Are Races Equal?

[Bobby]

That's true.
Look at 4:43 in the video.

Watched. I have seen these before. They are screwed. Life is violence and drugs and have kids..

Still don't see the relevance to race. What is your point?

My point is that the end result is a drug crazed halfwit with an assault rifle.
Is that where we are headed?

[Super Nova]

That's true.
Look at 4:43 in the video.

Watched. I have seen these before. They are screwed. Life is violence and drugs and have kids..

Still don't see the relevance to race. What is your point?

My point is that the end result is a drug crazed halfwit with an assault rifle.
Is that where we are headed?

In part yes but what has that got to do with this thread and Race. Did I miss your point somehow?

[Bobby]

That's true.
Look at 4:43 in the video.

Watched. I have seen these before. They are screwed. Life is violence and drugs and have kids..

Still don't see the relevance to race. What is your point?

My point is that the end result is a drug crazed halfwit with an assault rifle.
Is that where we are headed?

In part yes but what has that got to do with this thread and Race. Did I miss your point somehow?

The point is that it seems to be black ghettos which are the worst in the world.

[Bogan]

Brian Ross wrote

It seems that "Bogan" has missed this so I will ask once more because he needs a chance to prove his scientific basis -

Errrr, no. This topic is now ten pages long and when you initially posted your religious belief nonsense I responded (as usual) with a well researched argument which you ignored. When "Aussie" tried to use your argument, I reposted the same rebuttal which he ignored. I am not doing it again so that you and your fellow religious fanatic comrades can ignore it again. Read back over what has been said and come up to speed.

In any case, the topic under discussion is "Are Races Equal?" I say that they obviously are not equal, and give reasons why they could not be. By opposing my position, you obviously believe that races are equal in every way, (intelligence, personality, proneness to violent criminal behaviour, and physical abilities). The only point you concede is that races have different levels of solar protection to their skin. That is because it is simply impossible to deny that self evident fact, but you would deny it if you could.

If you were debating honestly, you would begin your replies by saying exactly what it is you believe in and give a reasoned argument as to why you believe it. Submit evidence, either scientific, statistical, using media sources, or through direct personnel observation, to support your ridiculous belief.

[Bogan]

Super Nova wrote

I didn't really want to get into this but hey.

Thank you for contributing to this topic and I hope that you are a cut above the other people who support your position on this topic.

Super Nova wrote

My view, biologically all races of homo sapiens are equal.

Excellent. You have clearly stated your position, and that is important. I have debated this topic with many other "debaters" on other sites, both Australian and US, and so many of my opponents simply refuse to state what it is they believe. They take the dishonest route of simply attacking my position but never stating their own. The fact that you have clearly stated your position seems to indicate to me that you are an honest debater who wishes to debate this important topic on it's merits.

Super Nova wrote

There are differences and there is genetic diversity that is good for the survival of the species. Some groups of humans that have evolved a little over the last 125K years ago when we left Africa. These variations are really traits and in some cases helped survival. Skin pigment being one that is obvious.

Your argument is credible but it is not correct. Races of human beings look different because they are different. They have to be. After evolving from one race of people who all looked the same, they spread out from Africa and continued to evolve separately in wildly differing environments, developing physical characteristics that gave each evolving race or ethnicity an advantage within those environments. Skin colour is the most obvious manifestation of that. But other physical differences are obvious. Humans living in cold climates with poor protein opportunities are usually short and stout to preserve body heat, while humans from hot climates and open savannas are usually tall and thin. Human races from savannas dominate Olympic level running events as they are more adapted to chasing down game in open areas, but they do not swim as well as those who evolved in colder and more closed woodland areas.

I think it is undeniable that human races can not be equal physically. So why you, or anybody else, would conclude that they are must be equal mentally, I do not know. Surely those races who developed civilisation earlier than others needed to develop their mental characteristics earlier in order to deal with the complexities of civilisation? This seems to be born out in direct observation. Those races with the longest civilisations are usually the smartest, while those still in stone age or iron age tribal situations (or recently rescued from it) are the most dysfunctional within western societies.

Super Nova wrote

However culturally and economically there are many differences. Education is key. No matter how smart you are if you have no education during the key development years as a child you will no have your brain wired for the modern era.

Education makes people smarter and living in complex civilisation makes people smarter. But no amount of education can make a low IQ person into a high or even an average IQ person within any meaningful timeframe. When IQ testing was created there had to be an arbitrary standard set up for median IQ and that standard was the most common IQ score for white Americans, which was set at 100. After almost 100 years, the most common IQ score for white Americans is now 103. Same too, US African blacks are getting smarter. Initially, the most common IQ score for US African blacks is between 70 and 85, but I have been told by another contributor that this seems to be improving at a higher rate than whites, and I believe them.

