/sci/ - Science & Math

Cognitive ability tests can be biased. There are cultural biases, and depending on the test, some items are actually testing knowledge learned rather than cognitive ability.

Incidence of crime better correlates with low socio-economic status (SES). When a large portion of low SES groups consist of predominantly one race, it is easy to see it that way, if you are a racist.

postan in a trollan thread

>>2564994
>didnt read any of the linked reports
>spreading liberal bullshit in order to defend brown people

/new/ is over there
oh, wait, it isn't

>>2565020

Censorship is funny, isnt it?

>>2565028
There's no censorship, simply go to Stormfront if you want to discuss this. Racism isn't news and it isn't science.

>>2565035
>implying any of this is racist.
lrn2definitions.

>>2565035
If that is truely what you believe then you are a close minded American sheep, I'm calling it.

>>2565035

>there is no place to your scientific facts because nobody is alowed to talk against the mainstream dogmas.

>>2565050

Yet you continue to post. It's almost like you know your position is total bullshit.

>>2565050
But mainstreamm media and science used to INSIST that Race had almost everything to do with being less educated than others.

But

Now they are all honky dorey with Blacks and other minorities shitting on our culture?

I lol at ayone who listens to TPTB because it wasn't but 50 years ago they were singing a different tune :)

The simple concept dipshit liberals will never understand:

Racism is caused by multiculturalism. If races were geographically separated there wouldn't be any racial hate crimes within nations because of obvious physical constraints.

>>2565060
Win.

Lincoln knew this.

Yes, it matters, but not in the way you think you fucking stormfags

GTFO of here before you're forced to contemplate just how low on the "cognitive" scale YOU are

>>2565060
The most ignorant thing I've ever heard.
>>2565064
Samefag, or an idiot.

>>2565066
Thank you for proving my point. But failed attempt at arguing the point.

>>2565066
Thank you for proving my point. But you failed at trying to look as though you can think of a counterargument.

Hey, Op.
Here's another related study:

E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century
http://www.utoronto.ca/ethnicstudies/Putnam.pdf

Hey Op,
Here's another related study:

E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century
http://www.utoronto.ca/ethnicstudies/Putnam.pdf

ITT: People too afraid to read the studies posted above

>>2564994
>>2564994
how do you explain that african american children that have been brought up in adoptive middle class white families still underperform SIGNIFICANTLY in IQ and SAT tests.

This is not me being racist, it is saying that different races have evolved apart.

similarly how do you explain that NBA is 98% black people should it not be 33% asian, white and black similarly look at olympic sprinters why is it racist saying that most black people can run faster than white people. If it is not then why is it racist saying that most white people are smarter than black people.

Genetic variation, classification and 'race'
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/pdf/ng1435.pdf

>>2564981
>dat racis

in my country we have a saying:

Doesn't matter how many times you wash a negro, you're wasting your soap

>>2565251
Most sports were filled with Irish until they moved up the socioeconomic ladder and sports were no longer the only option.

The second study is actually pretty insane.

This site shouldn't side with niceness, only evidence.

>>2565325

Irish are shit in any sport other than running before the british army.

>>2565325

dude, line an irishman up against a negro in any sport, irish lose

what happened a hundred years ago when blacks were actually severely discriminated against doesn't mean shit

>>2565060

>>2565779

gaelic football

itt: racist Europeans

Take it to /b/.

>>2566591
>didnt read anything on the thread

>>2564981
>.hk

lolno

ITT:

solid and up to date science that scares the shit out of liberals

>>2565729
hahahahahahahahahahaha
thats pretty funny.
got to use that one.
with permission of course.

how about foreign children pwning the shit out of american children on a ratio basis? Blame the niggers for that one?

>>2565251
>how do you explain that african american children that have been brought up in adoptive middle class white families still underperform SIGNIFICANTLY in IQ and SAT tests.

They're black. People in school and in society at large will be hating on them /because they're black/.

>>2569846
That's a red herring, but the under-performance of the black minority and to a lesser extent other minorities (e.g. hispanic) accounts for most but not all of the difference on standardized tests that separates the U.S. from the European numbers.

Butthurt because /new/ was deleted? We don't want you here either, kid.

Also, you are a troll. There is no disputing this. If you wanted a serious discussion, you wouldn't have the OP pic be monkeys. Now fuck off back to stormfront or whatever.

>>2569871
Then how do you explain that mixed race (one black parent, one white parent) individuals outperform blacks? This remains true even if those individuals that are most readily identified as either black or mixed-race are excluded from consideration. In the adoption studies, mixed-race individuals outperformed blacks even when *the adoptive parents of mixed race individuals thought the their child was black.*

Africans have the highest educational attainment rates of any immigrant group in the United States. Estimates indicate that a significant percentage of black students at elite universities are African or the children of African immigrants, a notable example of this is Barack Obama.

In an analysis of Census Bureau data by the Journal of Blacks in higher education, African immigrants to the United States were found more likely to be college educated than any other immigrant group. African immigrants to the U.S. are also more highly educated than any other native-born ethnic group including white Americans. Some 48.9 percent of all African immigrants hold a college diploma. This is slightly less than the ., nearly double the rate of native-born white Americans, and nearly four times the rate of native-born African Americans.[9]

>>2569909
Because they're less black than other kids? Good question. I'd like to see your evidence.

In 1997, 19.4 percent of all adult African immigrants in the United States held a graduate degree, compared to 8.1 percent of adult white Americans and 3.8 percent of adult black Americans in the United States, respectively.[10] This information suggests that America has an equally large achievement gap between whites and African/Asian immigrants as it does between white and black Americans.

Of the African-born population in the United States age 25 and older, 87.9% reported having a high school degree or higher,[11] compared with 78.8% of Asian-born immigrants and 76.8% of European-born immigrants, respectively.[12] Immigrants groups in general tend to have higher high school graduation rates than the native-born general American population.

Africans from Nigeria (89.1 percent), Ghana (85.9 percent), Botswana (84.7 percent), and Malawi (83 percent) were the most likely to report having a high school degree or higher. Those born in Cape Verde (44.8 percent) and Mauritania (60.8 percent) were the least likely to report having completed a high school education.[13]

Of the European-born those born in Bulgaria (91.6 percent), Switzerland (90.5 percent), and Ireland (90.4 percent) were the most likely to report having a high school degree or higher. Those born in Portugal (42.9 percent), Italy (53.7 percent), and Greece (59.9 percent) were the least likely to report having completed a high school education.[14]

>>2569915
To continue, what probably really differentiates this is what you initially neglected, how they are treated by the average schmoe on the street. Doesn't matter if they're rich, have white parents, or whatever, when they're still hated on a daily basis by a significant portion of the population.

In that similar vein, /maybe/ mixed race people get less hate than full blacks because they're less black? Hell if I know how the racist prejudiced mind works.

>>2569921
Of the Asian-born, Mongolia (96.8 percent), Kuwait (94.7 percent), the United Arab Emirates (94.5 percent), and Qatar (94.3 percent) were most likely to report having a high school degree or higher. Those born in Laos (48.1 percent), Cambodia (48.4 percent), and Yemen (49.9 percent) were the least likely to report having completed a high school education.[15]

In Canada, similar trends can be seen where both foreign-born and Canadian-born blacks have graduation rates that exceed those of other Canadians. Similar patterns of educational over-achievement are reached with years of schooling and with data from the 1994 Statistics Canada survey.[16][17] Black immigrants have a higher standard of educational achievement, on average, than the overall Canadian population.[18]

African immigrants to the United States are the largest immigrant group that has the lowest percentage of people not fluent in English.[clarification needed] This is likely because English is one of the most spoken languages in Africa.

>>2569935
>>2569921
>>2569913
This is quoted from fucking Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Americans_of_African_immigrant_origin#Educational_attainment).). OP is a true faggot.

>>2569932
>In that similar vein, /maybe/ mixed race people get less hate than full blacks because they're less black? Hell if I know how the racist prejudiced mind works.

That's a special pleading. No matter what the result, it will be "just another quirk of the wacky racist white guy's thinking."

>>2565251
>>how do you explain that african american children that have been brought up in adoptive middle class white families still underperform SIGNIFICANTLY in IQ and SAT tests.

