of a person based on their race.  I don't hate people because on their race, I have friends who are other races, I even used to go out with an asian chick.  A lot of people, particularly of minorities proven to have a lower intelligence really don't like this view.  It is logically very hard for them to take and most often they will make up some mental justification for it being wrong or try to find some bullshit irrelevant hole in the argument.  These people can continue to lie to themselves and say "it's not true" but if they really open their eyes they will see it is.

Define intelligence.

2. The difference in IQ between races is accepted by everyone who has taken 5 minutes out of their life to look into it.  Heres just one site with data on it http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&fuseaction=showUIDAbstract&uid=2001-01339-002 but if you dont think its enough or want more evidence just search "iq difference races" or something similar in any search engine.  You'll find hundreds of web pages telling you exactly the same thing.
heres another one http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/060423_lynn.htm

Man, you really don't get it at all, do you? The first link there is a meta-analysis. That means they take already existing scientific data and look for patterns... Which would be fine if said data hadn't been fudged, altered, and generally made up by a massive amount of racist shitheads over the years. Lynn is generally considered to be the defining source in data for this, and Lynn is also a racist fuck. Here is a guy who believes who believes “we do need to think realistically in terms of "phasing out" of such peoples. If the world is to evolve more better humans, then obviously someone has to make way for them. ... To think otherwise is mere sentimentality”, and you're treating his research as ABSOLUTELY 100% CREDIBLE AND UNBIASED.
Incidentally, that second page you linked to was part of the anti-immigration, white nationalist site VDARE. So yeah, those guys are well qualified to objectively observe data.

3.  Some are saying the actual difference in genotype between races is very low.  Well if you look at the percentage as a whole this would seem to be true (99.9% of genes are common to humans) but if you look at it relative to other things it doesn't seem like such a big gap.  For example that humans also share 99.4% of their genes with chimps.  Ouch that blows that theory out of the water.  If any other species has the same genetic variation between them as humans do between races they're defined as sub-species. http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html this link gives some comparisons in genetic variation between humans and other mammals.

So? The question isn't 'are blacks different than whites', the question is 'are blacks less intelligent than whites', and despite your whining and condescending I still haven't seen any kind of proper data to support this idea. If you're wondering what 'proper' data is, here's a hint: data that wasn't gathered off an issue of Penthouse, as Rushton admitted his study of race and sexuality was.

4. It seems that not everyone is happy with the credibility of the article i linked to originally.  The fact that the authors are both doctors of psychology and belong to numerous reputable institutions including american, canadian and british psychological associations means nothing apparently when your views go against what certain people want to believe in.  Some have argued that their references are all either outdated or to themselves.  Have any of you even read the article? There are over 230 lines of references mostly from reputable journals.  Not to mention that referencing ur own past work is done by practically all scientists, it saves them having to prove the same data every time they write a paper; any of you who actually study science would know this.  And his references all being outdated is also rubbish.  Theres nothing wrong with using references from decades before as long as the methods used to obtain the data are still current and repeatable. Fuck for all of you people who are worried about just ignore everything with refernces from before 1990 and uv still got more proof than you'll know what to do with

So basically your defence is BUT THEY'RE DOCTORS!!! I don't feel like mocking Rushton and Jensen for the fourth time today, so I'd suggest you actually look at some of the stuff I posted. They're racist shills, who get their information off other racist shills (our old friend Lynn again), who fudge the data (so a half-assed and biased study from the 20s is given exactly as much scientific weight as one from today) and who leave out any results that they think contradict their hypothesis. I'll just post three samples here:

Steven Cronshaw and colleagues wrote in a paper for the International Journal of Selection and Assessment in 2006 that psychologists should critically examine the science employed in Rushton's race-realist research. Through a re-analysis of the validity criteria for test bias using data reported in the Rushton et al. paper they assert that the testing methods were in fact biased against Black Africans. They disagree with other aspects of Rushton's methodology such as the use of non-equivalent groups in test samples.

Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson of New York University wrote in 2005 that Rushton has ignored evidence that fails to support his position that IQ test score gaps represent a genetic racial hierarchy. He has not changed his position on this matter for 30 years.