But what we are looking at is the here and now. The reason why African blacks and also people from other tribal environments are so dysfunctional in western societies is because they have significantly lower intelligence than whites, Jews, or Asians. The social layering of society seems to prove this fact. US Jews have a most common !Q of 115, Asians 106, white Caucasians 103, Hispanics 95, and African Americans 70 -85 (west coat Africans are smarter than east coast Africans). Gee, whadyaknow? That pretty well explains the social layering in not just the US, but all western multicultural societies with dysfunctional minorities. Think that there is a link?

The Northern Territory government spends two thirds of it's education budget on one third of it's students who "identify" as aboriginal, for a 90% failure rate in NAPLAN testing.

Okay, now concentrate because this is important. The "answer" to this problem according to activists like Brian Ross, is "more money, more money, and even more money", to "close the gap" which never seems to close. Do you think that some people in the "aboriginal" public service with it's $60 billion budget are doing very nicely, thank you very much, out of promoting the idea that all races are equal? And that if aboriginal people in particular are almost impossible to educate, it must be because the greedy whites are not giving the public service enough money to make aboriginal children equal in educational outcomes with the children of other races?

Super Nova wrote

I give an example that I thing demonstrates this. Languages. You brain is wired very young to be bilingual. If you learn 2 languages by the time you are 7 or so, your brain is wired differently and can learn languages faster and be more fluent than those who are monolingual.

If you are never to learn to speak when young like growing up with the wolfs stories with little or no human contact, the examples if ferial kids, you will never speak or understand social cues.

If a human kid is raised by wolves in a wolf's lair, he or she will be pretty dumb.

Your example is a good one which appears to prove my premise. That human brains can become smarter if they are immersed in a complex civilisation for long periods of time where proficiency in certain mental tasks is essential. But the fact remains that some people from the same civilisation will have low IQ, most will have average IQ, and some will have high IQ. And IQ can be heritable. High IQ couples usually have high IQ offspring and low IQ couples almost always have low IQ offspring.

Super Nova wrote.

As for the Chicago gangs and kids growing up, that is pure social and economic plus a lack of education and hope.

That argument may have had some currency in the USA prior to the desegregation of US public schools. But now US schools are desegregated and the examination results within each school seems to indicate that, generally speaking, Jews are smarter than Asians, who are smarter than whites, who are smarter than Hispanics, who are smarter than Africans. African blacks do very poorly at school despite being educated alongside other races. I think that your argument is now demonstrably wrong.

Super Nova wrote

They are stuck with few escaping from the ghetto.

But some do escape the ghetto. I would submit that the obvious reason is because they are smart. Smart people, regardless of race, are upwardly mobile and there are smart blacks. Unfortunately, they are few in number in proportion to other races.

Super Nova

So for me, Races are Equal, Individuals at birth are equal (subject to any malnutrition issues or birth defects) and it is education and nutrition from then.

I don't know how you come to that conclusion about nutrition. US blacks in particular are usually big people and they hardly suffer from malnutrition. Although they may find food scarce in their particular areas because so many of their dumb young men persist in robbing their own stores, or burning down and looting their own supermarkets whenever the mood suits them.

Super Nova wrote

The US has the most Nobel winners. A country of educated people but from all over the world.

The majority of whom are Jews who got it for scientific research. I doubt if any black Americans got one for science. Barrack Obama got a Nobel Prize 6 days into his Presidency for being a "black" President.

Super Nova wrote

So it is Nurture that is the difference... not their biological difference.(Nature) IMO

Disagree. Nature provides the underlying blueprint and nurture builds on that. Depending upon the country, 93% to 97% of jail inmates are males.

If "nurture is the difference" and not "biological difference", are you proposing that the reason why males are very disproportionately incarcerated compared to females, is because of lack of education, lack of nutrition, discrimination, "unconscious bias", lack of "hope", and lack of opportunity, compared to females? Or do you concede the screamingly obvious? Males are genetically much more violent than females? Now extrapolate. If African blacks are very disproportionately incarcerated compared to other races, then why would you think that genetics could not be a significant factor in that phenomenon too?

[brian ross]

Brian Ross wrote

It seems that "Bogan" has missed this so I will ask once more because he needs a chance to prove his scientific basis -

Errrr, no. This topic is now ten pages long and when you initially posted your religious belief nonsense I responded (as usual) with a well researched argument which you ignored. When "Aussie" tried to use your argument, I reposted the same rebuttal which he ignored. I am not doing it again so that you and your fellow religious fanatic comrades can ignore it again. Read back over what has been said and come up to speed.