Obvsly the blacks up for adoption in the first place are not gonna be of good genetic/biological stock to begin with. Probably crack fumes in utero, poor neonatal nutrition. My calc prof is a black guy.

>>2569944
I'd like to point out that even if we go with the available evidence, the difference of the mean IQ between races is far less than the standard deviation of IQ, which means this is all rather pointless anyway.

Leave /sci/.

I suppose that for me, race doesn't matter. Why does it matter if one race is disposition to be a certain way? People aren't that simple, you can't typecast them. Everyone has potential, and many people waste it. I'm not a person that's terribly concerned with the details of race. I'm concerned about the black culture, and it's effect on the attitudes and opinions of those raised in that culture. What if black people have a lower IQ on average, WHY does that matter? I can't think of one way that would make any difference. People like OP want to find a reason about why it seems black people have found themselves in the shitter of American society, but offers nothing to solve the issue. Or if he does, it's mostly likely cruel or unusual. Black culture is the problem, they don't value education, or trying to do better in life. Because their family connection is the ONLY thing they have, they value it above all else.

Oh, and he got his math Ph.D. from Cal b4 AA existed. There is a tremendous amt of genetic diversity in Africa; don't dismiss an entire race.

>>2569953
And the white babies up for adoption are supposed to be from somehow better circumstances? There *was* a control consisting of adopted white babies.

Interestingly, comparing adopted to not adopted, the trend is opposite what you've predicted. Adopted children of every race were some IQ points better than non-adopted children. This is thought to be from some environmental influence of the adoptive parents: those who adopt children tend to be better parents than average.

>>2569966
That's just transparently false. The black-white gap is around 14 points, but the standard deviation of IQ is fixed at 10 points.

>>2569996
Why are you so bent on proving blacks to be stupid? This isn't normal in the modern age. It would have been understandable to think like this fifty years ago and before, but now...? What happened? You got mugged?

>>2569913
Educational attainment is a biased measure because blacks are given preferential treatment through affirmative action. Note that this is different than the nebulous and always elusive "discrimination" that afflicts blacks, in that it's above the table and everyone acknowledges that it happens.

Furthermore, many African immigrants come over on professional and other sponsored or work-related visas. Obviously there's some selection toward those who are already more successful.

Even if the data was true, and there are consistent inconsistencies with IQ as a solid number(Flynn Effect, Pygmalion effect, the effects of nutrients) what does that mean?

Unless we as a society become a place where people are assigned a racce and only marked and judged by a racial group instead of the individual, IQ tests are meaningless.

>>2570023
That's ad hominem circumstantial, but for what it's worth, I don't really have anything *against* black people per se. I am just tired of being accused of racism. Every time blacks underperform, people point the finger at my race, and implicitly at me, saying "it's his fault, he's an oppressor." I'm a staunch defender of equality under the law, but I don't like being falsely accused of oppression, discrimination and other moral crimes at every turn. Blacks under-perform because blacks are racially disadvantaged. It's not their fault. Genetics and natural history are not anyone's fault. I just don't want it to be shunted off as *my* fault.

>>2569921

US native [sic] blacks where bread for there performance on non cognitive tasks. I'll bet if you bread a race of white jocks for a couple hundred years you'd end up with white niggers too.

>>2570073
This is the closest thing I've ever heard with regards to a rational explanation on the "racists" side. Bravo. I will remember this.

>>2570046
I don't think the main body of critics blame whites. That's ridiculous. The main body blames the failures of educational policies and the government almost all the time, which is quite sound because they are failing.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson

/thread

Dr. Keith Black

/thread

>>2564981

One of the lead researchers of the supposed evidence article that you linked to is a racist old cook and has not been taken seriously by the scientific community for close to 50 years...

Rushton spoke at the Preserving Western Civilization conference in Baltimore in February 2009, organized by Michael H. Hart to address the need to defend "America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and European identity" from immigrants, Muslims, and African Americans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton

My black Calculus prof, most helpful prof I've had

/thread

>>2570129
He had a theory that brain size is negatively correlated with penis size.

Pretty funny

you can't reify a system of variation, IQ tests have been shown to be culturally bias and are only implemented to isolate severe mental abnormalities

comparison between groups is a drastic miscalculation. if genetic drift was so apparent in the relatively short amount of time that races have had to co-evolve, then viable offspring from interbreeding would be highly unlikely

the only way actual differences between groups could have occurred in regards to intelligence, is if there was intense selection, for humans mainly societal, pressure against intelligence in some cultures, and for intelligence in others

to a first approximation then, a native of new guinea should be vastly more intelligent than the typical european or westerner, because western civilization has more or less mated randomly due to the dense populations and threat of diseases, whereas tribal hunter-gatherers, as little as 50 years ago, had to considerably negotiate their environment, and survival and reproductive value was wholly contingent on ability to manage the different challenges of the surrounding ecosystem

all whites have to do is fight off diseases long enough to reproduce, because highly dense populations breed specialized industry, and a community driven infrastructure

>>2570196
>if genetic drift was so apparent in the relatively short amount of time that races have had to co-evolve, then viable offspring from interbreeding would be highly unlikely
You do realize that Neanderthal - human breeding produced viable offspring and that their DNA is present to a minor extent in modern non-Africans? I think breeding compatibility is not that strict on this evidence.

>the only way actual differences between groups could have occurred in regards to intelligence, is if there was intense selection
That's probably, but not necessarily, true. The human population bottleneck was narrow enough that founder effects could play a role. Moreover, selective effects would seem likely since the two groups faced very different environmental challenges in Europe as compared to Africa.

>a native of new guinea should be vastly more intelligent than the typical european or westerner, because western civilization has more or less mated randomly
Western civilization has had stratified social classes for most of its existence. That's very different from random mating. Furthermore, the time-line of civilization is very short compared to the much longer timeline of the Palaeolithic through Early Neolithic. The social structure of the West has been more similar to that of the New Guinea tribesmen for much longer than it has had its current arrangement.

>>2570196
>if genetic drift was so apparent in the relatively short amount of time that races have had to co-evolve, then viable offspring from interbreeding would be highly unlikely

A. Drift to the point where interbeeding is impossible is huge, we don't even think that you cant get a chimp knocked up. Also look at a the intelligence of a border collie and a the rat like chiwawa also they can still interbreed with jackles wolfs hyenas no one who just looked at them would think that those mexican rats are the same species as a st branard or grate dain

Any how about drift in a given time, it gets all sorts of fucked up when you breed them look at the russian foxes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enrLSfxTqZ0

>this whole thread

>>2569932

Good point.


That's why Asians living in America took so long to catch up. All of the racism on the street......

Probably explains the intellectual waste land of Jews living in anti-semitic Europe too.

That also explains why people of very high intellect are almost invariably extremely socially adept and treated as such by society at large.

>>2570173
It's not that difficult to come up with apparently "funny" but true theories of *correlation.*

>>2570196

>if genetic drift was so apparent in the relatively short amount of time that races have had to co-evolve, then viable offspring from interbreeding would be highly unlikely

Wat?


Subspecies differences in curiosity and general activity for developing squirrel monkeys


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dev.420140107/abstract

>>2570284
What to assume that testosterone levels can affect both genitalia AND cognitive ability?

liberal agenda dogma gets in the way of true science

confirmation bias

>>2570296
Well, I haven't actually read the theory of his you're referring to, but I think it proposed that different mating strategies were the cause of both.

Did you know that the volume of excrement and the volume of writings a person produces are highly correlated? Starving people do not write much because they're generally poor and illiterate or at least more interested in pursuing food than writing about it. Similarly, babies and small children produce less excrement because they're smaller and fewer writings because they're less educated.

This thread is not science related. This board is not /new/.

>>2570334

Politics in general do.

The edgy teenage atheists in /sci/ bemoan religion as the antithesis of science, but it's not, politics are.


Left wing/right wing

It doesn't matter. Politics running amok destroy science.

>>2570357
... wat

>>2570364


I didn't stutter nigger.

>>2570357

true; obviously there is conservative bias as well

i address liberal bias because i think it has the upper hand right now in professional circles, including higher education, as well as the media

>>2570376
Religion is the idea that you should believe in observable phenomena without evidence, often in spite of contradictory evidence.

You can't get much more anti-science than that.

