“The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.”
– Thomas Sowell
– Thomas Sowell
Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Schmelzer:
If you haven't studied these matters sufficiently to form an opinion either way, tell me why you so often choose to highlight non-consensus opinions rather than the majority?
You presumably defer to experts in many areas of your life. So why on these matters do you choose to defer to the fringe? I'm interested to know. I'm also interested to know why you don't make more effort to inform yourself about these matters, seeing as you're obviously interested in participating in discussions about them. Wouldn't it be better to be well informed, compared to ignorant, as you claim to be?
I'm just wondering what you're doing in this and similar threads, if you're not interested in studying the questions under discussion. It puzzles me. Are you just wasting your time? Don't you have better things to do?
It is absurd to go out of your way to deny things that have such a huge amount of evidence. Absurd if you want to be considered rational and reasonable, that is. On the other hand, if all you're interested in is pushing an ideological line with "alternative facts" then from that perspective denial is not absurd - it's just dishonest.
It is denial that the facts are the facts, despite overwhelming evidence.
Why are you posting in a thread that is ostensibly about the Holocaust if you have no opinion about it?
So you're telling me that you haven't studied the questions enough to form an opinion on whether 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis, or whether global warming is real, or whether slavery has any ongoing effects on the lived experience of black people in the United States? Is that correct?
Which Party are you referring to here? Do you mean the mainstream consensus on factual matters regarding global warming, the Holocaust, etc.? That party line?
If you haven't studied these matters sufficiently to form an opinion either way, tell me why you so often choose to highlight non-consensus opinions rather than the majority?
You presumably defer to experts in many areas of your life. So why on these matters do you choose to defer to the fringe? I'm interested to know. I'm also interested to know why you don't make more effort to inform yourself about these matters, seeing as you're obviously interested in participating in discussions about them. Wouldn't it be better to be well informed, compared to ignorant, as you claim to be?
Sure it's allowed.
I'm just wondering what you're doing in this and similar threads, if you're not interested in studying the questions under discussion. It puzzles me. Are you just wasting your time? Don't you have better things to do?
Michael:
Do you believe that black people in the United States continue to experience ongoing disadvantage due to past and present racially-motivated policy and attitudes?
If your answer is "No", then we will have a clear "citation" of your denial.
So, what's it to be, Michael?
Haven't you already had this discussion with iceaura, earlier in the thread?
Height is genetic, too - moreso than IQ, most probably. Does it follow that environment has no effect on height, then?
How does this bear on the question under discussion, in bold above?
So, let me get this straight. You think black people in the United States suffer more economic and social disadvantage because they are not as bright, on average, as white and Asian people? That's your argument in a nutshell, is it?
So, please clarify what it takes to be a "white racist", in your opinion, Michael, and we'll proceed from there.
Ah yes, the nervous "LOL". I'm very familiar with that. People use it when they lack a substantive response. Compare Magical Realist, for example.
iceaura's claim is that you're a denier. The evidence of that is in this thread, in abundance. We don't need to link to peer-reviewed manuscripts to say something about you. You provide the required evidence in every post you make.
Well, let's summarise then. Let me ask you directly:
Do you believe that black people in the United States continue to experience ongoing disadvantage due to past and present racially-motivated policy and attitudes?
If your answer is "No", then we will have a clear "citation" of your denial.
So, what's it to be, Michael?
Great! That's so encouraging to hear, Michael. Off you go to look for it, then.
Why is it more likely likely?
Haven't you already had this discussion with iceaura, earlier in the thread?
Height is genetic, too - moreso than IQ, most probably. Does it follow that environment has no effect on height, then?
Glad to hear that you have good evidence, Michael.
How does this bear on the question under discussion, in bold above?
All the evidence suggests that, does it?
So, let me get this straight. You think black people in the United States suffer more economic and social disadvantage because they are not as bright, on average, as white and Asian people? That's your argument in a nutshell, is it?
Perhaps you could define what you believe it means for somebody to be a "white racist", because that isn't clear to me given your question. Perhaps I made an incorrect assumption about what you were asking me. I assumed that a white racist would hold some idea that white people were superior in some way to members of other races.
So, please clarify what it takes to be a "white racist", in your opinion, Michael, and we'll proceed from there.
Explain this Race Theory to me, Michael. It seems I'm unfamiliar with it.