In any case, the topic under discussion is "Are Races Equal?" I say that they obviously are not equal, and give reasons why they could not be. By opposing my position, you obviously believe that races are equal in every way, (intelligence, personality, proneness to violent criminal behaviour, and physical abilities). The only point you concede is that races have different levels of solar protection to their skin. That is because it is simply impossible to deny that self evident fact, but you would deny it if you could.

If you were debating honestly, you would begin your replies by saying exactly what it is you believe in and give a reasoned argument as to why you believe it. Submit evidence, either scientific, statistical, using media sources, or through direct personnel observation, to support your ridiculous belief.

"Bogan" science is not a "religion". It is based on repeatable facts. Genetics has shown humanities' attributes which separate humanity from primates. You relying on belief, not reality. Try again. Tsk, tsk, tsk...

[Super Nova]

Super Nova wrote
There are differences and there is genetic diversity that is good for the survival of the species. Some groups of humans that have evolved a little over the last 125K years ago when we left Africa. These variations are really traits and in some cases helped survival. Skin pigment being one that is obvious.

Your argument is credible but it is not correct. Races of human beings look different because they are different. They have to be. After evolving from one race of people who all looked the same, they spread out from Africa and continued to evolve separately in wildly differing environments, developing physical characteristics that gave each evolving race or ethnicity an advantage within those environments. Skin colour is the most obvious manifestation of that. But other physical differences are obvious. Humans living in cold climates with poor protein opportunities are usually short and stout to preserve body heat, while humans from hot climates and open savannas are usually tall and thin. Human races from savannas dominate Olympic level running events as they are more adapted to chasing down game in open areas, but they do not swim as well as those who evolved in colder and more closed woodland areas.

What you are describing are traits and yes, we have selected individuals who have a survival advantage in different climates and environments. Straight Darwinism. However, these traits are minor variations.
I agree Humans look different because they are different. Except for genetic twins, every human is different. “Races of human beings look different because they are different. They have to be “ So you point on difference is mute.
“Humans living in cold climates …” I point to the news today of Climber Kenton Cool reaches Everest summit for 16th time. A white guy from England. While a local Kami Rita Sherpa, a Nepalese climber, has scaled Everest 26 times, this white guy is just a good and adapted for this near impossible feat for a non-local, based on your argument.
I contend that the Sherpa and white guys are the same and with conditioning. While to Sherpa’s have an advantage of some traits best suited for their environment and since they grew up there are also well conditioned to the high altitude environment, this trait can be acquired through training or even be generically available in some non-Sherpa people. That is, humans have traits that are not dominant in their genes in some of what you call races.
Check him out: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/clim ... -xb58nj0zw

I think it is undeniable that human races can not be equal physically. So why you, or anybody else, would conclude that they are must be equal mentally, I do not know. Surely those races who developed civilisation earlier than others needed to develop their mental characteristics earlier in order to deal with the complexities of civilisation? This seems to be born out in direct observation. Those races with the longest civilisations are usually the smartest, while those still in stone age or iron age tribal situations (or recently rescued from it) are the most dysfunctional within western societies.

Your logic assumes western civilization and therefore is wrong.
Civilization first arose in Iraq and spread to the west. China evolved it’s civilization independent of the middle east. The South American and Inca empires arose completely independent of Europe and Asia.
Today South America and Mexico is a basket case. Not because of the indigenous people who had a huge and complex set of civilizations but because Europeans went there, dismantled their society, kills 90% of the population with new diseases and imported people from around the world.
You cannot say the Chinese or Japanese are dumber than westerners. They were ahead of the west since the fall of Rome. I would say they look the most different to westerners.

Super Nova wrote
However culturally and economically there are many differences. Education is key. No matter how smart you are if you have no education during the key development years as a child you will no have your brain wired for the modern era.

Education makes people smarter and living in complex civilisation makes people smarter. But no amount of education can make a low IQ person into a high or even an average IQ person within any meaningful timeframe. When IQ testing was created there had to be an arbitrary standard set up for median IQ and that standard was the most common IQ score for white Americans, which was set at 100. After almost 100 years, the most common IQ score for white Americans is now 103. Same too, US African blacks are getting smarter. Initially, the most common IQ score for US African blacks is between 70 and 85, but I have been told by another contributor that this seems to be improving at a higher rate than whites, and I believe them.

I assume you have done and IQ test and know that if you have never encountered cognitive reasoning tests before or have not had any education you will not do as well as someone who is just as smart at the base level. You can practice to a small degree worth 10 points if you have encountered them before.