Scientist is a fucking retard

he gives the field a bad name

just a walking sack of mindless political correctness

>>2570391
not this shit again

>>2570376

wait, i thought you couldn't say n*gger on /sci/

last time i did i got a 1 day ban

>>2570408
Maybe he used a non-spacing break? Dunno. You can test that. I won't.

>>2570413

then again, maybe he's gone

~ political correctness

>>2570408
nig‍ger nig‍ger nig‍ger

>>2570423

proxy? or....

This thread is now about furries!

>>2570427
U+200C "Zero width non-joiner" or U+200D "Zero width joiner"

>>2570438

I have sex with a cat every day.

>>2570446

ic

>>2570391


>Religion is the idea that you should BELIEVE in observable phenomena without evidence, often in spite of contradictory evidence.

So?

What people believe is meaningless.


Peoples religious beliefs adapt to their day to day lives. So what if a baptist mechanic in Georgia doesn't believe in evolution? It won't effect his ability to live his day to day life or do his job.

Politics on the other hand demands that, not only do people hold x belief but that x belief, were applicable, be thrust upon society as a whole.
It doesn't simply ignore reality. It actively tries to manipulate reality into conforming to its ideals.

Even historically where you see "religion" suppressing science, if you look closely it's simply politics using religion as a proxy.


Science may deny reality.

But politics tries to falsify it.


Nothing triumphs politics when it comes to tainting science.

>>2570463
>Peoples religious beliefs adapt to their day to day lives.
... uh, no.

Extreme example, but Christian Scientists. They die instead of taking insulin. It's good times. How the hell is that adaptation?

Unless you mean weakening of their unsubstantiated beliefs when science shows them to be wrong, ala the god of the gaps, then I fully agree.

♪♪

>>2570521

how do i insert a zero-width joiner?

>>2570521
Is this now a Unicode thread? If it is, I must say that ☃>* and even ☃>⁂. Nobody fucks with Unicode snowman.

>>2570469

>Extreme example, but Christian Scientists. They die instead of taking insulin. It's good times. How the hell is that adaptation?


If they've produced raised children then, in terms of adaption, their death is irrelevant anyway.

Also Christian Science is a new religion. It will either adapt or die.


If a society over generations can practice a religion and still exist then it's functional.

Even if everybody converted to CS tomorrow society would still function. It may not function the way you want it to, but that's subjective isn't it?

>Unless you mean weakening of their unsubstantiated beliefs when science shows them to be wrong, ala the god of the gaps, then I fully agree.

But once again that's wrong as well Science never changed anyones moral convictions(how could it?)

Take the Insulin example in CS above or Jehovah's witness refusal to get blood transfusions. Notice that these regions are in the minority when it comes to rejecting treatment for life threating illness?
Why do you think that it?

It's not because science showed them it's wrong.

I'd venture that not many CS believers die this way either.

Compare this to the number of people around the world that willingly put themselves into the arena of combat for political reasons.

Now we're talking about the deaths of thousands.


Also compare the justifications for the two.

If I asked why someone was willingly dieing from a treatable disease and they told me God willed it. I'd simple assume, as most others do, that the their zealots.

Now ask this same type of question to people who put themselves in harms way for abstract political reasons and the answer they give you will be met with approval and understanding from the majority.

>>2570529
It's OS dependent. On linux, it's ctrl + shift + u followed by the hex code, or you can use gnome character map, or you can define a compose key combo.

>>2570556

i have xp

>>2570548

To distill this further may point is that religion governs abstract moral notions that are weak motivators for human behavior. The only thing religion does is provide abstractions and justifications for behavior a society would display anyway, or at most institutionalize social disapproval of certain acts.

Hence why Christian fundamentalism thrived when education was low and the population was ignorant and receded as understanding increased.

Another, maybe better, example is militarism.

Christianity was war like and combative when western nations were. As thoughts on morality turned towards altruism Christianity become the religion of love thy neighbor,but despite this change in attitude Western nations continued and still continue to be war like.

Christianity supported slavery in the South, now ask any minster and they will tell you with absolute conviction that all men are equal before the eyes of God.


Religion is irrelevant it's simply the narrative society tells itself as it does whatever it's going to do anyways.

>>2570607
He said religion was anti-science, not that science could replace morality, your flapping your gums and thowing random shit all over the place, shut the fuck up. let this troll thread die (yeah i know im posting but like a minute after the last I mean fuck)

>>2570622
Thank you for the sufficiently eloquent argument.

>>2570607


Going back to the them of racism in this thread.

A great example of the above is white peoples history of invasion and conquest.

Norsemen were notorious for their raids and invasion of neighboring lands. The seemed to go beyond the simple functional need to acquire women, food and the usual spoils of war,

In reality it seemed like more of a wanderlust.

Norseships made their way as far west as the America and as far east as China.

Of course religiously the Norse justified this in terms of their warrior God mythology.

fast forward to the spread of Christianity and white Christians seemed to have a need to travel the world and spread the word of god, by sword or speech (either way didn't matter) to all parts of the world.


Fast forward to recent history and liberal whites have a burning desire do spread humanitarianism to all parts of the globe.

Different justifications same behavior.

>>2570622

Read below dipshit.

>>2570622


You're thick aren't you?


>Religion is irrelevant it's simply the narrative society tells itself as it does whatever it's going to do anyways.

Religion can't be anti anything.

It's simply mans schizophrenic way of justifying his behavior.

You teenage atheists are so quick to anger. You'd make fine Jihadists.

>>2570622

I think the point he was making was that religion is a proxy for moral behaviors and that moral behaviors create religion, hence hostility toward science or disbelief in certain areas of scientific understanding don't stem from religion, but from societies own value system of the moment,hence why as value systems change religions change thus why modern science even exists even though it coalesced during a very religious period of human history.

In other word s religion is CORRELATIVE relationship with hostility towards science , but not a causal one.

>>2570661
You're redefining religion to suit your argument. It's like a strawman. Please don't do that.

Plenty of people in the world today believe things about observable phenomena because of their religious teachings, often in spite of contradictory evidence. You can't redefine your way out of that without being an asshat.

>>2570704
>>2570706
I 'm probably am too retarded to understand previously, but that last one makes sense to me now, interesting concept.. but also I'm starting to swoon i may need sleep.

>>2570706


If people have looked at evidence that refutes their beliefs either

A)they don't understand the evidence

or

B) They're lying to themselves.


Also plenty of people today believe things about observable phenomena simply due to their primary school education despite conflicting evidence.

It doesn't mean they understand the phenomena.


Beliefs as I said are irrelevant.

Humans overwhelmingly shift their religious beliefs when they need to.

>>2570768
>"When they need to"
Unfalsifiable proposition detected.

>>2570704

Yes that's exactly it.

Conciseness is a gift.

I wish there was a feature to vote for/against shutting down a thread. This is ridiculous. The race-intelligence scientific field is addled with racist cooks and pathological scientists who have tenure. Not real science. Delete thread please.

>>2570773

How is it unfalsifiable?

Human needs are whatever human beings find necessary to acquire or to do.

So to restate that

"Human beings overwhelmingly shift their religious beliefs when they feel it necessary to acquire something or find it necessary to do something that their religious beliefs prevented them from doing."

>>2570809
Ok, for whatever that means.

Religions in the world today still promote faith - this idea that you should believe empirical facts without evidence, and often with contradictory known evidence, which makes it anti-science.

Science is believing in empirical things based on evidence, and only based on evidence. If you espouse a belief system which suggests that there's another standard besides evidence for talking about observable phenomena, then you're spouting bullshit and ant-science.

>>2570792

Yes, it's funny.

Anyone that finds evidence of racial differences in behavior or intellectual functioning are suddenly reveled to be crack pots?

Funnier still is the critics rarely focus on the science or make these accusations before the scientists race related studies come out.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115040765329081636-T5DQ4jvnwqOdVvsP_XSVG_lvgik_20060628.html?
mod=blogs

>>2570832

Primary school promotes, as well as much of education, the idea that you should believe in "facts" without evidence.

The need for evidence is of low priority for most people when it comes to "facts", especially facts that don't have a direct effect on ones day to day life.

>>2570865
>Primary school promotes, as well as much of education, the idea that you should believe in "facts" without evidence.