And once more, since I think it's hilarious:

Rushton sources, such as semi-pornographic books and the Penthouse magazine, have been dismissed by other researchers, or have been criticized as extremely biased and inadequate reviews of the literature, or simply false [5]. There have also been many other criticisms of the theory [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. Actual recent data show that blacks are not more psychopathic [13], nor do they differ in from whites when testing for the big five personality traits [14], differences in sex hormones between whites and East Asians are best explained by environmental differences [15], and the fundamental prediction of the theory that blacks have a higher frequency of twins is incorrect [16].

The american psychological association is a large respectable organisation who screens any work they publish, pretty much the same as every major scientific journal.  There's no way they'd publish an article which was just "unfounded white supremist views".

I guess you're right there, since there's no way a large and prestigious organisation would ever accept something without any scientific merit. Nope, couldn't happen. Totally inconcievable.
http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg18624963.700.html

Anyway let's ignore that article and look at some other research discussing exactly the same thing from unbiased perspectives.
http://www.globalpolitician.com/24460-iq-race
http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/

Other articles on the first site include 'Multicuturalists Gone Wild', 'Whites Not Allowed', and 'Affirmative Action Leads To Censorship, Bureaucracy, And Even Death', while the article itself believes we should use this information as an excuse to cut school funding for blacks. How exactly is that 'unbiased'?
The other article is laughable. It starts ominously with "But if you choose to fight the evidence, here's what you're up against", before quoting... The original Rushton/Jensen study you linked to already, and which I've already shown to be a massive pile of horseshit. This does actually underline my point though, which is that the only people who accept that paper are the ones who take all the data and statistical assumptions at face value.

Everyone clings to the egalitarian view that all races are equal in every way.  Hey guys, grow a fucking brain. You really think races that are separated geographically for tens of thousands of years and differ in genes and physical traits incredibly some how ended up with exactly the same brains.  Wow that would be pretty amazing huh.  The view that race has not effect whatsoever on intelligence was made up based on NOT ONE THREAD OF RESEARCH but rather on the fact that it’s what people wanted to believe.  Now that research is proving this entirely wrong people people don’t want to believe it.  They don’t quote evidence to oppose it... because there is none.  Only views that it’s a racist thing to say.  Well cry me a fucking river!

I still can't believe people wanted to keep this debate civil... Also, I fixed your statement:
"The view that race has not effect whatsoever a significant effect on intelligence was made up based on NOT ONE THREAD OF RESEARCH but rather on the fact that it’s what people wanted to believe"
How difficult is this to understand? They made this shit up. Also:
"They don’t quote evidence to oppose it... because there is none."
From a previous response: "There have also been many other criticisms of the theory [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. Actual recent data show that blacks are not more psychopathic [13], nor do they differ in from whites when testing for the big five personality traits [14], differences in sex hormones between whites and East Asians are best explained by environmental differences [15], and the fundamental prediction of the theory that blacks have a higher frequency of twins is incorrect [16]."
And jesus, would it kill you to actually try to have some shred of dignity? You sound like a whiney 8-year-old. "YOU'RE ALL WRONG AND THIS ALTERED DATA PROVES IT! I HATE YOU! LEAVE ME ALONE!"

So while these "equally intelligent" races developed on their different continents some, such as caucasians, developed agriculture, government and philosophy.  They developed steel works and complicated manufacturing, built ships, learnt science and built cities.  Meanwhile others lived in mudhuts and chased zebras around with spears.  Come on people you've got to be kidding me.  Ofcourse we're different.  Before they met white people sub-saharan africans were only a very small step up from monkeys.

I'm going to be generous here and allow the other members of GW to kick this one to death. I would like to mention, though, "The many achievements of the ancient Egyptians included a system of mathematics, quarrying, surveying and construction techniques that facilitated the building of monumental pyramids, temples and obelisks, faience and glass technology, a practical and effective system of medicine, new forms of literature, irrigation systems and agricultural production techniques, and the earliest known peace treaty.[6] Egypt left a lasting legacy: art and architecture were copied and antiquities paraded around the world, and monumental ruins have inspired the imaginations of tourists and writers for centuries."
Not bad for a bunch of genetically inferior sand-niggers.

Liberal retarded viewpoint: “Although every race has evolved independently and are entirely different biologically they all have exactly the same brains.  Although this has no evidence supporting it and a lot disproving it, this is irrelevant, because we don‘t want to believe it”

Do I really need to go into the whole 'evidence' thing again? Seriously?