But what we are looking at is the here and now. The reason why African blacks and also people from other tribal environments are so dysfunctional in western societies is because they have significantly lower intelligence than whites, Jews, or Asians.

There is no evidence to support this claim. Please provide. This is just an assertion on your part.

The social layering of society seems to prove this fact. US Jews have a most common !Q of 115, Asians 106, white Caucasians 103, Hispanics 95, and African Americans 70 -85 (west coat Africans are smarter than east coast Africans). Gee, whadyaknow? That pretty well explains the social layering in not just the US, but all western multicultural societies with dysfunctional minorities. Think that there is a link?

This supports my claim that is societal and socio-economic that drives the different. I would like to see the link and source of said statistics.
Most sociologists, geneticists and psychologists reject the notion of racial differences in intelligence, pointing out that economic and social factors clearly influence IQ test scores.

The Northern Territory government spends two thirds of it's education budget on one third of it's students who "identify" as aboriginal, for a 90% failure rate in NAPLAN testing.

I would be interested to see where the money is spent. I bet it costs more to go to remote commucities, build new infrastructure and get these kids up to speed based on their education disadvantages. That stat doesn’t mean they are dumber.

Okay, now concentrate because this is important. The "answer" to this problem according to activists like Brian Ross, is "more money, more money, and even more money", to "close the gap" which never seems to close. Do you think that some people in the "aboriginal" public service with it's $60 billion budget are doing very nicely, thank you very much, out of promoting the idea that all races are equal? And that if aboriginal people in particular are almost impossible to educate, it must be because the greedy whites are not giving the public service enough money to make aboriginal children equal in educational outcomes with the children of other races?

Money needs to be spent wisely. If the parents don’t understand the benefits of education and their local society doesn’t, only a few will make it out, just like the ghettos in the US.

Super Nova wrote
I give an example that I thing demonstrates this. Languages. You brain is wired very young to be bilingual. If you learn 2 languages by the time you are 7 or so, your brain is wired differently and can learn languages faster and be more fluent than those who are monolingual.
If you are never to learn to speak when young like growing up with the wolfs stories with little or no human contact, the examples if ferial kids, you will never speak or understand social cues.

If a human kid is raised by wolves in a wolf's lair, he or she will be pretty dumb.
Your example is a good one which appears to prove my premise. That human brains can become smarter if they are immersed in a complex civilisation for long periods of time where proficiency in certain mental tasks is essential. But the fact remains that some people from the same civilisation will have low IQ, most will have average IQ, and some will have high IQ. And IQ can be heritable. High IQ couples usually have high IQ offspring and low IQ couples almost always have low IQ offspring.

Could it be that the lower IQ people are having more babies therefore lowing the IQ average.
Note that genius’ are not necessarily from high IQ parents. That is a generic change or event that makes them different.

Super Nova wrote.
As for the Chicago gangs and kids growing up, that is pure social and economic plus a lack of education and hope.

That argument may have had some currency in the USA prior to the desegregation of US public schools. But now US schools are desegregated and the examination results within each school seems to indicate that, generally speaking, Jews are smarter than Asians, who are smarter than whites, who are smarter than Hispanics, who are smarter than Africans. African blacks do very poorly at school despite being educated alongside other races. I think that your argument is now demonstrably wrong.

I think your argument is incorrect as you do not consider private schools where all have similar socio-economic advantages form all races and see there is little to no difference.
I live in Dubai, I see dumb people of all races but in particular the private schools of full of normal/smart kids from all races. Those who are poorly educated are doing slave labour work but if they have their kids here, the kids achieve at school. I don’t know any Abos here though.

Super Nova wrote
They are stuck with few escaping from the ghetto.

But some do escape the ghetto. I would submit that the obvious reason is because they are smart. Smart people, regardless of race, are upwardly mobile and there are smart blacks. Unfortunately, they are few in number in proportion to other races.

Smarter maybe but you also need to have an opportunity and the will. If you have no hope it is hard to fight your way out. Few get the opportunity even if smart. They may use their smarts to climb to the top of the gang.
I have been to the US and have spoken to many black guys. The society is so full racist barriers a black person has to be twice as good any a white person to even get a look-in. In large corporations this is changing but on the streets it is changing slowly.
This does not support your argument.

Super Nova
So for me, Races are Equal, Individuals at birth are equal (subject to any malnutrition issues or birth defects) and it is education and nutrition from then.

I don't know how you come to that conclusion about nutrition. US blacks in particular are usually big people and they hardly suffer from malnutrition. Although they may find food scarce in their particular areas because so many of their dumb young men persist in robbing their own stores, or burning down and looting their own supermarkets whenever the mood suits them.