No they don't. They might teach facts without explaining the evidence, but that is fundamentally different than christians going around and saying "Earth is 6000 years old. Ignore those pesky fossils - they were placed there by the devil to trick you!"

>>2570832

"Science is believing in empirical things based on evidence, and only based on evidence. If you espouse a belief system which suggests that there's another standard besides evidence for talking about observable phenomena, then you're spouting bullshit and ant-science"

There you go with the word "believing".

Science is acquiring evidence from observable reality in order to make best of our knowledge assessment about the nature of observable reality.

But in reality nobody does this for things that don't effect their lives beside scientists(but of course the pursuit does effect their lives).

All human knowledge that isn't acquired first hand falls under the category of advocating faith.

religion doesn't tell people what to believe. Humans believe things and then create religion to justify their beliefs.

>>2570908
You're wrong.

In short, someone once defined insanity as: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different [new] results." Science is simply the opposite of insanity. Everyone practices it every day.

Also, eye witness testimony is still evidence. It's the flimsiest kind of evidence that there is, but it's still evidence. Thus you can have evidence of non-first hand things.

>>2570843

Hmmm...scientific racism...what could possibly go wrong?

>>2570883

how is it different?

From the perspective of the student which is the lie and which is the truth?

What distinguishes one from the other?

Also which Christian group claims that fossils are created by the devil?

I know certain sects of fundamentalism known as Creationists believe fossils where put here by God to test mans faith. I've never heard of a group that claims that fossils where made by Satan though.

>>2570936
>>2570936

Moralistic fallacy

>>2570937
>What distinguishes one from the other?
The active denial of the scientific method as the only acceptable method for learning about observable phenomena. Religions regularly do this. US schools rarely / never do.

>>2570942

Moralistic fallacy? I'm not a philosophy-fag so I'm not up on my logical fallacies, but to dismiss appeals to morality is terribly nihilist. There are many implications for scientific racism, and they all point to doom and gloom. Scientific racism is exactly contrary to the goals of legitimate science, which is to enhance the human condition.

/thread

>>2570915

>you can have evidence of known first hand things

So I should believe Joseph Smith then?


>Everyone practices it every day.

Practices what? Science?

People take actions which effect their lives and gauge the response, if the action effects their lives, but much of human knowledge/beliefs have no effect on their lives.

Do you have evidence that people run around preforming controlled experiments in order to verify trivial knowledge?

I don't think you do sir.

>>2570970


the problem is, by refusing to recognise differences in races, science creates its own problems

denying reality is bound to have consequences

>>2570970

>goals of legitimate science

>enhance the human condition

Idon'tthinksotim.jpg

The goal of legitimate science is empirically verifiable truth not bullshit political aspirations.

Also nice job with your assumption that effective work towards any goal can be achieved by embracing ignorance.

>>2570970

>to dismiss appeals to morality is terribly nihilist

and to assume your morality is universal is terribly arrogant.

I'm not disputing/supporting any of the findings posted in the thread but I question the necessity of the pursuit of this subject. If there is another purpose then I'd love to hear it, but as far as I can see the only possible purpose of studies into racial differences in intelligence is simply to promote/discredit racial discrimination, either objective does not justify whatever resources were used for the studies, which would have been better spent on a big toilet. Racial discrimination, even based on intelligence, is already perfectly without merit because, for one thing, race being a factor of birth and in no way under an individual's control makes racial discrimination totally immoral. Also, regardless of morality discrimination is only useful/justifiable where all members of a race fall below an intellectual threshold with renders them suitable for discrimination. While it's definitely possible that a race will, on average, be significantly more intelligent than another race, on average, this does not change the fact that all races have enough members of above, below and at average (global) intelligence that discrimination is stupid.

>>2571150
>mental retardation being a factor of birth and in no way under an individual's control makes discrimination based on intelligence totally immoral

>>2570986
>>the problem is, by refusing to recognise differences in races, science creates its own problems
Hold on a second. Let's assume for a moment that there are differences in intelligence between races. What possible problems do you foresee, O wise sage of Athens, by not "recognizing" said intellectual differences in race? I only see -(problems); that is, I only see the absence of problems that would have arose as a result. *cough* fascist eugenics, resurrection of violent racial tensions, and possibly race riots *cough*

>>2571150

What makes you an authority on what is justifiable and moral?

I thought /sci/ disliked religion?


Also you argument is invalid. Western societies spend gobs of cash on programs and institutions designed to eliminate gaps in equality of career and academic performance .

Wouldn't it be nice to know if that money was being well spent on those social programs?

Also if the limits in intellectual performance and behavior are genetic in nature then that means demographic trends in western societies have serious consequences not just within the societies but globally as well.

Once again you're arguing that ignorance is preferable to knowledge.

>>What makes you an authority on what is justifiable and moral?
One need only be a marginally compassionate human being to realize the horrible pitfalls of taxonomizing people based on the performance of their race.

>>2571233

in general when we deny reality, reality has a way of imposing itself anyway

and if we're resisting that imposition, the realignment hurts more

try building a bridge in denial of the laws of physics


or, i'll put it another way; liberals think we're living in a post-racist world; it's fucking retarded; a projection of guilt and wishful thinking on their part

the effect is they put themselves in harm's way because they perceive 0 threat

liberals who refuse to own guns; what could possibly go wrong?

>>2571239
>What makes you an authority on what is justifiable and moral?
>I thought /sci/ disliked religion?
Protip: You can have morality without religion.

>>2571233

We already have wide scale social problems

race riots and racial violence as a result of the assumption that all groups of human beings are cognitively identical.

Do you think as minority groups who may be less intelligent and more prone to violence grow in number along side each other that this will lessen?
The groups that are growing in number are the same groups which may be licking in intellectual ability.

Do not see a problem where an shrinking intelligent group is supporting a growing unintelligent group?


Also not all groups share western morality.

Asia for example, China in particular, is a very intelligent group of people if western whites known for their modern altruism loose power in the dominate nations of the world of course China stands in to fill the power vacuum.

Do you not think the difference between western value systems and eastern ones are large enough to make this a very big concern for the world as a whole?

And why do always attach the word fascist to the word eugenic?

>>2571293

Protip if your using your morality to justify willful ignorance of reality you don't like it is religion and you're lying to yourself.

>>2571303
I jumped in late, so I have no clue what's going on in this thread.

Also, the word "religion" generally denotes some belief system which involves worship or veneration. Without that, it's really not a religion.

>>2571296

Alright buddy, you've been thinking about this race-intelligence thing a little too much. It's getting weird now.

>>2571279


Who says compassion is the final factor in decision making?

Also anything human beings do has dire consequences eliminating racial tension(if were possible) wouldn't prevent human conflict.


I know your internalized religious like conviction demand that you see racism as the greatest evil the world has known but at least try to dress your argument up with some logic.

>>2571233

it also creates problems on the other side; for example, if blacks truly aren't able to measure up intellectually, but we tell them they can; and the european style system stresses intellectualism, doesn't that just perpetuate white domination and black hopelessness?

>>2571321
>>2571321

An unwavering belief in the "rightness" of something to point that you're willing to advocate ignoring reality?

Sure smells like religiosity to me.

>>2569921
>>2570109
>>2570116

>>2571333

Also think of the consequences for the intelligent blacks that exist?

If they too are under the assumption of equality doesn't that rob them of their ability to take actions that might shape the future of themselves and other black people?

Naggers gonna nag.

>>2571353

i'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me


either way, what blacks want is freedom

they don't want our pity and our guilty, patronising attitude (affirmative action) because they know we're not going to give up actual control willingly

on the other hand, we're in this thing; slavery started it so it's something we're going to have to answer for one way or another

extricating ourselves from the situation is likely will have to be done on an individual basis

the country itself is fucked, imo

pic related

>>2571333

Well, in your world, my Calculus professor last sem wouldn't have been able to get his mathematics Ph.D. And mind you he got it before affirmative action even existed. He's an old black guy.

If aliens came to this planet tomorrow, they wouldn't pay much attention to the differentiation between the white-colored ape descendants and the brown-colored ape descendants. They would look at us all as vile humans.