Not "Yes", or "No", but "LOL"? You mean you don't know whether you deny it, or you want to avoiding answering the question?
What assertions are you referring to?
Actually, I am literally laughing out loud. I found what you wrote funny
Yes, iceaura has a number of unsubstantiated claims.
I said good evidence. An internet thread is not good evidence.
That's true. See? We can agree.
LOL
Ever hear of circulus in probando?
What is it that you think I am denying?
Yes, some individuals who are black are bigoted against.
And? So too are some white and yellow people. Big deal.
That's not iceaura's claim.
His claim is a generalization: "White Racism" effects "Black People" in the USA. I don't live in the USA, I'm categorically excluded from his claim.
Perhaps you need to reread the thread James?
Oh, some individuals who are black are bigoted in favor of too. For example, black Americans received a “bonus” of 230 points on their SAT exams relative to yellow Americans. This is structural racism. This racism is in favor of high-IQ people - who happen to be black.
For example: If a rich Black person moved to the USA last year (say from England), and a poor Yellow person moved to the USA last year (say from China); and the poor Yellow person scored 200 points higher than the rich Black person, they will be excluded in favor of the Black person.
Can you provide an example of structural legal racism against Black people in the USA James? Just wondering if you have a single example.
I wonder, is it possible to have a bigotted 'white patriarchy' that simultaneously volunteers to pay for the disenfranchisement of white people in favor of black people? Maybe in Progressive Socialist world where unicorns barf magical rainbows while flying about in the skys.
Lastly, given Yellow people make up >50% of the IT professionals, and also are the highest socioeconomic group in the USA, would you agree that in reality, there's Yellow Patriarchy? Oh, and in the NBA, there's a Black Patriarchy. Etc...
LOL
IOWs, no good evidence, no peer-reviewed citations, no "Science" and 100% sophism.
LOL
I've citated my sources (Nature Genetics for example) and clearly articulated why Socialism favors people with biological high-IQ through regulatory capture and rent-seeking. If you have a specific question, I'll address it, but I'm not reiterating myself because you having taken the time to read the thread.
That isn't my argument. My argument is that low-IQ people are disadvantaged due to Socialism via regulatory-capture and rent-seeking.
What are you missing here? I've stated this how many times?
Psychosom Med. 2009 Apr; 71(3): 322–328.
IQ, socioeconomic status, and early death: The US National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.
The present study provides evidence for the role of IQ in predicting early mortality in the United States. Independently of age, sex, race/ethnicity, baseline health limitations, and parental education, high IQ in young adulthood predicted low mortality risk by the age of 47 years: An IQ one SD above the mean was associated with an approximately 22% decrease in the odds of death. This association was completely mediated by life-course socioeconomic circumstances, i.e., educational level and household income, which were predicted by IQ in the expected way. The IQ-mortality association was similar in Hispanic, Black, and White/other participants and also in men and women.
What next James? Going to begin denying Science?
The reason why little Asian girls are suspended less often relative to little white boys (and Asian boys) is due to genetics. No need for magical 'White Racism'.
It's not really hard to figure out, up to 85% of IQ is genetic, in a society where intellectual skills are rewarded with rent-seeking, high IQ people out compete low IQ people and live more prosperously.
Which is why we need:
- Free markets (free-people)
- Sound money (derived through free-trade)
- Common law (protect private property and uphold contract)
Perhaps you could ask iceaura, I asked him to define his terms and he refused.
So iceaura? Are you dong to define your terms so that we can clearly assess your (thus far) very weak non cogent muddled argument?
Wiki will suffice: Race Theory
Is there a male patriarchy?
LOL
Yes, in KSA.
In the USA on the other hand, males and females are legally equal. Though according to cited evidence (see thread) boys are disadvantaged in a Government school and this results in their receiving a significantly higher number of suspensions. The effect of this is that more girls attend higher education, as has been the case since the 1980s. Even though it is SCIENTIFICALLY possible to demonstrate that boys are bigotted against in primary education through suspension rates, only a MORON would claim the differences observed in the genders was due to a Female Matriarchy.
You'd have to be brain-dead to come up with that one
ROLFLMAO
Last edited:
You keep claiming that, the claim keeps on highlighting the absurdity of your various denials.
The relationship of Party line to absurd denial can be anything, including complete agreement. For example, the American Party line on AGW (that we don't really know whether warming is even happening, let alone what is the obvious most likely direct cause) incorporated the absurd denial of AGW for decades.