My point on nutrition was not directed to the US.

Super Nova wrote
The US has the most Nobel winners. A country of educated people but from all over the world.

The majority of whom are Jews who got it for scientific research. I doubt if any black Americans got one for science. Barrack Obama got a Nobel Prize 6 days into his Presidency for being a "black" President.

Check here for Black US Nobel winners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_b ... _laureates
None for science.
But last century we didn’t have black people doing science for most of it. These people clearly had a chance given to them.
Black people have received awards in three of six award categories: twelve in Peace (70.6% of the black recipients), four in Literature (23.5%), and one in Economics (5.9%).
Black scientists, engineers, and inventors have made important contributions to society.
Link here: https://www.thoughtco.com/famous-black- ... iscoveries.

Super Nova wrote
So it is Nurture that is the difference... not their biological difference.(Nature) IMO

Disagree. Nature provides the underlying blueprint and nurture builds on that. Depending upon the country, 93% to 97% of jail inmates are males.
If "nurture is the difference" and not "biological difference", are you proposing that the reason why males are very disproportionately incarcerated compared to females, is because of lack of education, lack of nutrition, discrimination, "unconscious bias", lack of "hope", and lack of opportunity, compared to females? Or do you concede the screamingly obvious? Males are genetically much more violent than females? Now extrapolate. If African blacks are very disproportionately incarcerated compared to other races, then why would you think that genetics could not be a significant factor in that phenomenon too?

Your logic never considers their social and community disadvantages. If you are poor, uneducated and in a drug fu..ked hood, your chances are less than average.

In general I do not see any strong argument and not facts only opinion to support your argument.
I am happy to be enlightened but so far your logic I find flawed.
There is merit in accepting there are differences. To generalize those differences are bad or lead to lower IQs is wrong. It is not a race issue, that is, that they have an inferior makeup. It is driven by socio-economic difference, lack of education and reduced opportunity.

[J o h n S m i t h]

I assume you have done and IQ test and know that if you have never encountered cognitive reasoning tests before or have not had any education you will not do as well as someone who is just as smart at the base level. You can practice to a small degree worth 10 points if you have encountered them before.

I'd go further and say that if Bogan sat for an IQ test developed for people from Zimbabwe for example, he would be surprised at how poorly he performs in comparison to the locals. IQ tests are developed for particular societies. You cannot give someone from a totally different society one made for your society and expect them to do as well.

[Super Nova]

I assume you have done and IQ test and know that if you have never encountered cognitive reasoning tests before or have not had any education you will not do as well as someone who is just as smart at the base level. You can practice to a small degree worth 10 points if you have encountered them before.

I'd go further and say that if Bogan sat for an IQ test developed for people from Zimbabwe for example, he would be surprised at how poorly he performs in comparison to the locals. IQ tests are developed for particular societies. You cannot give someone from a totally different society one made for your society and expect them to do as well.

Correct.

It is therefore crucial for practitioners to be aware that western-based psychological assessment tests cannot simply be applied to people from other cultural backgrounds without thoroughly scrutinising the possibility of test bias.

As Foxcroft says, practitioners need to adapt and make the tests culturally specific. Psychologists should also look into the construct equivalent, which according to Foxcroft, looks at whether the psychological assessment developed for a particular culture measures the same construct or idea in another culture.

From this link: https://www.businessdailyafrica.com/bd/ ... es-3787504

[Bogan]

Super Nova wrote

What you are describing are traits and yes, we have selected individuals who have a survival advantage in different climates and environments. Straight Darwinism. However, these traits are minor variations.

Thank you for your intelligent contribution to this debate. You are setting an example for intellectually challenged people like "Aussie", "John Smith", and "Nom de Plume".

These "minor variations" which you call "traits" are hardly "minor" if they give identifiable groups of people a survival advantage over other groups of people within particular environments, in which those groups evolved. If one group of people evolved into an environment where a proneness to violence gives them an advantage over groups of people who are more prone to be placid, then the placid group may well be wiped out through violence, and the violent group will become the norm in that environment. Very violent societies and communities do exist, and they seem to have a factor in both skin colour, primitive tribalism, and low group intellect. The problem arises when such people immigrate into advanced civilisations which require a certain level of intelligence to thrive, as well as laws proscribing the almost medieval standards of male honour which mandate a violent response to any threat to self esteem in these people.

Super nova

I agree Humans look different because they are different. Except for genetic twins, every human is different. “Races of human beings look different because they are different. They have to be “ So you point on difference is mute.

How is it "mute" to point out that groups of human beings must be different because each group evolved to have an advantage in widely differing environments? Does this fact not reinforce the idea that races must therefore be different?