>>2571386

sure, there are smart black people

in general tho they're intellectually at a disadvantage imo

blacks developed for speed and strength; all those wild animals in africa

whereas they had no winter to worry about

europeans have a hard winter; it requires looking ahead, planning ahead; ie. intellectualism

Oh, by the way, this whole race-intelligence/scientific racism thing isn't some sort of new scientific innovation, but you guys are acting like you struck oil. It's been around for hundreds of years. It was often used to justify a little part of American history you may have heard of...slavery!

>>2571386
>>2571400

blacks score lower on standardized tests even when adjusted for income

you will have difficulty explaining these facts away

you will try, by talking of systemic bias, or whatever; but you fail to see that perhaps the error is on your end; ie. confirmation bias

>>2571386

What world?


You mean a world were intelligent black people want to create a society with other intelligent black people?

Or are you implying that blacks would have never developed to the point were they could achieve such things without the help of whites?

What do you mean by my world?


>If aliens came to this planet tomorrow, they wouldn't pay much attention to the differentiation between the white-colored ape descendants and the brown-colored ape descendants. They would look at us all as vile humans.

Wow, ok I'm talking to a kid.

>>2571408
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xeebU8VhmY

>>2571413
As stated numerous times else-thread, no I really wouldn't.

They're black. Their peers know he's black, and some treat him worse for it.

>>2571408

nobody claimed it was new thinking

on the other hand, the liberal mindset "post-racism" perpetuates the system

because it pretends everything is now right in the world

whatever lets them sleep at night

meanwhile minority prison population is still incredibly high compared to whites, blacks live shorter lives, receive poorer health care, etc. etc. etc.

we perpetuate all that shit with the equality myth; because we no longer have to answer for it

ie. if we're all equal now then all that shit must be their fault, not ours

>>2571422
Many treat him better for it ie liberals.

>>2571239

I don't know if you missed my second point or just completely ignored it.

>>2571362

Which is this: Let's assume that the underperformance of blacks shown in this graph is entirely due to on blacks being, on average, less intelligent than other races. Keep in mind that the average intelligence indicates the PROPORTION OF INDIVIDUALS IN A POPULATION OF PARTICULAR LEVELS OF INTELLIGENCE, not the intelligence of each individual. This means that there are still a substantial number of blacks with average or above average intelligence (generally around 40% of blacks, according to this study, of course assuming it entirely corresponds to intelligence). I'm saying that discrimination against black people, for reasons of intelligence, would result in discrimination against these individuals of "proficient" intelligence, for reasons of intelligence. You realise the fallacy in this, right?

>>2571400
>>2571400

But think of what intelligent blacks could do for the black community if they realized, and were politically allowed to state, that the disadvantage between blacks and the rest of society was partially genetic.

Think about it.
'
Think about what Africa could with a self aware intelligence black upper class with western universalistic moral convictions.

>>2571422

?

you're not making sense

>>2571422

Which is why Racism in America holds back asians intellectually and anti-semitism in Europe held back Jews.... oh wait.

>>2571437
Black kid grows up in a white neighborhood, with the same family income, etc. However, the other white kids at school will treat him like shit because he's black, which will result in lower test scores.

It's basic racism. Doesn't matter if you've accounted for his upbringing and his family income, you haven't accounted for the daily hassle he'll have to deal with for simply having black skin.

>>2571431

again, you're just projecting your morals and mindset on them

if they want to run around the jungles and cut each other's heads off with machetes, let it be

white people have enough trouble ruling their own countries to be worrying about other people ruling theirs

that's half the problem tho init

>>2571446
>However, the other white kids at school will treat him like shit because he's black, which will result in lower test scores.

LOL because nerds that are bullied have low test scores.

>>2571446


those are statistically baseless conclusions

it sounds like mere speculation to me

to satisfy a preconceived notion

not very scientific

>>2571452

exactly

negative pressure is usually a motivating factor

scientist that has to be some of the most self-serving retarded shit you've ever said; and that's saying something

>>2571408


Slavery existed in pre-colonial Africa and needed no scientific justification.

I know with absolute certainty that I'm intellectually superior to a three year old child would that justify enslaving and brutalizing him or her?
Quite conflating science and morality.

>>2571454
Moot, why can't we have mods or janitors?

>>2571460
>goes crying to moot when losing an argument.

>>2571460

scientists, if there were mods/janitors your ass would be out

>>2571426

Alright, I've just realised that I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make, and thus my other posts (while the ideas I expressed in them were absolutely correct in general), presumed you were making a particular point. I apologise. You are saying that, scientifically speaking, blacks are, on average, less intelligent than other races. What do you believe are the implications of this? What do you think should be an appropriate response to this? What is your justification for the investment of resources of researching this?

Though I do reject your statements regarding race comparisons with prison populations, average lifespans/healthcare/etc. You make the implication that every black person is more inclined than every other person to go to jail, or all black people will die younger than others, or be worse off medically. Whereas this doesn't affect the lifespan of the black guys who live to old ages, or are well-off enough to get top-notch healthcare, or avoid jail. Nor is any non-black person in jail less imprisoned than the black people in jail, also lower socioeconomic non-blacks don't magically live longer or are more healthy than their black counterparts in the same situations.

>>2571459

Listen,
What is you're rationale for enslaving and brutalizing livestock? or pets?

If you can answer this, then the conversation can proceed logically. If not, or you answer is "herp i feel animals...derp", than you're just spouting religious beliefs.

>>2570970
>>2571020
>>2571239

All these posts are irrelevant. "Moralistic fallacy" means using moral considerations to weigh factual (e.g. scientific) matters, not any consideration of morality at all.

Example of moralistic fallacy: "If there were differences in intelligence between white people and black people, that would be racism, and racism is wrong, so there are no differences."

Another example: "Nazis believed there were differences in intelligence between races, and Nazis were bad, so there are not such differences." That one combines moralistic fallacy with guilt by association.

>>You realise the fallacy in this, right?
They won't. I'm going to go out on a "limb" and hypothesize that most of the anti-black people here think this way because of some specific incident in their life. When a person has sustained trauma of some kind, it is hard to intellectually dissuade him/her from the results thereof.

BTW Check out the picture of a city in Ethiopia. This isn't Johannesburg or someplace inhabited by whites. The Italians tried to conquer Ethiopia, but Ethiopians drove them out, so this is a good example of raw African ingenuity.

/new/, you had so many other boards to choose from … why come here?

>>2571489

My rational is that the society that I was raised in has taught me that animals are for food and general human use as long as undue cruelty (defined in my mind as not depriving captive animals/pets of food water or beating the m for the hell of it) is not inflicted.

That society in turn developed this moral notionby a combination of acquired cultural practices and evolutionary wiring geared toward human survival as well as later human moral and religious doctrines advocating compassion.

>>2571491

for one, you sound reasonable

two, i'm not racist in that i think any race is better than any other; i think all life is equal, including blacks and whites

it doesn't mean we're identical and it doesn't mean we should be blind to our differences


blacks regularly excel and far outnumber whites in professional sports that test strength and speed. this isn't racism; it's a fact of natural selection; world records in foot racing are all black records; you can't lie to the stopwatch

that said, whites have their advantages too; we faced cold winters in europe and we had to develop intelligence as a result of that and other reasons

why do you think europe has a history of literature and science and all that but africa has so very little?

what's the solution? i'm not all that hopeful for the united states, to be honest. i don't think it will end well; check out michelle obama's dress she wore on election night; they're not stupid or oblivious; she was wearing a black widow dress

put 2 and 2 together and you'll see things don't look too pretty

>>2571500
OK, I understand what you're saying, but here are my rebuttals:
1. There are no significant differences in intelligence between races. I don't have time to expound upon this so I will leave it at that.
2. If there are truly significant intellectual differences, it's best to not talk about it (yes, violating the oh-so-precious freedom of speech dogma) so as to avoid the data being used to justify things like slavery and the Holocaust, both of which were justified with scientific racism. I think (or at least hope) we can all agree the Holocaust and slavery were bad things.

>>2571500

His objections to race related research are tantamount to saying that "racial difference existing is wrong thus this difference are not present"

>>2571489
>implying domestication is slavery
>implying meat isn't a good source of protein which is required for survival.