In these particular denials, the ones similar to Holocaust denials, "disagreement with the facts" - denial of common reality - is exactly the defining characteristic.
And you have no idea what any of that evidence means, what it is evidence of. You still haven't figured out basic stats and genetics yet - it's been months now, and you are still making the same mistakes.
You've seen this, among several other items: Almost every State of the entire Confederacy had miscegenation laws until 1967.
The situation exemplified by that is one every American is familiar with. Denial of that situation is absurd.
Not compared with black Americans.
A much lower percentage of Chinese lived in cities at all until very recently, their cities had much less leaded gas combustion in them and lower prevalences of lead paint, and so forth. So it's as likely as not that their gestations and childhoods were spent, on average, in less toxic circumstances relative to IQ scores or other measures of brain development. You don't know.
Stuff you make up is not evidence.
Meanwhile: they ate more fish and a better omega 6/omega 3 protein ratio, they were biased against girls, they experienced less income inequality, they were not subjected to daily racial insult and slur, they gained status and income by intellectual achievement, and so forth and so on for dozens of items,
not a single one accounted for on a population level by any of your IQ tests. Not one.
And here I am actually engaging with this idiocy, this juvenile radio whacko bs, instead of the interesting thread topic. Everyone posting here has become stupider for having to deal with this shit. If anyone needed evidence of the harm possible from the absurd denial, read this thread.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
The thread is about denial. Holocaust is only an example, as you can see from "and other forms". And I have an opinion about accusations of denial and their role in the political discussion. So, even if I have no opinion about the history of Holocaust, I have some opinion about the nature of accusations of "Holocaust denial" and similar accusations of "denial", which are made today, and in particular against me too.
Not exactly. I'm simply not interested in these questions. I'm obliged to be interested?
I have explained that the use of "Party line" is metaphorical. So, it does not refer to any particular political party. It also does not refer to mainstream consensus. As explained, there is mainstream consensus about much more things, but if one disagrees with this consensus, nobody cares, and nobody starts moral accusations of "denial" or so. So, the "Party line" is about politically important questions.
Where I support the mainstream opinion I see no reason to talk about this.
There is the area of physics. In this domain, I'm myself an expert, I have published articles in established mainstream journals.
In those domains where I disagree with the mainstream, I have studied the questions where I disagree in sufficient detail, so I do not have to defer to anybody. And there is a large domain, where I see sufficient reasons not to defer to mainstream "experts". But this does not mean that fringe alternatives are in any way more reliable. Once there are a lot of domains where this is the case, I prefer not to defend any particular theory, and restrict myself to particular elements, for example criticism (rejection) of the mainstream opinion without proposing an own theory. Or general explanations why I do not trust the mainstream in this question.
There are too many questions to be well-informed about them all, so you have to choose. If you have a source you trust, the situation is much simpler, you simply repeat what that source claims, and do not have to care about checks or so. That means, you will sound like an informed person. But if you trust the wrong source, you will repeat only a lot of nonsense.
Else you have to choose. To check if the mainstream position is reliable needs time. Sometimes a lot of time. And often enough, if to check would require too much time, it is more reasonable to accept that to have a justified position about this question is not worth the time. If you have some base to trust, not a big problem. As I do about experimental physics - I simply accept the claims of mainstream experimenters. If you have nobody to trust, because the political interests of the "mainstream experts" are too obvious to be ignored, I prefer to be honest that I don't know what is correct.
Then I have misinterpreted your "you still somehow can't bring yourself to admit" that the Party line is correct? Fine.
The questions which interest me are very different. As well, I can have a well-defined and well-justified position in some particular questions and have no opinion about other questions. Say, AGW. I can have a definite opinion that some of the outcomes of a global warming will be positive. So, more CO2 means more plant growth, and plant growth is something in the average positive, even if it also means more weed growth. Similar for more rain. And more rain would be a consequence of more H2O, which is part of all the scenarios. And there are large regions of the world more or less unusable for agriculture simply because they are way to cold, while there is no region too hot (deserts are too dry, not too hot). Such points allow me to reject the media presentation of AGW, because they completely ignore such positive outcomes. The arguments I use here are quite simply and robust, so I did not need too much time to find out that I can defend this position. To have an opinion about the reliability of many other AGW-related questions, I would need much more. So I remain silent about this.