Super Nova wrote

“Humans living in cold climates …” I point to the news today of Climber Kenton Cool reaches Everest summit for 16th time. A white guy from England. While a local Kami Rita Sherpa, a Nepalese climber, has scaled Everest 26 times, this white guy is just a good and adapted for this near impossible feat for a non-local, based on your argument.
I contend that the Sherpa and white guys are the same and with conditioning. While to Sherpa’s have an advantage of some traits best suited for their environment and since they grew up there are also well conditioned to the high altitude environment, this trait can be acquired through training or even be generically available in some non-Sherpa people. That is, humans have traits that are not dominant in their genes in some of what you call races.

But groups of people evolved within particular environments to give that group an advantage within the environment from which it evolved. Just because individuals from other groups and dissimilar environments may exhibit similar "traits" does not mean that these traits are minor, and so insignificant that they mean very little. African people are renowned as the best long distance runners and they are now dominating Olympic level sporting events involving running, especially long distance running. The fact that there are a tiny minority of white people who are just as good, does not diminish the fact that black Africans can be characterised as a group of great runners and poor swimmers. However, people in advanced societies do not run down game on savannas so whatever natural traits that African people have in Africa are not characteristics that will ensure economic success in Europe, the USA, or Australia.

Super Nova wrote

Your logic assumes western civilization and therefore is wrong.

Excuse me? I do not even know what you mean by that statement?

Super Nova wrote

Civilisation first arose in Iraq and spread to the west. China evolved it’s civilization independent of the middle east. The South American and Inca empires arose completely independent of Europe and Asia.

As I understand ancient history, civilisation arose in both China and Mesopotamia at roughly the same time. And surprise, surprise, the Chinese are a smart race. The Arabs should be smart, but they were conquered by a swarm of barbarian caravan raiders who's absolutist, and very violent warrior religion, justified violence against people who were not members of their group. The civilisation which resulted seems to give a breeding advantage to very violent men, while persecuting scientific thought. Unsurprisingly, this religious civilisation failed, is noted for it's violent culture, and Arabs are not noted for their brains, or their success in Nobel Prize Science awards. And breeding with your cousins for generations does not do your genome much good.

Super Nova wrote

Today South America and Mexico is a basket case. Not because of the indigenous people who had a huge and complex set of civilizations but because Europeans went there, dismantled their society, kills 90% of the population with new diseases and imported people from around the world.

The civilisations which arose in South America were incredibly violent for many generations. They were civilisations which even justified mass human sacrifice. Such civilisations may be on the way to creating higher IQ levels than groups of people at the primary stage of human development, but generations of disporting themselves in mass human sacrifice can, and apparently did, evolve a race that is extremely violent.

The coming of the Spanish and Portuguese at least stopped mass human sacrifice and I would say their cultures were a real improvement on the native civilisation. Your premise seems to suggest that it was imported people who made South America violent? I strongly disagree there. The Spanish and Portuguese were no slouches when it came to violence, but I claim that the importation of Europeans into south American society was beneficial to not just limiting violence, but for the economic well being of all South Americans. It also improved their group IQ. Even today, it is the families of the early colonisers who dominate commerce and often politics in these countries. Things went back pretty much to normal again when the south American natives chucked their colonial masters out.

To give an idea of just how violent South Americans are, compare homicide rates.

Australia's homicide rate is 1.8 per 100,000. The USA is 9.8 per100,000, and most of that is caused by African blacks. But Mexico's official homicide rate is 30 per 100,000, and that is believed to be an understatement. Let me ask you a question. Do you think it is a good idea to allow South American people to immigrate to Australia? Joe Biden and the Democrats think it is a great idea to allow south Americans to swarm over the USA's borders. Unsurprisingly, the US crime rates are skyrocketing.

Super Nova wrote

You cannot say the Chinese or Japanese are dumber than westerners. They were ahead of the west since the fall of Rome. I would say they look the most different to westerners.

I never said they were. I said that the smartest race in the world were the Jews, followed by the Asians, followed by the whites, then the Hispanics, then the dysfunctional races such as Africans, Pacific Islanders, and aboriginals.

Super Nova wrote

I assume you have done and IQ test and know that if you have never encountered cognitive reasoning tests before or have not had any education you will not do as well as someone who is just as smart at the base level. You can practice to a small degree worth 10 points if you have encountered them before.

You are implying that IQ tests are inaccurate. Cognitive metricians claim the exact opposite and such tests are considered so accurate that they are used by industry, universities, and the US military, to asses possible candidates. The US militaries cut off point for IQ is 83. If a possible recruit has an IQ lower than 83, then the US military does not consider that person capable of being able to cope with any task that the military can give them. This is about 10% of the population of the USA. No prizes for guessing which races the below 83 cohort largely come from?

