Professor Rushton's Book: "Race, Evolution, and Behavior"

[thefountainhed]

WOW, Another personal attack, how did I know?

You personal attack does not change facts:

African-American women are 23 times as likely to be infected with the Aids virus as white women and account for 71.8% of new HIV cases among women in 29 US states, government research shows.
The Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit health organisation, has found that in 2001 roughly 67% of black women with Aids had contracted the virus through heterosexual sex - up from 58% four years earlier.

Government studies in 29 states found that black women comprised roughly half of all HIV infections acquired through heterosexual sex, in men and women, from 1999 to 2002. Medical experts put the sharp increase down to a combination of segregation, social exclusion and social and sexual mores. But some were eager to point out that there is scant empirical evidence to explain the rise.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1186596,00.html

Idiot, how the hell does your little factoid relate to any thing?
You make as many irrational arguments as a mentally retarded person on PCP. First, you make an irrational analogy between mental ratardation and cultural bias. Secondly, I have repeatedly alerted you to the fact that you cannot use a historically repressed, segregated, enslaved subset (black americans) of a supposedly larger group (black race) as the representation of said group. It is irrational for instance to suggest that blacks have a lower IQ based on your information that black americans tested lower on IQ tests.

Even more informative, when your analysis has to rely on the notion of generality, that is, when for example you interpret your data as "group A generally has a higher IQ than group B", you are dealing with external influences that must necessarily affect your data. If given a group consisting of As and Bs, and the highest IQ belongs to a member of group B, then you have man made classifications blurring/polluting your data. The notion of black inferiority would be acceptable if under the same circumstances whites always scored higher. This is not the case.

TO comment on another stupid post by one of your psedonyms, if evironment were not an issue in cultural/technological development, then all members of the "caucasian race", regardless of their environment, would necessarily need to have been more advanced than any society of the negroid race." This is not the case. Furthermore, you cannot provide a set of rules to distinguish between your supposedly separate white and black races. I'm tired....

Thus, it takes an absolute moron, or a deeply confused fool to accept such notions as presented by the crap that initiated this thread and the like. And therefore my propensity to alert of your foolishness than respond to your irrational/thoughtless comments.

 

[Bohemian Nightmare]

Secondly, I have repeatedly alerted you to the fact that you cannot use a historically repressed, segregated, enslaved subset (black americans) of a supposedly larger group (black race) as the representation of said group. It is irrational for instance to suggest that blacks have a lower IQ based on your information that black americans tested lower on IQ tests.

How about generally lower IQ performance by African Americans who have been brought up in the same environment as whites?

I'd be interested, would you actually argue that Africans Americans on average don't have a general advantage at sprint running?

 

[Big D]

Secondly, I have repeatedly alerted you to the fact that you cannot use a historically repressed, segregated, enslaved subset (black americans) of a supposedly larger group (black race) as the representation of said group. It is irrational for instance to suggest that blacks have a lower IQ based on your information that black americans tested lower on IQ tests.

It is the blacks that live outside of America that have even lower IQ's and have much higher percent of aids.

You see, it is the blacks that live in America that have a BETTER quality of life then ANY other blacks ANYwhere else in the world.

 

[Xev]

Secondly, I have repeatedly alerted you to the fact that you cannot use a historically repressed, segregated, enslaved subset (black americans) of a supposedly larger group (black race) as the representation of said group.

You've alerted him to what? Delicious irony in the defender of the Negro race's intelligence being unable to construct a simple sentence.

So what about Africa?
Yeah, we know, evil Whitey came in and just enslaved everyone. They used to have advanced civilizations and invented that comb thingy Negros like to stick in their hair.

But why couldn't they defend themselves or rebuild? There's something telling in the fact that they were so easily enslaved and divided.

 

[Repo Man]

What about the native Americans, and how easily they were conquered and enslaved by Europeans? But I never hear mention of how that is a sign of their racial inferiority. Most white people in contemporary America will boast of having some native American ancestry, even if it has been diluted to meaninglessness. Not so proud of the "nigger in the woodpile" though.

How about how easily the Europeans conquered the Japanese and Chinese? Proof of their inherent inferiority?

Surviving in a hostile environment with a low level of technology requires a fair amount of intelligence.