This is, by the way, a quite general method: Find out some questions where you can find, yourself, a sufficiently clear and certain answer. Use this answer to evaluate the reliability of various other sources. If some source is discredited using this method, don't trust it. But don't make the error to trust now anybody simply because he opposes the discredited source too.
This is how Party soldiers have to present the case. So, it is clear that you will present it in such a way. But, as I have seen in my own case here, I have never disagreed with anything what is claimed to be a fact about the Holocaust, but I have nonetheless repeatedly been called here a denier. And this is, at least it seems quite obvious to me, not caused by some misunderstanding of what I have said, or some defamation based on some personal hatred or so, but is based on the very nature, on the aim of such denial accusations. That I refuse to support the Party line, and insist that I don't have to trust mainstream history, is already sufficient.
An example of the mental crippling caused by - or at least correlated with - absurd denial:
The actual Princeton study: https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/file...on Preferences Espenshade Chung June 2005.pdf
It's from 2005, twelve years and major economic crisis and and three Presidents and at least two major overhauls of the SAT scoring ago (https://www.petersons.com/college-search/sat-scores-changes-test.aspx#/sweeps-modal), and it discusses the effects of racial affirmative action on the likelihood of admission of US residents to elite universities in the US in 2003-2004.
Elite universities only. Most of them private - not State schools.
Nobody got bonus points on their SATs. The strongest effect was seen on those black and Hispanic applicants scoring 1200-1300 points on the 1600 point scale back then (the test, scale, and scoring are different now - there was no essay question then, for example). So midrange black students got a break on their SAT scores. And the researchers noted this break was shrinking - it's almost certainly much smaller now.
The effect on Yellow applicants was statistically equivalent to a fifty point SAT penalty - what that meant was, as nearly as I can follow the description, that to rise to the average likelihood of acceptance a Chinese applicant needed a fifty point higher combined SAT score than the average accepted applicant submitted. In 2003-2004.
If anybody cares, the effect of legacy status - almost entirely white, and wealthy - was a 160 point break. And holding steady.
Even more interesting, the effect of athlete status - and we aren't talking about athletic powerhouses here, we're talking about elite academic institutions - was worth 200 points.
And as far as I can tell, they didn't control for combinations - a black or yellow athlete was counted independently both ways.
And this break was growing, not shrinking.
So the solution for the modern Chinese applicant might be as simple as giving up the violin and learning how to punt a football - or get good at soccer. 50 off for slant eyes, 200 plus (growing, remember) for athlete status, net +150 - and you only have to get in once: the legacy admission handles things for your kids.
You never get your facts straight in these matters. Seriously: never.
The actual Princeton study: https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/file...on Preferences Espenshade Chung June 2005.pdf
It's from 2005, twelve years and major economic crisis and and three Presidents and at least two major overhauls of the SAT scoring ago (https://www.petersons.com/college-search/sat-scores-changes-test.aspx#/sweeps-modal), and it discusses the effects of racial affirmative action on the likelihood of admission of US residents to elite universities in the US in 2003-2004.
Elite universities only. Most of them private - not State schools.
Nobody got bonus points on their SATs. The strongest effect was seen on those black and Hispanic applicants scoring 1200-1300 points on the 1600 point scale back then (the test, scale, and scoring are different now - there was no essay question then, for example). So midrange black students got a break on their SAT scores. And the researchers noted this break was shrinking - it's almost certainly much smaller now.
The effect on Yellow applicants was statistically equivalent to a fifty point SAT penalty - what that meant was, as nearly as I can follow the description, that to rise to the average likelihood of acceptance a Chinese applicant needed a fifty point higher combined SAT score than the average accepted applicant submitted. In 2003-2004.
If anybody cares, the effect of legacy status - almost entirely white, and wealthy - was a 160 point break. And holding steady.
Even more interesting, the effect of athlete status - and we aren't talking about athletic powerhouses here, we're talking about elite academic institutions - was worth 200 points.
And as far as I can tell, they didn't control for combinations - a black or yellow athlete was counted independently both ways.
And this break was growing, not shrinking.
So the solution for the modern Chinese applicant might be as simple as giving up the violin and learning how to punt a football - or get good at soccer. 50 off for slant eyes, 200 plus (growing, remember) for athlete status, net +150 - and you only have to get in once: the legacy admission handles things for your kids.