Super Nova wrote

There is no evidence to support this claim. Please provide. This is just an assertion on your part.

As your BELIEF that all races are equal is just an assertion on your part.

Anyhoo, no wuckers. "The Bell Curve", the 1994 book by psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein and political scientist Charles Murray. Could I also add that there are two competing racist theories that explain why some groups are dysfunctional. The most popular one is "blame the white guy" that is extant among people with leftist and/or Humanitarian views. Which is clearly racist. The other is simply based upon facts and reasonable deductions. And that is, that these groups are unintelligent and prone to violence.

Super Nova wrote

This supports my claim that is societal and socio-economic that drives the different. I would like to see the link and source of said statistics.

The Bell Curve. It is a scientific book written by scientists.

Super Nova wrote

Most sociologists, geneticists and psychologists reject the notion of racial differences in intelligence, pointing out that economic and social factors clearly influence IQ test scores.

Sociologists would, because most of them are public servants who are often social workers who have a vested interest in maintaining the lie. Exactly what geneticists think is unknown because in the USA, the NAACP lobbied the Federal government successfully to prevent any funding of any geneticist who wanted to investigate any links between genetics and crime.

Nobel Laureate, Director of the Human Genome Project, and co discoverer of the Double Helix in DNA, James Watson, was sacked from his job, tossed out of his university, and had his honours removed, for having the temerity to say that African people were not intelligent. Gee willackers, Super Nova. If a geneticist of the stature of James Watson can get well and truly screwed by the Establishment for saying something politically incorrect, you can hardly blame other geneticists for keeping their mouths shut, can you? At least Watson was not paraded before the Pope like Galileo, and shown the instruments of torture. But the world has not advanced much when it comes to our most eminent scientists saying what the people in power do not want to hear.

Super Nova wrote

I would be interested to see where the money is spent. I bet it costs more to go to remote communities, build new infrastructure and get these kids up to speed based on their education disadvantages. That stat doesn’t mean they are dumber.

If two thirds of the NT education budget is spent upon one third of the students for a 90% failure rate in NAPLAN, then I would say that is a very strong indicator that they are dumber.

Super Nova wrote

Money needs to be spent wisely. If the parents don’t understand the benefits of education and their local society doesn’t, only a few will make it out, just like the ghettos in the US.

Parents who do not understand the benefits of education are pretty dumb, and they have dumb kids. They live in dumb communities where the white politicians have to bribe the parents with increased welfare to make sure their kids go to school. The truancy rate among aboriginal kids is so astronomical that the government has to hire drivers in aboriginal communities to drive around and pick the kids up and make them go to school. When the kids get to school, the teachers have to feed them because the kid's parents are too dumb and lazy to do the job. The parents spend all their money on alcohol and ciggies. And all that without even mentioning that all remote aboriginal communities go on a three day drinking binge whenever the fortnightly welfare cheques roll in, where people are stabbed, bashed, and raped, and publically supplied houses are burned to the ground. It is where there are 26 year old grandmothers, and children as young as six are routinely screened for Gonorrhoea.

How you think that these people have the same intelligence as the everybody else is beyond me?

Super Nova wrote

Could it be that the lower IQ people are having more babies therefore lowing the IQ average. Note that genius’ are not necessarily from high IQ parents. That is a generic change or event that makes them different.

At least you are acknowledging that some people have high IQ and some have low IQ. I think that is a start. And yes, people today with low IQ have a birth rate differential with people with high IQ. This is especially true of high IQ women who are more career oriented and are hardly breeding at all. This will not end well for our civilisation. But one thing is for certain, importing low IQ people with a high birth rate into our advanced civilisation who are genetically prone to violent behaviour is going to greatly exacerbate the problem. I could say that all western countries will some day resemble Detroit. The only difference is that in the USA, white people can still flee from black people if they have the money to move somewhere else. But with dysfunctional minorities pouring into white societies all over the globe, where are the white people in those countries going to eventually flee too next? Antarctica?

Super Nova wrote

I think your argument is incorrect as you do not consider private schools where all have similar socio-economic advantages form all races and see there is little to no difference.
I live in Dubai, I see dumb people of all races but in particular the private schools of full of normal/smart kids from all races. Those who are poorly educated are doing slave labour work but if they have their kids here, the kids achieve at school. I don’t know any Abos here though.

