Argument thread

What about Forknife? We need to remember to be equitable to all kitchen utensils, not just forks. (if you can find a way to fit spoon into the name, then that's the only way to be truly equitable, but the only way I can think of is Sporknife, and then, you can't really see the initial name anymore.)

 

Okay, is Sporknite a really real game or are you just manipulatively making it up for the reason that you have to figure out what its imaginative name suggests?

 

It's based on BattleBro 's post on the previous page(post #217 of this thread) where he talks about Forknite being better than Dorknite. However, it's not fair to knives or spoons to only include forks, which is why I made up Sporknife.

 

I strongly agree!

 

I think rich people are the problem of the hunger problem

 

Pretty much everything bad that's happened in recent history is because of the white man

 

I think it's weird how talking about non-negative differences between races is perfectly acceptable (skin tone, facial features, cultural differences, etc) but if you dare ask to explore IQ differences between races, you are deemed a bigot for simply being curious. How dare you want to know the truth, I guess that's how the narrative goes. Is it really racist to explore the truth? Maybe if you use these scientific differences to judge individuals but recognizing patterns is an evolutionary adaptation, and I see no reason not to study it further. We can say that certain Asian groups are the smartest on earth without any blowback but to even be allowed to suggest certain groups may lack in intelligence compared to other races is a hot topic. What do you guys think the solution is? To be honest about negative differences between race? Or do we shelve or even deny this science because it is inconvenient and may stir controversy? Or another option?

 

There is no reason why we can't research the various cultural and genetic explanations for these differences. Who is oppressing you, Crypt? Does Wikipedia give you a wary eye when you are researching this stuff? What exactly is the problem?

 

The speech making too much sense; that's the problem.

 

Its common sense that a country with a greater school system will do much better than one without. And the development of a strong school system is a result of a country's wealth, so obviously the average IQ of Singaporean will be a lot higher than Tanzanian. And that goes for countries with similar ethnicities as well. Singaporeans have higher avrg IQs than Indonesians. South Africans have higher avrg IQs than Tanzanians. There's an obvious correlation. Calling it science has a connotation of neural differences but this is more of an anthropological study not a neurological one. You're not bigoted for being curious but if after doing research you're conclusion is that race is the only conclusive difference, then you are a bigot. Right now, you are using a falsely exaggerated stance of social politics to hide your own bigotry. There is no narrative that opposes you the way you claim, but you choose to pretend that there is to promote your own narrative of racial divide. I'm not sure why a study like this would even be important to anyone, if not to raise awareness to severely underfunded education organizations in third world countries. And as a final point, you're free to research whatever you want, but there is a correct way to present that research and there is a wrong way as well.

 

I am not using a "falsely exaggerated stance of social politics". I am simply stating the fact that it is so unpopular to talk about negative racial differences that you can for example lose your job over private conversations about such topics. But I'd argue that it is less to do with environment and more to do with genetics. http://www.aboutintelligence.co.uk/are-born-intelligent-does-develop-socially.html IQ is 75-80% genetic. This is especially true when your brain reaches maximum cognitive ability and finishes developing completely or almost completely. https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/question455.htm The future of a child's IQ can be aided in development stages through proper nutrition and cognitive stimulation but this has a lesser effect than genetics. Genetics plays the biggest role in IQ. What you have done in the argument above is stated many countries that have differing levels of both IQ and wealth but have potentially made a false correlation. I would argue that IQ isn't low because of their poverty so much as there is poverty because of low IQ. That isn't the entire reason, there are thousands of reasons why certain countries do well and some poorer countries have higher IQ than rich ones, but the IQ to wealth correlation is hard to miss. https://www.scoopwhoop.com/inothernews/countries-highest-iq-levels/#.7x6iebn62 http://fortune.com/2017/11/17/richest-country-in-the-world/ According to this site, Singapore which tops the IQ charts reaches #3 in wealth per capita. Iceland makes it to 5th on the IQ chart and 15th for wealth per capita. Switzerland is 7th on IQ, 9th on wealth per capita. Some exceptions are there due to resources and trade. There's maybe a couple more but you get the idea. https://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl...ved=0ahUKEwiD2JnRzbTcAhVHIDQIHUfKB0oQ9QEILTAA IQ also has an astounding level on personal income. Those who have higher IQ tend to end up better off. This is the case with new immigrants too, those with higher IQ, often from Asian countries, often do significantly better than those from African countries. The Asian immigrants even tend to do better than the native populous. This is also true for Jews, who dominate in the income brackets. https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country Russia and Germany, with IQs of 97 and 99, were successfully able to rebuild their countries from entire economic collapse or brutal defeat around or during the time of the second world war. Japan as well, with a higher IQ than both of these countries, suffered greatly during WW2. All three of these countries were able, because the populations are generally smarter, able to rebuild their countries and are now all doing relatively well economically and industrially. What's the point in all of this? The highest IQ countries are generally majority white or Asian. Most of the richest countries are majority white or Asian. I'm not coming at this with a supremacist agenda. If we want to talk about immigration, we can but that's a separate issue. I've also read somewhere that IQ differences among whites and blacks emerged during an evolutionary period where whites had to learn to conserve resources in colder climates as they were scarce during winter, otherwise they would starve. Blacks did not have this problem living in warmer climates where resources were relatively abundant year round. I can't find the source on that one so take it with a grain of salt. My point only was that it is strange to me how we cannot talk about this openly. Imagine a mainstream celebrity talked about this. Or a talk show host. Let's say Bill Maher tomorrow on his show stated that the most intelligent countries in the world were majority white or asian. He would be absolutely ostracized by the media. Hell, in academia it would be worse. All Jordan Peterson did was resist compelled speech and he is now considered an, "alt right figure" despite completely denouncing the alt right at every opportunity. In order to do my research, I have to vaguely word it. If I search "racial IQ differences", which is what I want to know about and therefore searched directly, I get, "The unwelcome revival of, 'race science'" "why genetic IQ differences between 'races' are unlikely" <-- actually they're very likely "stop talking about race and IQ. take it from someone who did" "there's still no good reason to believe black-white IQ differences are due to genes" And sure there are helpful articles amongst the mess of clear biases but there's a lot of attempts to thwart research on this subject. Anyone who believes otherwise hasn't researched it.