If you want to post about some kind of "Party line", you would need information about it.
Absurd denial is not about questions, but about physical and historical reality - what all the lines have in common, and all the questions assume.
That is not what you post here.
Here, your evaluations of the political interests involved have been seriously wrong, apparently for willful ignorance as well as other bad reasons, more often than not,
and you have used them to inspire as well as justify denial of common reality.
In other words, you're the guy with the "Party line" in these absurd denials. That's why you deny Jim Crow in the US, for example - the workings of racism in the US cannot be squared with your ideological presumptions of how things have to work, so you deny them. That's similar to why you deny AGW - you see bad politics invoking it, you don't like these political opportunists, and so you mistake completely the political interests involved in general, which leads you to denial of physical and historical fact.
You have in fact denied the common physical and historical reality of the Holocaust. You have, for example, accepted as reasonable comparisons of Holocaust deaths with those State violence in general, such as war.
This landed in my window from a link on this forum, and it illustrates the depth of the denial involved in the "inherited racial IQ" argument for white racism and its effects:
This is promotional material for a company that makes money marketing DNA inheritance analysis, and it's the kind of information with which everyone with any knowledge of the US racial situation and history has been saturated :
https://blogs.ancestry.com/cm/what-770000-tubes-of-saliva-reveal-about-america/?utm_source=outbrain&utm_term=00e162f027d876fef4431032443a07f08c&o_xid=76813&o_lid=76813&o_sch=Content Marketing
Here's a quote:
More CO2 does not necessarily mean more plant growth, and more plant growth of that kind is not necessarily "positive" - even on average, over large regions.
"More rain" is neither a necessary consequence of "more H2O" or necessarily positive.
There are few regions unusable for agriculture simply because they are too cold (they are mostly too dark and too dry, and have poor soil, as well), and there are regions very close to being too hot (temperature spikes and dew points approaching the kill range of most mammals including humans).
The media in general do not ignore positive outcomes, such as actually exist.
And so forth.
That's the ignorance part.
Then you reason that if warmer is positive in some ways the current global warming will be positive in those ways, ignoring the key factors of rate and distribution and variability that are the major concerns of AGW. That's the garbage part.
So your "definite opinion" starts out based on ignorance, and poor reasoning.
And then comes the key factor for the thread: ->you refuse to become informed, by rejecting factual information that conflicts with your "definite opinion".
For example: You treat scientific reports that have unremittingly negative implications as political propaganda, and discount them accordingly. You ignore the existence of scientific reports that have positive implications if acknowledging them requires amending your "definite opinion". And so forth.
And the net result is that you end up denying physical reality, the common facts upon which all non-absurd "positions" must be based. You deny AGW, the reality of it.
This is promotional material for a company that makes money marketing DNA inheritance analysis, and it's the kind of information with which everyone with any knowledge of the US racial situation and history has been saturated :
https://blogs.ancestry.com/cm/what-770000-tubes-of-saliva-reveal-about-america/?utm_source=outbrain&utm_term=00e162f027d876fef4431032443a07f08c&o_xid=76813&o_lid=76813&o_sch=Content Marketing
Here's a quote:
Meanwhile:
No, actually, your reasoning is garbage based on ignorance.
More CO2 does not necessarily mean more plant growth, and more plant growth of that kind is not necessarily "positive" - even on average, over large regions.
"More rain" is neither a necessary consequence of "more H2O" or necessarily positive.
There are few regions unusable for agriculture simply because they are too cold (they are mostly too dark and too dry, and have poor soil, as well), and there are regions very close to being too hot (temperature spikes and dew points approaching the kill range of most mammals including humans).
The media in general do not ignore positive outcomes, such as actually exist.
And so forth.
That's the ignorance part.
Then you reason that if warmer is positive in some ways the current global warming will be positive in those ways, ignoring the key factors of rate and distribution and variability that are the major concerns of AGW. That's the garbage part.
So your "definite opinion" starts out based on ignorance, and poor reasoning.
And then comes the key factor for the thread: ->you refuse to become informed, by rejecting factual information that conflicts with your "definite opinion".
For example: You treat scientific reports that have unremittingly negative implications as political propaganda, and discount them accordingly. You ignore the existence of scientific reports that have positive implications if acknowledging them requires amending your "definite opinion". And so forth.
And the net result is that you end up denying physical reality, the common facts upon which all non-absurd "positions" must be based. You deny AGW, the reality of it.