>>2571491

also, i didn't imply anything about "every" black person

i am talking about statistics, which reflect general trends

statistically blacks live significantly shorter lives, have significantly less health care coverage, and significantly are more likely to be put in prison some time in their lives

ie. racism still lives, even tho liberals don't admit it

and to blacks this is doubly insulting; put them in prison but pretend everything's hunky dory now

at least when we were openly discriminatory we were being honest about it

>>2571501
>>You realise the fallacy in this, right?
>They won't. I'm going to go out on a "limb" and hypothesize that most of the anti-black people here think this way because of some specific incident in their life. When a person has sustained trauma of some kind, it is hard to intellectually dissuade him/her from the results thereof.
You are yourself giving a neat example of genetic fallacy. It has been used this same way multiple times in the thread.

A:"Blacks are on average less intelligent"
B:"You only think that way because you were traumatized."
C:"You probably think that way because you were mugged by a black person."

B & C are both genetic fallacies ITT.

>>2571527

wut? livestock and farm animals isn't slavery?

are you retarded? killing something for its meat is FAR WORSE than slavery.


Are you saying we could "domesticate" humans and this wouldn't be slavery?

really you're exquisitely dumb

>>2571489

i don't rationalise "brutalizing" lifestock

which is why i don't eat at mcdonalds or eat anything that was factory farmed

free range animals are fair game tho, and tastier than a motherfucker

>>2571535
That's called cannibalism, dipshit.

>>2571501

That's a meaningless assumption.

If one were to have never had a bad experience with blacks then the argument be racism due to ignorance or one did then the argument is racism due to personal vendetta.

I'm "racist" because I've looked at the evidence of racial disparities in intellectual and academic performance as a result if purely social factors and its predictive power and the evidence for the disparities as a result of genetic influence and the genetic evidence is by far more compelling.


To be honest though I started out like you.

>>2571501

you assume because i, for example, perceive an intellectual difference in the races i am anti-black

completely wrong; i see blacks as equals

and i can see them as equals without patronising them or pitying them; in fact that's teh only way

>>2571537

so if we let human slaves run around on a farm, then we could eat them and call it domestication?

you're being really stupid pretending any kind of farming is not slavery.

the real question is how you rationalize the subjugation of another animal.

the one dude appealed to the higher power of "society told me so it must be right"....great a lemming, real logical, argument done, its no better than saying god told me

so if you have some logic to support subjugation of animals, lets hear it.

because all i've heard so far is that its useful, and we can get a useful product from them. this in no way precludes humans from said subjugation.

>>2571526
>>His objections to race related research are tantamount to
>>saying that "racial difference existing is wrong thus this
>>difference are not present"

You and your children will form the truly retarded race of men.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'll put it in baby terms for you. I don't know whether the data is accurate or not, but I have responses for both scenarios. If the data is false and there aren't really any differences when controlling for nutrition and income, then (1) well, it's wrong and there's nothing to argue about. If the data is correct, then (2) it rests entirely on the utility of IQ tests to begin with and should not be construed in any way to justify violence or inhumane behavior directed toward blacks. If the data is true, it shouldn't have any influence on how we treat blacks because any modification in our actions would likely be in the direction of contempt, which given their hypothetical constraints would be the last thing they need.

>>2571549
>doesn't realize for mass production of protein domestication is required to sustain our given population.
Not everyone can afford your tofu dogs either.

>>2571549

why do eagles eat fish?

why do lions eat zebras?

because they can and they gotta eat something right?

it's just the fucking way the world works

if humans didn't eat livestock, can they hunt animals in the wild? killing an animal is a type of subjugation

if not, you're okay with killing people just not enslaving them?


also, blacks enslaved other blacks before whites started doing it; also whites enslaved other whites as well

>>2571540
>To be honest though I started out like you.

and then i became InternetDickFaceMan! secretly spewing racist pseudo-science in my allegedly unbiased pursuit of knowledge.
no one must know of my secret identity, otherwise they'd appropriately shun me and kick my ass!
so my secret must stay safe with internet anonymity. it's the courageous choice.

>>2571549

How am I a lemming?

I was being honest.

Human beings moral code is learned through the societies in which they live.

DO you agree with this statement?

All morality is trivial.

Society also told me its wrong to kill people as well.

Can you please offer a rational argument as to why killing and farming animals is objectively wrong?
Do you agree with this statement?

Ho

>>2571551

so ignorance, either in thought or in action is your suggestion?

that doesn't really get us anywhere; and it doesn't solve all the problems blacks face in this country and continue to face, liberal hippie utopia notwithstanding

>>2571560

Wow, way to lash out.

Also nice implication that if something is not socially acceptable then it's wrong.

>>2571560

number one, i'm not that person

number two, it takes courage to admit reality even when it's not politically correct

number three, i talk with others i know about shit like this

i even talk with black people about the upcoming strife. ie. what will happen if michelle obama's dress comes true

i say riots, rape, murder, mayhem

black dude says martial law

we both see the dangers from our own perspective

>>2571524
Your (2) may not be a fallacy, but it is an example of the philosophical position called Obscurantism, which is, let's say, heavily debated. Furthermore, the social consequences you foresee are not inevitable. Perhaps rather than re-enacting barbarous atrocities we could just acknowledge that blacks will tend to fall short on certain metrics, our efforts pouring billions of dollars into programs to lower the "achievement gap" are probably misguided, and these differences do not represent "systemic racism" wherever they appear but rather reflect differences in capability. We could just "move on" as a society and stop wasting resources battling against inevitability. Those blacks who have what it takes to succeed in intellectual pursuits are free to do so - as they should be - but the greater number who are not can just do something else.

She wore that dress for a reason, to send a message, on *election night*

if you can't see that you really are fucking blind

>>2571560
>>and then i became InternetDickFaceMan! secretly spewing
>>racist pseudo-science in my allegedly unbiased pursuit of
>>knowledge.
>>no one must know of my secret identity, otherwise they'd
>>appropriately shun me and kick my ass!
>>so my secret must stay safe with internet anonymity. it's the
>>courageous choice.

Thank you! It really renews my fondness for 4chan-ers to hear someone say something like this.

This /stormfront/ bullshit is getting on my nerves. It's a debasement of science.

Can't we just stick to chemistry, physics, biology, and astronomy here! I wanna answer some h/w questions!

>>2571582

I was watching it live and I almost fell out of my chair

>>2571551
> If the data is false and there aren't really any differences when controlling for nutrition and income, then (1) well, it's wrong and there's nothing to argue about.


> If the data is correct, then (2) it rests entirely on the utility of IQ tests to begin with and should not be construed in any way to justify violence or inhumane behavior directed toward blacks. If the data is true, it shouldn't have any influence on how we treat blacks because any modification in our actions would likely be in the direction of contempt, which given their hypothetical constraints would be the last thing they need.


So regardless of what the actual evidence is do the same thing.

Don't modify are actions based upon reality in fact better to just ignore reality all together.

Yeah well that's a thought.

and at any rate that's your justification.

It's very clear by your statements and attitudes that you disbelieve it because it conflicts with your morality.

>>2571552
>>2571555

you both saying "we gotta". fair enough. but at what point would you accept "we gotta" enslave people to work for us?
Ancient Greeks kept dozens of slaves for every city-state citizen, because "they had to".

the reality is the utilitarian argument is total FAIL. what you really mean, and what the Ancient Greeks meant, was "to maintain MY LIFESTYLE i gotta". humans can live on numerous other protein sources, and NEWS FLASH, soy aside, beans and grains are far cheaper per unit of protein than meat.

you better know why you accept this shit, because it sounds awfully lemming to me.

>>2571585

it's not stormfront you moron

or maybe it's racist to claim that blacks hold all the world records in actual races

maybe the stopwatch is racist

or is it racist to point out that blacks heavily outweigh whites in the nfl and nba?


there are differences between the races; it's obvious

>>2571585
>implying genetics isn't science.

>>2571587

lions only eat meat; liberal sensibilities may have a hard time accepting bloodshed but it is a law of nature

i don't accept factory farming; i don't accept torture; but killing animals for food is legit

as far as for accepting slavery, i don't; my wish would be for us to "let my people go" give the blacks the freedom they need and deserve

it's easier said than done tho

>>2571587
No I said you can't feed the world's need for protein on tofu dogs. The manufacturing capacity is far too small and to start it would be very costly so people would die as a result.