I can't speak for Dubai, but here in Australia smart people are successful people who know the value of education and if they can afford it, they send their kids to private schools where they can be educated and be kept away from the dysfunctional minority kids who disrupt classes, and are an ongoing behavioural problem. As a matter of fact, a funny thing happened in my home town of Sydney. It was found that those well off white people who loved to virtue signal, and who wholeheartedly supported Multiculturalism, were the very same ones most likely to send their kids to a private school as far away from the dysfunctional ethnicities they championed, as possible.

In Sydney, six public schools in the "troubled" (read Muslim) areas of Sydney are so violence plagued with teachers being threatened by pupils and their parents, that security guards are permanently present at the schools during the school day.. The NSW education Department refuses to name these schools, because they believe in Multiculturalism and "everyone is equal", and the existence of these schools, and the ethnicity and religion of their students, are hardly good advertisements for that sort of thinking.

Super Nova wrote

Smarter maybe but you also need to have an opportunity and the will. If you have no hope it is hard to fight your way out. Few get the opportunity even if smart. They may use their smarts to climb to the top of the gang. I have been to the US and have spoken to many black guys. The society is so full racist barriers a black person has to be twice as good any a white person to even get a look-in. In large corporations this is changing but on the streets it is changing slowly. This does not support your argument.

Smart people are usually upwardly mobile. The "opportunity" is that you go to a public school with other races, and you behave, and you study, and you do your homework, and you get good marks. Many Vietnamese peasants came to Australia after the Vietnam War with just the clothes on their backs. They got menial jobs, worked hard, and their kids went to school and did very well. This is common among all Asian immigrants to western countries. How is it that Asians can start at the bottom and do well? But some ethnicities, the vast majority of them simply form a crime prone and welfare dependent underclass every time? Another piece of the puzzle reinforcing the idea that races have different levels of intelligence?

Super Nova wrote

Check here for Black US Nobel winners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_b ... _laureates

Irrelevant. Barack Obama got a Nobel Prize six days after becoming the President of the USA. For no other reason than because he was half black and a President. That clearly displays how Nobel prizes are awarded for political and ideological reasons. If Arabs are too dumb to ever get a Nobel Prize for Science, well, you give one or two of them a prize for "literature", don't you? Have to be "inclusive", don't we?

Super Nova wrote

None for science.

Thank you. Says it all.

Super Nova wrote

But last century we didn’t have black people doing science for most of it. These people clearly had a chance given to them. Black people have received awards in three of six award categories: twelve in Peace (70.6% of the black recipients), four in Literature (23.5%), and one in Economics (5.9%). Black scientists, engineers, and inventors have made important contributions to society.

There are smart black people, and there are smart people in all races. But the proportions of very low IQ, low IQ, average IQ, above average iQ, and high IQ, are not in the same proportions between different races. The "Bell curves" are displaced. What this means is, that some races and ethnicities are smarter than others, and some are dumber than others. And it is not too hard to figure out whom they are. The same ethnicities are dysfunctional within their own native societies and they are members of failed states. When they immigrate to western countries they simply do not have the intelligence to be functional, and simply become an underclass, every time.

Super Nova wrote

Your logic never considers their social and community disadvantages. If you are poor, uneducated and in a drug fu..ked hood, your chances are less than average.

And you can not make the connection that those poor, uneducated, drug fucked "hoods" are always composed of the same crime and welfare prone ethnicities? I lived through a period of history where Asian countries were just as poor as Muslim, South American, and African countries. But now the Asians are rocketing ahead and even beating the Europeans at our own game. Why? Because the Asians are smart. But the dysfunctional countries will always be poor no matter how much foreign aid or UN Aid is poured into their black hole economies.

Super Nova wrote

In general I do not see any strong argument and not facts only opinion to support your argument.

Well, you are not looking very hard.

Super Nova wrote

I am happy to be enlightened but so far your logic I find flawed.

Smart people do well and dumb people do not. Most people would agree with that. How is that logic "flawed?"

Super Nova wrote

There is merit in accepting there are differences. To generalize those differences are bad or lead to lower IQs is wrong. It is not a race issue, that is, that they have an inferior makeup. It is driven by socio-economic difference, lack of education and reduced opportunity.

You did not answer my crucial question that I gave to you. I can learn more about my opponent from the questions he or she dodges, than from what they say. Here it is again, and please do not dodge it this time.

If 93%-97% of incarcerated inmates in jail in numerous countries with very different cultures are males, compared to females, is this caused by sexist discrimination against males? Lack of opportunity between males and females? 'Unconscious bias" by females against males? Females are better educated? Females have more "hope'? Females have better "socio-economic differences"? Or females have better nutrition?

Or do you see a much more logical explanation that makes sense? Males are genetically more violent than females.