It’s like going back a few hundred years and trying to tell people the earth is round.
“That can’t be right”
“You’re a crazy extremist”

Ha! I knew you were going to do this!
See, for anyone who doesn't know, this is a prominent argument among pseudoscientific hacks. The logic behind it goes:
- They laughed at Galileo
- They laughed at me
- Therefore I am Galileo
Can you spot the subtle logical flaw in this argument? Seriously, some scientists were discredited even though they were right. Many, many, many others were discredited because they were completely wrong on every concievable level. The main difference is whether or nor their data can stand any close inspection, and the data by Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, and all the other nazi hacks you mentioned clearly does not.

Well guess what all you fucking hippies, it’s a fact, races are different.

Fucking live with it.

Hahahaha, you fucking pussy. Screaming insults and running away stops being impressive after you leave kindergarten.

I'm not even going to get into the second post, since craniometry has been repeatedly proven false since the victorian era, but regarding the paper by Rushton and Ankney you think so highly of: http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/documents/publications/cjep/petertxt.htm, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3690/is_199512/ai_n8726828

Nevermind the vagueness of a word like intelligence, my point is that you really trash liberal egalitarian views on equality with your STUPID LIBERAL VIEWPOINT and FUCKING HIPPIES rhetoric

You've entirely missed the point of this debate.  I'm talking about the difference in intelligence between races.  Not condoning treating people badly based on the colour of their skin.

Why's it so hard for people to get that iq differences between races doesn't mean I'm gonna go lynch me a nigger.  It doesn't mean i'm an entirely insensitive bastard who thinks certain races should be treated any worse than others.

No-one said that. It's just your lack of understanding of how genetics and biology really work that produce this laughable(and sad) ideology of yours.
Yeah, races are different, yes we can live with it, YES, YOU HAVE A LIGHTER SKIN COLOR THAN I DO, YOU ALSO HAVE DIFFERENT EYE IRISES B-BUT


That's about it really. All members of the species Homo Sapiens have the same thinking capacity, we are all born with the same brain, what we do with it after we are born is IRRELEVANT to our genetic make-up.

Egypt is not sub-saharan for a start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsaharan_Africa

What does this have to do with anything


also:

Define intelligence.

Egypt is not sub-saharan for a start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsaharan_Africa

Seriously, that's the only part of my page-long post about how stupid you are that you're going to dispute? C'mon, the least you can say is that I'm a LIBERAL FUCK who's IGNORING THE EVIDENCE. Please? For me?

So basically your defence is BUT THEY'RE DOCTORS!!! I don't feel like mocking Rushton and Jensen for the fourth time today, so I'd suggest you actually look at some of the stuff I posted. They're racist shills, who get their information off other racist shills (our old friend Lynn again), who fudge the data (so a half-assed and biased study from the 20s is given exactly as much scientific weight as one from today) and who leave out any results that they think contradict their hypothesis. I'll just post three samples here:

Steven Cronshaw and colleagues wrote in a paper for the International Journal of Selection and Assessment in 2006 that psychologists should critically examine the science employed in Rushton's race-realist research. Through a re-analysis of the validity criteria for test bias using data reported in the Rushton et al. paper they assert that the testing methods were in fact biased against Black Africans. They disagree with other aspects of Rushton's methodology such as the use of non-equivalent groups in test samples.

Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson of New York University wrote in 2005 that Rushton has ignored evidence that fails to support his position that IQ test score gaps represent a genetic racial hierarchy. He has not changed his position on this matter for 30 years.

He doesn't have to go to the things you've posted, all he has to do is look at the things HE'S posted himself, like where it says on the Slate.com article:

"For the past five years, J. Philippe Rushton has been president of the Pioneer Fund, an organization dedicated to "the scientific study of heredity and human differences." During this time, the fund has awarded at least $70,000 to the New Century Foundation. To get a flavor of what New Century stands for, check out its publications on crime ("Everyone knows that blacks are dangerous") and heresy ("Unless whites shake off the teachings of racial orthodoxy they will cease to be a distinct people"). New Century publishes a magazine called American Renaissance, which preaches segregation. Rushton routinely speaks at its conferences.

I was negligent in failing to research and report this. I'm sorry. I owe you better than that."

Oh yah, the author of that Slate.com article wrote a follow up seven days ago. It's pretty interesting (I did also find the other one interesting as well.