>>2571593
>>there are differences between the races; it's obvious

No shit, sherlock. I did not deny that basic biological fact. Don't try to straw man me.

>>2571563

if you do what anybody tells you(regardless of their authority or "expertise") without understanding the logical basis for those actions, you are a lemming.

99% of what you call "moral" is plain logic. if we around killing people, live by the sword die by the sword, and nobody wants this shit...same goes for nearly every law.

i do not live by any "morality". my actions are governed by logic. i see no logic defending the subjugation of animals that can't be equally applied to humans. that's why i want to know how you defend this subjugation. all i've gotten is authority appeals and weak utilitarian logic.

>>2571608
>implying you weren't strawmaning the entire time.

>>2571608

so you admit every other biological difference except one: that of the mind?

don't you see how contradictory and untenuous a position that is?

>>2571568
no, i'm not saying " not socially acceptable" = "wrong"

i'm saying that the racist shit you say here as anon is not something you would say in real life.

actually i wish you would, so that you'd have to actually face up to the fact that you use racism as a way to feel better about yourself and your own shitty life.

nothing makes someone feel good like having someone else to hate.

inb4 hating racists is how i feel good about myself. no shit. but at least i'm hating you for something you have control over. your outlook on life is your own stupid choice.

>>2571602

bullshit. you are saying your lifestyle is so important to maintain that killing is justified. slavery is better or worse than killing? most people would accept slavery over death.

you accept the slavery of hundreds of thousands of child laborers and sweatshop workers around the world to maintain your lifestyle.

and you have ZERO defense other than you enjoy your lifestyle and don't feel like changing.

>>2571603

sure, and yet war recurs as well;

and predators exist, not just humans

facts of nature bro

there are reasons for these things; even if they do not comport with a tender, hippie dreamland idealism

>>2571607

are you really this dumb?

we feed animals FAR more protein than we get out of them.

>>2571618

i already said i talk about this in real life

also, it's not hate; it's just science

facts are facts

>>2571623
No we don't.
If we did those businesses wouldn't exist. It simply wouldn't be cost effective.

>>2571618
Stop the wagon, I just found another genetic fallacy to throw aboard >>2571533

>>2571603
>nobody wants that shit

No we don't want it, but why?

Why don't you want to "live by the sword die by the sword"

You demand a "logical" argument based on my morality I demand one of yours.


> i see no logic defending the subjugation of animals that can't be equally applied to humans."

Why must we group human animals and animals together/? Why can't we draw distinctions.
tell me "logically" why you feel that humans or animals should not be subjected.

>i do not live by any "morality". my actions are governed by logic


lol, no your actions are governed by your arbitrary wants and you conflate them for logic.

>>2571619

i'm saying the law of the jungle is real

the animals that have the ability to kill for meat do so; prey animals exist to satisfy this craving

the world works together

as for sweatshops, i'm not just some dumbfucking consumer; i live a relatively ascetic lifestyle; you assume a lot for your argument's sake but it's mostly just strawman

>>2571622

the fuck meatheadery is this?

>>2571618
>>2571618


I WISH PEOPLE WOULD BEAT YOU UP BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING SOMETHING THAT MAKES ME MADDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!1

WHIIIIIIIIIIINEEEEEEEEEE!!

lol, children

>>2571629

you are seriously dumb. you think animals make protein?

animals eat FAR more protein than we extract from them

6% protein conversion efficiency for beef. that means for 100kg of protein fed to the cow, we extract 6kg of meat.

don't be an idiot, if we stopped feeding livestock, world food prices would drop like a rock and we would have ten times cheaper access to protein

>>2571618

and besides, political correctness, propriety, and other social considerations don't mean it's more true; if anything it's less true

here we have a relatively unfiltered discussion; no filter = less bullshit

>>2571589
>>It's very clear by your statements and attitudes that you disbelieve it because it conflicts with your morality.

I open to "believe" any data that has been reproduced several times by independent and reliable researchers in a scientific manner. The reality is that only a few white researchers have actually looked into this. (I'll truly trust the results when a black researcher or at least an Indian researcher reproduces the results.) Whether the social stigma is stopping them is irrelevant because there is no reproductions of the data in any case.

You allude to how my morality is somehow clouding my perspective, as though morality were some strange ritual performed by brain-dead mutants. Since when did it become a cardinal sin to have any morality? Even a spiritual side? Must one have be a nihilist to be a scientist? One of the most respected guys in the chemistry department (my field) at my univ is a Baptist, and contrary to what you may have heard, not all religious people are batshit homophobes and freaks. I don't believe in God myself. I was raised secular, but I do have morals about which I choose not to discuss here. If you wish to burn me at the stake for caring about other human beings, then start striking some fucking matches.

>>2571651

animals proteins have their own advantages tho

omege 3 in fish, eg.

we dont' have to wild fish anything.

or deer, or buffalo


so you're saying we should only be able to kill and eat wild animals? i can live with that

>>2571635
the logic is i don't want to fight every day of my life, god-damn you are fucking stupid.

>lol, wants
wut? are you retarded? food and clothing and shelter are wants? the fuck do you know about my life?

and i already said I SEE NO LOGICAL argument defending subjugation of animals that doesn't apply equally to humans
go back to /fit/ you fucking meathead

>>2571627
sure thing.

you're stupid. it's science because i said so right?

it's a fact that you're underdeveloped mind can't handle it's own inferiority, so it creates a delusional reality it can deal with.

it's a fact, cause i said so, right? facts are facts.

>>2571654

There's a Chinese researcher linked in this thread scroll up.

Morality is not a "sin", but strong idealogical convictions cloud judgment and hinder the quest for understanding, hence why you refuse to study the argument in depth and openly advocate comfortable ignorance over ugly truth.

>>2571654

lying to yourself and to others doesn't help them

perpetuating a lie is self-serving in the case of liberals because they enjoy the lifestyle produced by the continuing inequality while blacks continue to suffer

>>2571658

correct, wild only, because subjugation of any animal is not logically defensible without implicitly allowing for a condition whereby at least some humans could be enslaved by the same logic.

>>2571653
no, i think you're generating enough bullshit for all of us. are you really so insecure you have to spend your time thinking, "i'm part of the 'good' race". "i'm smart because i'm white."

>>2571665

i'm all about freedom

i like cats tho; what about pets?

if the relationship is mutually beneficial. ie. we don't eat them

what about a wife?

>>2571670
No one said that, Mr. Strawman.

>>2571659

>I don't WANT to fight everyday of my life

Why not? Please explain using logic only.

>wut? are you retarded? food and clothing and shelter are wants? the fuck do you know about my life?

Why do you need food clothing and shelter?

Logically? The only thing they do is keep you alive?

Logically, why do you need to stay alive?

>and i already said I SEE NO LOGICAL argument defending subjugation of animals that doesn't apply equally to humans


Logically why must human animals and animals be addressed using the same moral code?

I've yet to see a logical argument for this.

>>2571660

i didn't invent the statistics; and i don't have an agenda, you do

reality is harsh sometimes, you're a pussy you want to believe make believe

placating fear (negros) is your agenda

>>2571670

check it, you're the one who said "good"

you're making this a moral question, not me

i simply said we have our differences; i dont' think one race is better than any other

>>2571670

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

>implying I'm not Asian as fuck

Oh liberals you really are realities court jesters

>>2571666
>>There's a Chinese researcher linked in this thread scroll up.

Not surprisingly so, seeing as the data would ordain him part of the Master Race.

>>2571685

Wow, you're very racist aren't you?

Yeah Asians are very intelligent.

Does that fact somehow negate the intelligence of whites or change the fact that many white and black people are intelligent?

>>2571673

depends on how you keep the pet, if it runs free but stays around your property of its own free will, than its more of a wild friend(tho not entirely, you still feed it, keepit warm in winter, etc).

if you have to leash the animal or keep it locked up, than its subjugation for your pleasure.
wives can go free at will, no question there.
kids are a hairy story, but still simple enough when you consider their protection is paramount to their freedom due to the logical necessity of continuing the species.

i guess the kid logic could apply to endangered animals in a zoo, but certainly not any commonly domesticated pets.