Last edited:
Do you have ANY evidence that Black Americans have an IQ lower than would it would be assuming they are not harmed by the environment?
What "should" the average IQ be for Black Americans iceaura?
Well?
Because if you have no idea what it should be, then we can assume your assumption that 'White Racism' is effecting it, is completely unfounded. IOWs, you don't even have the beginnings of an argument, because you have no idea what your control values are. For all you, or I, or anyone knows, the average Black American IQ is perfectly aligned with what it would be given the best possible environment.
As a matter of fact, in *GASP* Science, we call this the null hypotheses. That there is no effect of environment, then we control for environment and determine if there is a difference.
Oh, and while you're telling me what the average IQ for Black Americans should be, given an ideal environment, why don't you tell me what the average IQ for E. Asian Americans should be, and White Jewish Americans. We know what the average White European IQ should be, it is set at 100. Then E. Asians come in at around 107 and European Jews around 110. Are those the correct values for the E. Asians and European Jews iceaura? Or should they be different values? If so, what should they be? Is the environment helping them? Or is it harming the European "White" people? Or both, or neither?
So your argument is European Jews eat a lot of fish.
LOL
Nature Molecular Genetics: Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings.
To suggest that IQ isn't mostly genetic appears to be a classic case of Science Denialism. Claiming we cannot know for sure because we didn't control for the effects of the 'womb' is a counter argument sure, weak, but maybe. Probably not. By the time we create complete artificial government wombs, the point will probably be mute anyway.
Oh, and data strongly suggests that socioeconomic outcome is strongly correlated to IQ. No need for magical "White Racism". See, even low IQ White Males, end up in the bottom of the socioeconomic status in a rent-seekers paradise, like ours. As a matter of fact, White Males are rapidly killing themselves off in the higher percentage, in their ideal so-called 'White Patriarchy'.
LOL
Anyway, the simplest answer is usually the correct, and in this case, it's simply a case of biological IQ being selected for in a highly regulated Progressive "Democratic" Socialistic paradise - like ours.
The solution is even simpler, eliminate regulatory agencies and income tax, return to free-markets (free society) and common law. Sound money will do away with Federal Reserve Notes without any need to use coercion at all. Prosperity is immediate.
Problem solved.
Or, maybe America can have another Civil War? There's always that. Or perhaps we can see the rise of far-right Nationalism. Or far Left Socialism. Or, all of the above.
I'd pick the peaceful solution myself, but, we're only in the 3% minority, not likely to have an impact on the emotive 97% of either persuasion.
Professor Robert Plomin said: “Because educational achievement at the end of compulsory schooling represents a major tipping point in life, understanding its causes and correlates is important for individual children, their families and society. “The main finding is although intelligence accounts for more of the heritability of GCSE than any other single domain, the other domains collectively account for about as much GCSE heritability as intelligence.
“Together with intelligence these domains account for 75 per cent of the heritability of GCSE. We conclude the high heritability of educational achievement reflects many genetically influenced traits - not just intelligence.” They said the results also support the trend in education towards personalised learning and it is to be hoped better policy decisions can be made with knowledge of genetic influence rather than assuming differences are environmental.
“Together with intelligence these domains account for 75 per cent of the heritability of GCSE. We conclude the high heritability of educational achievement reflects many genetically influenced traits - not just intelligence.” They said the results also support the trend in education towards personalised learning and it is to be hoped better policy decisions can be made with knowledge of genetic influence rather than assuming differences are environmental.
Last edited:
Other than the fifteen or twenty you've seen listed that afflict them disproportionately? Probably. Almost everybody does, after all - why would they be the exception?
Do you have any reason to think that has anything to do with this thread?
Which you have not done. But which you have assumed - because you are willing to assume anything, in public, no matter how ridiculous, that allows you to keep on denying white racism and its effects on black people in the US.
Nope. I was talking about the Chinese.
Although they do, and have for centuries: https://books.google.com/books?id=u...e&q=fish protein diet jewish european&f=false
Have I mentioned how uncanny is your ability to select, from all history and the planet entire, the exact time and place and people and event that most directly torpedoes your latest point?
So is height.
The question is: why do you think all this bs of yours has anything to do with white racism and its effects on black people in the US? What is driving this need denialists exhibit, to deny what's in front of their face?