Would an technologically advanced alien species having far superior weapons prove that they are "more advanced" biologically than humans?

 

[blackmonkeystatue]

You've alerted him to what? Delicious irony in the defender of the Negro race's intelligence being unable to construct a simple sentence.

So what about Africa?
Yeah, we know, evil Whitey came in and just enslaved everyone. They used to have advanced civilizations and invented that comb thingy Negros like to stick in their hair.

But why couldn't they defend themselves or rebuild? There's something telling in the fact that they were so easily enslaved and divided.

Well, at least we know Xev isn't a History or Sociology major. It'd be nice if things were so simple, then all of our simple logic (for lack of a better word) would fit right in.

It is the blacks that live outside of America that have even lower IQ's and have much higher percent of aids.

You see, it is the blacks that live in America that have a BETTER quality of life then ANY other blacks ANYwhere else in the world.

Hate to burst your bubble, but it isn't just the blacks, it is EVERYBODY in America that has on average a higher IQ and better quality of life than anybody else in the world (with parts of Europe and elsewhere an exception). I forgot the numbers, but there is great disparity.

BASELINE: Ok, what exactly are we debating here again? Yes blacks in America, on average, have lower IQs than whites in America. Yes Americans, no matter their group, on average have a better quality of life than those in the rest of the world with a few exceptions. What are we arguing about?

Am I the only one who thinks it would be extremely odd if blacks in the US had the same average IQs and average test scores as other groups in the United States? It'd be even stranger that every group in the United States had the same average IQs and test scores. That just can't be expected different groups having different evolutionary (for lack of a better word) and cultural histories. There will be somebody at the top, somebody in the middle, and somebody at the bottom. So what?

 

[Xev]

Isn't it funny how the defenders of racial equality stick in groups?
I especially love it, blackmonkeystatue, when you toss those little asides to your buddy. Reminds me of highschool.

How defensive you get at the possibility - nay, not the statement - but the possibility of racial difference.

The low-bred mis-formed whites can feel good about themselves by defending other races. I like that.

I didn't say it proved inherent inferiourity, moron. I said it was telling.

But I never hear mention of how that is a sign of their racial inferiority.

I see. So if "people" don't mention something, it isn't a valid point?

Surviving in a hostile environment with a low level of technology requires a fair amount of intelligence.

Oh damn. That's good. So salmonella bacteria are frickin' Einsteins?
Tube worms are brilliant because they thrive where they do?

Would an technologically advanced alien species having far superior weapons prove that they are "more advanced" biologically than humans?

The Indians built a very advanced civilization and yet were soundly trounced by the British. History has its cycles.
I never said it proved anything. If you had an intellect more keen than a tapeworm's, you'd have noticed that.
It's called reading comprehension.

I don't necessarily believe or state that the Aryans are the superiour race. But it is very odd to say: "we are your equals, those things you point to as showing inequality are irrelevent because if you hadn't enslaved us...."

Or "whites are an evil race, if it wasn't for all the help they gave us we'd still be enslaved by them"

 

[Repo Man]

You're a white supremacist, you make no real effort to hide it. You use military technology as measure of cultural (and I suppose racial) superiority for Europeans over blacks, and then attack me because I bring up instances that show it to be a poor measure.

Survival in a hostile environment means nothing for non sentient life. But as far as IQ tests go, dumping people on a desert islands and seeing who survives and who doesn't would be a good one.

 

[Xev]

I'm a white supremacist who makes no effort to hide her white supremacist-ness by claiming not to be a white supremacist.
Damn.
You got me.

You use military technology as measure of cultural (and I suppose racial) superiority for Europeans over blacks, and then attack me because I bring up instances that show it to be a poor measure.

I do? I don't remember any of this happening.
Don't smoke paint chips while you post, please.

 

[Repo Man]

Xev, master of the semantic dodge.

But why couldn't they defend themselves or rebuild? There's something telling in the fact that they were so easily enslaved and divided.

Yes, something telling indeed. They weren't incable of defending themselves, but they were incable of winning against colonial occupiers with an industrial economy.