>>2571691

yah, i don't really believe in zoos or leashes either

question tho, would you suggest we empty out all the prisons while we're at it too?

prison = subjugation

>>2571691

endangered species don't justify zoos

because most likely humans were the ones who caused them to be endangered in the first place

in which case it's self-justifying in more ways than one

and if we weren't the cause of the extinction, then let mother nature do her thing

>>2571677
oh god, statistics are your 'facts'! yeah, those are uber reliable and never subject to bias. nope.

so let's set get this straight.
you have 'facts'
you know the correct way to interpret those 'facts'
anyone who disagrees with you is wrong/liberal/a pc moron
oh, and these 'facts' mean treating humans differently based on their skin color

great. yeah, that sounds like science to me. completely agenda free. i can really see your superiority now.

sound-fucking proof logic.

how come science never argues against the speakers own race? science is always used as a weapon against other races. couldn't be people trying to bolster their own opinions of themselves.

>>2571704

>let mother nature do her thing

>humans are not part of nature

>>2571695
I'm going to drop this subject but will leave you with this: If you really had any testicles, you'd go on a soapbox and yell this in the middle of Harlem. But that you will not do. And I can take comfort in the fact that if you said this in pretty much any environment other than the internet, you would be readily identified as the asshole that you are.

>>2571708

sure, of course we are; but there's a difference in reflexive biological processes and self-conscious human intention

maybe not that much of a difference but there is one

>>2571707

What are you talking about every study by every white researcher on the subjective i've ever read acknowledges that Asians have a higher average level of intelligence than whites.

>>2571711
>implying doing something stupid is doing something brave.
There is a fine line for a reason. Though in this case it could be bold and you still crossed it.

>>2571707

you presume a lot

i also can observe the natural world for myself and my observations coincide with those studies and statistics

i don't do it to bolster myself, but it is what it is

just as blacks don't say to themselves, gee bob, we have all the foot race world records; or, we disproportionately outrepresent other races in competitive sports

it's just what it is motherfucker ain't nobody trying to trick nobody except you

>>2571711

right, your idea of "testicles" is continue to subjugate an entire people and lie to their face about it

>>2571711

So because saying something would get me physically injured in certain situations that means what?
hahahaha

really I mean damn.


What a great believer in intellectual discourse you are.

What aa stoic and rational individual. Truly a gentlemen of learning.

ahahahahahahahahahahaha

And your entire argument centered around the effects science has on the human condition, yet you openly express joy at the thought of physical harm coming to someone for discussing an idea?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Liberals; if you don't have to share national borders with them they'd be down right comical.

>>2571725
>>right, your idea of "testicles" is continue to subjugate an entire
>>people and lie to their face about it

I know I said I'd drop this but I had to rebut what this guy said. No, my idea of testicles is balls, testes, you know the glands between your legs that....oh, that's right. I should have been more sensitive. You don't have any!

>>2571733

Now resorting to name calling?

I really hope you're <16.

>>2571733

actually, i do; i'm the guy who talks with black people in the real world about the coming race war

and i do it in a spirit of honest and respect

you're just a pussy who'd rather lie to himself and others to maintain some warm and fuzzy fiction

Why isn't this thread deleted yet?

THIS IS WHY /new/ FUCKING SUCKED MOOT, BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T DELETE THESE STUPID AS FUCK THREADS AND DIDN'T MAKE IT A WORKSAFE BOARD.

>>2571682

Ha, ha! InternetDickFaceMan strikes again! So what if separate but equal failed as a legal doctrine? IDFM is not saying races are unequal, IDFM is saying that they're just *different*. IDFM is not making moral judgements, just judging people by the color of their skin. IDFM is unbiased about facts that he fails to present. IDFM doesn't say what should be done about this 'factual' racial difference, just wants everyone to know that it *absolutely*, *scientifically* exists because statistics says so. Now, if these 'facts' generate hate crimes, or biogotry, or even just make it harder for people to get along, that's not InternetDickFaceMan's fault. He's anonymous, nothing can be his fault. 'Facts' can't be blamed, and neither can the messenger.

>>2571749

and yet, somehow, blacks continue to suffer despite liberal fiction

wonder why that is? maybe your liberal fiction isn't all its cracked up to be

btw, i'm not the same guy you were referring to before; but being wrong is consistent on your part so no surprise there

>>2571749

you and all the other libfags should read this:

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/formans/DefiningDeviancy.htm

called defining deviancy down, written by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a liberal

learn something

>>2571758

btw, a liberal in the best sense of the word

not some politically correct hack

>>2571758


quoting part of it:

"Among blacks, 2 of 3 children are born to an unmarried mother; 30 years ago the figure was 1 in 5."


we've gotten more politically correct, and somehow blacks have gotten worse off

used to be 1/5; in the early 1990s it was 2/3.

where's your liberal god now?

>>2571758
>>2571754
pretty sure IDFM could apply to you just as well.

i have no fucking clue what you mean by 'liberal fiction' but i can tell by your tone that you think it is a bad thing. i suppose you'll enlighten me.

on that note though, i'm not a democrat, so i can't accept any blame for whatever it is you think they're doing.

i think poor people of all races/creeds/sexual orientation suffer under political systems that continuously pit them against each other. the more we focus on and fight about stupid differences like who we fuck or what color our skin is the more time rich bastards have to keep getting richer.

you IDFM are a pawn of a rich class that doesn't give a shit about you, and wants you to keep being a dick about race so you won't be a dick about the fact that people are getting poorer and poorer to the people that are making us poorer.

>>2571780

lulz "it's a conspiracy by rich people" whatever

liberal fiction is political correctness for one; it's a self-serving agenda, that manipulates the truth fo the world toward its aims

are you sure you're not IDFM?

>>2571745

this is totally worksafe.

if your boss says otherwise he's a nazi.

"Both the American liberal belief in a melting pot and the Marxist belief in class solidarity, he shows, badly underestimated `'the persistence of ethnicity.'"

"A recent New York Times story listed 48 countries where ethnic conflicts simmer, sear, or roar, and for that reason alone, Senator Moynihan's Pandaemonium is important. Nationalism has become the world's single most potent form of political identification and expression, and Moynihan goes to great lengths to demonstrate that both academia and policy-making institutions have either ignored or understimated its salience. "

"Still, Moynihan's voice rises strongly as a warning to take seriously the sheer power of ethnicity in world politics."

http://www.amazon.com/Pandaemonium-International-Daniel-Patrick-Moynihan/dp/0198279469

more moynihan

>>2571795
i like it, conspiracy of rich people = hur hurr, derp derp!
conspiracy of liberal people = TOTAL FUCKING TRUTH

>>2571800

lulz, good point

>>2571806

there's self-serving going on in either case

i'll quote from more of the review of moynihan

he's a liberal so you should have no problem right?

"He essentially focuses on two themes: ethnicity, ethnic identity and the persistence and predominance of ethnic loyalties (as opposed to class loyalties); and national self-determination"

>>2571811
yes, anyone that you identify to be liberal automatically agrees with one another, cause of the secret liberal cards they carry.

>>2571815

well, god knows had i quoted somebody who doesn't identify as liberal you would have dismissed it for that reason; you don't see the logic that way tho, i imagine

either way; he's right; the fact that he's liberal means balls to me but it makes it less easy for people like you to dismiss it

>>2571820
okay, i'm going to bed. to sum up our argument, IDFM, you are still being racist, and i still think you're racist. but since one guy did a study that you didn't really explain, you'll go on thinking you're right.
and guess what? i'll still think i'm right. internet argument.

but at the end of the day, you'll judge people based on things they can't control, and i'll judge you based on your need to judge others for things they can't control.
next time pick some other thing: like hair color or hand size, i'm sure there's all kind of fun statistical 'facts' one could glean from that and in the end it'll do the same thing: get people to distrust and hate each other just that little bit more for differences that don't really matter.
congrats to you, InternetDickFaceMan.

>>2571861

people are racist; it's a fact of nature

when you go into a cafeteria, you'll see most white people sit with white people; most black people will sit with black people

we are self-segregating; racism is natural

what we decide to do with it is up to us; we don't have to make it a moral issue; you are, i'm not

on the other hand, ignorance won't save you from reality

quite the opposite in fact

read some more moynihan. that's a liberal who can think for himself; you could learn something