About what is the average IQ supposed to be for Black Americans with no effects of environment?
LOL
It was a joke
I wonder iceaura, why does the fish only affect spatial reasoning (110) with no effect on verbal reasoning (100)? Oh, and your new claim is that it's not "White Racism" that affects IQ, but fish consumption?
You claimed one of the 'effects' was IQ. So, again, what is the IQ of black people supposed to be, when "White Racism" is controlled for?
From the Journal: Intelligence, Volume 46, September–October 2014, Pages 179–187: A closer look at the role of parenting-related influences on verbal intelligence over the life course: Results from an adoption-based research design.
So, this is iceaura's argument: 'White Racism' magically affects the IQ of Black People, even when a lifetime of parenting has no significant effect.
The real question one should ask, is why you continue to promote these unfounded racist ideas iceaura? Why? Because the more you deny the science, the longer it takes to correct the real problems. Which can be easily dealt with through a return of civil liberty/free-market/deregulation / limited State, sound money/elimination of income tax, common law/protection of private property and contract.
No need to make up some pretend substance that holds matter together, like ether - or white racism. Just follow the basic scientific method to reach strong cogent conclusions
Whether students reported their parents cared about them and did things with them — or reported that they did not — it had no impact on their IQ. This means a person’s IQ is largely the result of the genes we inherit from our biological parents.
So, this is iceaura's argument: 'White Racism' magically affects the IQ of Black People, even when a lifetime of parenting has no significant effect.
The real question one should ask, is why you continue to promote these unfounded racist ideas iceaura? Why? Because the more you deny the science, the longer it takes to correct the real problems. Which can be easily dealt with through a return of civil liberty/free-market/deregulation / limited State, sound money/elimination of income tax, common law/protection of private property and contract.
No need to make up some pretend substance that holds matter together, like ether - or white racism. Just follow the basic scientific method to reach strong cogent conclusions
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
I have collected some here in this thread. The Party line defines which questions are relevant for the Party, and in this case, those who don't support the Party line are "deniers". Even if they simply say they have no opinion about the key questions, they become "deniers". And what reveals who is a "denier" is that he uses sources of the political enemy. One has to use only "reliable" sources which support the Party line (which makes them "reliable").
In other questions, you can have opinions which heavily disagree with the mainstream, even absurd ones, and may be called an idiot, crank or crackpot for this, but not a denier.
This is only an example that iceaura is a liar. And repeats his lies even after being corrected. No quotes, no links to my texts which would prove these accusations are given, and never will be. Because the purpose of accusations of denial is to enforce submission to the Party line. You have to be aware that to be named a denier is dangerous. Holocaust deniers end in prison in Germany. Up to now, this is an exception, but you can already loose your job in America too, if you are a "denier". And, once this is a totalitarian game, there is no need at all for proof. If proof would be necessary, you would be able to defend yourself. So you should know that non-existence of any evidence for denial is not what matters. You are a denier once you do not submit to the Party line. Point.
So why you include "necessarily"? A classical strawman. Of course, in the Sahara more CO2 does not matter, it may not matter for all plants, and only in some range, there will be more weeds to and so on. Same for more H2O. Trivialities, which do not change the point. Take care of the wording: Too cold for agriculture are "few regions". (Ok, count all of Siberia as a single region.) While "there are" regions which are "very close to being too hot". Hm, for some mammals.
Link please to even one example. Or is this simply a variant of saying "no positive outcomes worth to be mentioned exist"?
No, I'm not ignoring that there will be negative outcomes too, and that, in particular, very fast and very large changes will have a lot of bad consequences. So, this claim is yet another lie. I have not even made claims that the positive consequences will be more than the negative ones.
No. What I do is that I recognize a bias in science too. The usual consequence is that studies which predictably have results in conflict with the Party line will have more problem to get funds and engaged researchers, and to be published. This does not mean that the studies which are done, with results in agreement with the Party line, are wrong and have to be discounted. Similarly, it does not mean that there will be no scientific papers which disagree with the Party line. Acknowledging this changes nothing in my evaluation of the situation in politically influenced sciences.
And, as usual, all these distortions of what I say come as claims, without any evidence supporting them. Because you know that you are unable to prove your claims.
You have not.
I don't live in Germany, and I have no interest in German law or where you live. If you have some personal problems that your posting absurd denials here exacerbate, then not posting them would be a good strategy for you - it has nothing to do with me. There is no such Party line where I live, and no threat to me or from me.
