Argument thread

Happy birthday to me!!!!!!!

 

I already responded to the first part so I won't touch it again. I'll start with the area I have made bold. I read your sources and they differ from many I have found. That doesn't mean I'm claiming that either of ours are definitively wrong, it means I'll have to cross reference. There clearly is a major discrepancy in this science which makes the skeptic or perhaps the conspiracy theorist in me scream that something is fishy in regards to intelligence and it's relation to genetics, because it seems that most scientists tend to agree or use the best available information when it comes to genetics and the role they play in the development of any particular part of the body you wish to study, but the genetics and intelligence relation is very fishy. This could be due to a lack of proper research on it, I'm not going to exclude that possibility. Without proper research it is hard to say whether or not a lack of schooling causes these dramatic IQ differences, as the sources we have both quoted disagree with one another. http://www.aboutintelligence.co.uk/are-born-intelligent-does-develop-socially.html This source I quoted for example states that intelligence is believed to be around 75% genes, but it also states that the probability that it is related to an 'intelligence gene' is unlikely, that intelligence is probably determined by a variety of genes.(obviously) If this area of science wasn't so controversial, we may be able to study this further and determine which genes are responsible for intelligence and see if there is a difference of the existence or lack thereof in certain groups of people. I'm speaking mostly out of heavily curious ignorance right now but here is an article with a citation for a study that claims to have, "identified genetic variants associated with head size and volume of the hippocampus, a brain structure that is responsible for learning and memory". https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.2250 Since it is well established that races are different in more than just superficial features, (IE Asians and Aboriginals react more strongly to alcohol, blacks are more likely to have the recessive genetic trait that causes sickle cell anemia which is a benefit in part when living in an area infested by malaria, etc) https://www.geographynotes.com/human-geography/major-physical-characteristics-of-racial-groups/1012 we can safely assume that these differences obtained through evolution don't stop at the brain. And they don't, according to the findings I have dug up. And like I've stated, I could be wrong, but the science seems to point to obvious differences among races in a lot of different aspects. We are more similar than we are different but we are still different. My opinion may change upon better research or newer scientific research, but at this point the argument I made, in my opinion, still stands; that it is ridiculous for these sorts of arguments to be so taboo.

I'll respond to the underlined portion further, as I've already sort of outlined my perspective on the "exploitation" issue. I provided examples of countries with generally high IQs compared to the third world and that also have a relatively high wealth per capita, IE Japan, Germany, and Russia. The commonality between these countries and the reason I listed them is because they were all pretty much leveled by the events either self inflicted or inflicted upon them by other major world superpowers during WW2, and all of them were able to dig themselves out of the rut they were in and get back to competing with the best of the best on the world stage. They were all able to rebuild their infrastructure, military and economy. Yes, some third world countries have had serious unjust happenings levied against them but they were unable to recover. Some of them just crumbled on their own, like Zimbabwe as a result of terrible ruling that lead to the extermination of competent farmers. (Take that one with a grain of salt as well because that claim was based on memory alone from a documentary called Farmlands by Lauren Southern) I truly sympathize with the countries particularly in the Middle East that have been targeted by US plans of regime change and general destabilization, and I agree with the left that bombing a country & expecting some Jeffersonian democracy to emerge is ludicrous. I'm anti-interventionist. However there are countries in the middle east with a great wealth per capita and still their IQ is low. This should be sky rocketing if wealth and access to schooling is the major deciding factor or one of the major deciding factors, yet all of the data I can find for some of the world's wealthiest countries, IE Qatar, United Arab Emirates, etc is still late 70s to mid-high 80s. That is a significant difference when compared to the northwestern world, and even more so when you throw in Asian countries. According to this wiki page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Qatar the rich country of Qatar sitting at a low IQ score collectively of 79 if this source is to be trusted, https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country/qa-qatar has a very high literacy rating (higher than USA if these sources are to be trusted, but yes I understand that I do not know their curriculum and it is likely heavily influenced by their very fundamentalist faith) yet an astonishingly low IQ score even compared to other middle eastern countries. So with a decently educated populous and a rich economy, they aren't able to compete with poorer Asian or White brains. Go figure.