In the 1870s, spurred by a desire for trade and profit (diamonds were discovered in South Africa in the late 1860s), the British sought more control. They brought the Zulu, other independent African nations, and the Boer republics of South Africa under their rule. This set stage was set for war. In December 1878, Sir Henry Bartle Frere, the British High Commissioner in South Africa, gave an ultimatum to the Zulu ruler, Cetshwayo kaMpande, to break up his army and hand over control of his nation to England. The ultimatum expired, without response from Cetshwayo, on January 11, 1879. This was probably what Britain expected and hoped for; if the Zulu could be forced to fight, the English thought, they'd quickly lose to the superior Imperial army.

At first, the invasion was very one-sided. On January 12th, redcoats defeated the warriors of Zulu Chief Sihayo kaXongo in the Batshe valley, along the Natal-Zulu border. Britain led their central army to camp at Isandlwana, the base of a 300-foot tall sandstone outcrop. Britain expected an attack but didn't anticipate that 25,000 Zulu warriors would converge nor that they would, in the span of about three hours, nearly wipe out the British army stationed there that day. Some 1,300 British soldiers and their African allies died; only 55 redcoats survived. Isandlwana was the worst defeat in British colonial history and, ironically, the death knell for the Zulu nation.


http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american_history/1081/Zulu_British_war_begins

BTW, the criteria for what is and isn't allowed as far as personal attacks goes is seemingly arbitrary. I'd personally prefer that none were allowed. But I feel I should be allowed to respond in kind.

 

[blackmonkeystatue]

The low-bred mis-formed whites can feel good about themselves by defending other races. I like that.

Actually, in my experience I've found quite the opposite true. I have generally noticed the whites of low SES, or who came from a lower SES that are so adamant about the inferiority of blacks. They aren’t simply acknowledging that there are differences. They are proclaiming that every black on this planet is inferior to every white on this planet. It’s like they have this, “Well, at least we’re better than them” mentality. I heard a joke in one of Chris Rock’s routines a while back that reminded me of this idea:

“The only thing a white guy with a penny hates more is a nigger with a nickel.”

So, let’s hear it for all the average poor white people out there. Yeah! You may suck at life, but at least you’re better than those silly niggers! Pat yourselves on the back.

Isn't it funny how the defenders of racial equality stick in groups?

It's about as funny as red on an apple. People with similar interests and points of view generally "stick together". You know, kind of like your fingers stick together when you...

This concept isn’t new…or maybe it is for you, Xev? Come on now.

How defensive you get at the possibility - nay, not the statement - but the possibility of racial difference.

Was this directed at me? Reread my post. Differences exist, as we should expect. There have to be, and there are differences.

I’ve got a question for you. Your use of “racial equality” made me curious.

-------

This is to Xev, Big D, J.B., and anyone else in that group (irony, Xev?):

We know that there are differences between groups/races. On average, there is not equality in ability, be it physical, mental, whatever. That said, do you believe that races are equal in what they deserve? Be it respect, opportunity, education, rights, etc.? Do you believe that what people deserve relies on a person to person basis, or is what someone deserves automatically lessened by the fact that they happen to be born black?

Edited for clarity.

 

[thefountainhed]

You've alerted him to what? Delicious irony in the defender of the Negro race's intelligence being unable to construct a simple sentence.

So what about Africa?
Yeah, we know, evil Whitey came in and just enslaved everyone. They used to have advanced civilizations and invented that comb thingy Negros like to stick in their hair.

But why couldn't they defend themselves or rebuild? There's something telling in the fact that they were so easily enslaved and divided.

I'm sorry that in your stupidity you were unable to understand a simple sentence. I have alerted him of this fact: you cannot use a historically repressed, segregated, enslaved subset (black americans) of a supposedly larger group (black race) as the representation of said group.

Simplistically, the African American group is a subset "black race". Their ability or inability to do as well on IQ tests as their "white" neithers for instance does not extend to the performance of all blacks.

 

[Big D]

Why do ANY of you respond to the facts the way that you do?

The way you respond just reinforces my believes just that much more.

You see, my opinion on this subject is just based solely on the facts, while I belive the reason you are so upset and rude is because your believes are with more emotion. This I base on the fact that your responces are with much emotion.

In other words, Save the drama for yo's Mama.

I myself am just trying to learn more on this subject, and for all I know I maybe wrong with my facts. I know that calling someone a "hater or a racist" is a good way to shutup a person, But calling me a "hater or a racist" is not enuff evidence to change my thinking.