It's the other way around. AGW and Evolution denial, for example, are very well paid in the US - and can even earn you high level government appointments and corporate funded sinecures, in some cases. Look at the paid science experts on popular media - it's usually 1-1 absurd deniers, where (as Bill Nye once pointed out) a more accurate presentation would be 1-100. Being willing to promote absurd denial in public is an even better job qualification than being lefthanded in baseball.
And it's "lose", btw.
It was in reply to your claims that increased plant growth was an "obvious" benefit of boosted CO2, increased rainfall an "obvious" benefit of increased water in the air, etc - none of those are obvious, because such things are not necessarily a benefit or a reliable consequence or even likely in most situations. It's the logical objection to your ignorant assumptions and bad reasoning.
In the aspects you presented, such as a lack of reports about the "obvious" benefits of extra water in the atmosphere and no areas of the earth becoming too hot for agriculture and so forth, that is the case. (That was also the case with others you have posted ignorance about earlier on this forum, such as increased ranges of beneficial domestic animals to balance against increased ranges of pests and diseases and vermin)
In other cases, the magazines I read frequently report good news such as increased plant growth in some areas - (unfortunately, that benefit seems to be (probably) temporary, and offset by reduced nutritional value in the beneficial (meaning something eats them) plants, but it is reported). Science Magazine recently reported an increase in annual fluctuation of CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loa and elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere, for example, which the researchers attribute to faster and longer summer plant and algae growth in response to warmth and CO2 boost.
Increased plant growth is a standard factor and consideration, in everything I read. So is increased rainfall in some places.
Siberia is also too dry, too dark, too swampy, and lacks good topsoil. Plus, AGW will not prevent the occasional cold snap - so everything growing there will still have to withstand bitter cold. The disasters of AGW will have plenty of time to hit hard before Siberian tundra can support agriculture. And that is the common situation.
For human beings, their domesticated animals, and their domesticated plants.
You consistently get it wrong. To recognize bias, you have to have a conception of reality. The bias present is normally other than you assume in your ignorance and denial. (The IPCC reports on AGW consistently underestimate the dangers and potential harms and so forth, for example, apparently because it is under pressure to downplay the potential consequences visible in its data).
I made no such claim. I described the reasoning visible in your posting here, and my description was accurate. You are basing your ascriptions of Party line and so forth on denial of the basic realities involved.
You have judged scientific reports, including their factual content, to be properly evaluated as biased by a "Party line", based on assumptions you made in ignorance about the facts of the real world. And you refused to acquire better information, easily available to you.
There is no Party line involved, in the absurdity of an absurd denial.
Higher than it is under the many visible suppressions and harms due to white racism in the US. Do you have a point?
Return?
There may be the motive for your denial - and maybe a common motive for many such denials: a longing for a mythical past or an idealized future that the inconvenient facts render impossible.
Black people in the US do not want to "return".
Given that the cited peer-reviewed data demonstrates a life-time of parenting does not significantly affect IQ, why do you assume apriori that 'white racism' is having a significant effect?
Do you have good evidence that backs up your claim that 'white racism' is significantly affecting IQ?
You say 'higher'. How much higher? 1 point higher? 3 points higher?
Also, why do you assume that IQ would be higher? Perhaps 'white racism' raises IQ. Where did you get the idea it would lower it? That didn't happen to White Jews or Yellow E. Asians.
It seems to me, you're making a whole lot of assertions, and continue to add more on top of the mound you've built - yet, you have no good evidence to support any of your claims. In fact, all of the good reproducible evidence shows IQ is resistant to environmental factors, parenting styles, entire social norms (language, food, customs, and beliefs) yet you continue to make the totally unsupported claim that magical 'white racism' is lowering the IQ of people.
You remind me of an evolution denier. Which makes sense, when you stop and think about it. Your superstition is about to be overturned, and so you double down. But, that's not going to stop the science from being produced. And in time, you'll be one of a few on the fringe, or you will alter your opinion to align with reality.
Which is it? Dinner with Creationists or Scientists
As much as you love your categories, sorry, but 'Black people' are not an amorphous blob. Some want to return to a state of limited government similar to what would have been found in the late-1800s early 1900s. Some don't. Many, like most Americans, couldn't care one way or the other.
"Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true but many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly "
-- Thomas Sowell