"You're not bigoted for being curious but if after doing research you're conclusion is that race is the only conclusive difference, then you are a bigot."

Well I would hope you had read my initial post there, or that this sentence wasn't serious. I clearly do not believe that race is the only conclusive difference. I also would not treat anyone differently based on the relatively superficial difference of race. I would treat them on an individualistic level; based on the content of their character. I also would not use this information to sway my vote politically, would not use this information to judge based on punishment or lack-thereof during a crime trial as a member or a jury, or any other conceivable instance where someone may use this information for malevolent purposes. I believe that racism in all forms, as well as political correctness, collective/group think, identitarian movements, extremist religious groups and any other far left or far right extremist political agenda should be starved from political landscapes at all costs first through open dialogue and violence only if necessary. Hopefully this post makes it clear my stance on this issue as a right leaning libertarian and I hope despite my past tendencies to be riled up that this debate remains civil on all ends. And if you read this entire post from start to finish, congratulations.

 

Crypt, you are clearly a revolutionary thinker. However, you might just have to wait a couple centuries for the rest of society to even grasp ideas of 'free speech' (whatever that means) because clearly noone is saying the same thing as you, and everyone is just attacking you. Just accept the fact that you are a thwarted intellectual and we will preserve your tombs on frhd forums.

 

Okay, is this an argument thread or the thread filled with a whole lot of people disgustingly spamming with all the sentences and paragraphs in one thread?

 

See? Like that.

 

Meh, I'm used to it. I don't think I've gotten into an argument ever in my life on free rider/canvas rider/black hat rider where people agree with me. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. But I always learn and that's the purpose, and I would hope people don't demonize me for simply engaging in debate. If my tendency to debate annoys anyone, just don't talk to me. It's fairly simple. I don't respond to people with debate when it's uncalled for, usually these happen when people respond to me.

Thank you for providing an argument with sources, I'll read and respond to this later as I'm busy today. However right now I want to respond to your first point because I find it so patently ridiculous and it seems to assume intent. Eugenics is an extremely evil practice of trying to adjust populations by removing, often by force in regimes like Nazi rule, traits considered undesirable. Wanting to obtain information on a controversial subject is not tantamount to eugenics. I never proposed we find out which race has the highest likelihood of low IQ offspring and remove these individuals from the collective in some vain attempt to raise the general intelligence level. That's absurdly immoral. Can you point out specifically what in my argument lead you to believe I want to control the breeding of a population? Because I agree that eugenics is racist pseudoscience, but I do not agree that intelligence differences between populations is pseudoscience. I'm from Canada and I live in a working multicultural society. There are problems with our immigration system but it isn't because "the colored people came", I'd argue rather that we need to have a more vetted system that wants to accept people based on merit rather than allowing our taxpayer to be leeched off of by economic migration.

 

Imagine trying this hard to justify your racism on a flash game forum

 

So the first part of your post pretty much confirms my observation of a wealth-to-IQ trend. Obviously this trend isnt perfect, but its impossible to deny its not there. Secondly, If anyone, doesnt really have to be a mainstream celeb, said that whites or asians were the most intelligent... Common sense tells you that’s demeaning for anyone thats not white or Asian. I previously didnt know who Jordan Peterson was, but after doing some research I fully understand why he’s considered alt right. His views strongly overlap with those labeled as “alt-right”.
Lastly, I couldn’t care less about what you personally believe, research or present. And I do agree that PC can be irritating. However, you have to understand the importance of it. Historically, whites have tried to develope a supremacy agenda. Whether thats you or not, whites have the most prominent supremacy movement. You don’t any see other movements as big. So as a white person, if you choose to pursue “race science”, obviously you have to take into account that history and the audience that will use your information. Imagine a white supremacist cites a study saying “whites are genetically smarter than blacks” to prove his arguement of white power. Whether that was your intention as the researcher, it could be used that way.


Obviously my perspective is biased, because I havent done extensive research and I’m basing my argument on my morals and my own preference to not be stereotyped by race.

 

That's a whole lot of long-paragraph replies around this thread...