As for the remark about DR Peterson, I disagree. He's an accomplished, published clinical psychologist, well versed and educated, and a tenured professor. He's made a remarkable success of himself recently as well by shutting down those who want compelled speech and has stood up for the (IMO) disenfranchised young man by preaching about responsibility and the purpose you can find in it. He's the right wing's father figure at the moment, but not of the alt right who he denounces at every opportunity. Sure, there are some stupid college and university professors out there but I don't think he's one of them. I'm in the middle of reading his book and I'm quite enjoying it, despite the fact that I'm doing alright in life at the moment and it's a self-help book in general but there's nothing wrong with arming myself with hindsight.

And last but not least, the enlarged portion of your response. I found this part reprehensible, to once again attribute motive to my harmless desire to learn. If your words are to be believed, I must be an Asian supremacist. Take issue with my arguments all you want, take issue with my research, take issue with my conclusions, take issue with me personally if you must, but do not stoop so low as to attribute motive when you can't read my mind. You *believe* it comes from some sort of unconscious bias, or at least that's what I think you're assuming, but that's not the case at all.

Anyway, I hope this response was sufficient and if you want to keep the debate rolling, I guess we can do that, however exhausting it may be, and the likelihood that any of us is going to have a rapid change of mind is slim but since I enjoy debate I'm open to continuation on this topic.

Nothing else you said in your response carries as much weight as this. If you do not care to hear out the other side, move along and let those interested in the topic hash it out.

 

lmao my post went over ur head

Obviously i cared enough to listen to u, i responded twice.
You said that ur not a bigot, along with a lot of other stuff. I dont care if ur a bigot or not because i can neither confirm or deny and even if i could you havent killed any minorities yet so idrc. I also know that ur not gonna research or present ur beliefs to a meaningful audience. You started this “topic” looking for confirmation of ur beliefs. Now that people are against u, ur actually trying to back urself up.

As a side note, all your research looks for the differences between races not why they exist. No fcking sht, a black guy looks acts and lives different than an asian. its anthropological not neurological

 

Looks like you've got Grammarly helping you type the most sense-making posts yet!

 

I'm not really sure what it is with everyone here and attributing motive. There's no point in trying to refute that, you're rock solid stubborn on the fact that I must be doing this for attention, or I'm a bigot, or despite the fact that I brought this up to a public forum that is overwhelmingly against me on this topic that I must simply be doing it to confirm my beliefs despite the fact that I only stumbled on this topic mere weeks ago and find it interesting, etc. How can I possibly prove you wrong on an unfalsifiable hypothesis?

"I also know that ur not gonna research or present ur beliefs to a meaningful audience"

tf does that even mean

"Now that people are against u, ur actually trying to back urself up."

Wow its almost like you've stumbled upon the way debate works or something. Weird that people who find a topic interesting and disagree with others might actually try to substantiate their claims.

"As a side note, all your research looks for the differences between races not why they exist. No fcking sht, a black guy looks acts and lives different than an asian. its anthropological not neurological"

I did discuss possibilities as to why they exist. I literally stated that blacks and whites may have differing intelligence levels because whites emerged from a climate of scarce resources for something approximating half the year depending on which part of the north they are from and therefore would need to garner and save resources to survive the impending winter. Those who gorged, died. Blacks didn't need this sort of hindsight because they typically lived in areas that were warm year round and therefore resources would be plentiful. I also discussed very briefly the trait among blacks that causes them to be far more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia. The highest rates of sickle-cell are found in areas where malaria is rampant. A genetic mutation occurs in people that causes sickle-cell which gives those with it an advantage against malaria. Now the sickle cell example is anthropological but the climate and resources example is neurological. The populations would have to learn to adapt to live in certain areas. Why humans migrated north and started this adaptation is beyond my knowledge but it happened.

 

bump

 

damn, did not expect this thread to turn into this tho
really thought it'd just flop on post
thanks for the controversial views, guys : )

 

Women are meant to be inferior to men and should not be in the workforce. Gays should be eliminated. Everyone with an IQ under 90 should be gassed. If everyone had blond hair and blue eyes the world would be a better place.
Prove me wrong.

 

World war 2

 

War is an inevitable part of the human cycle

 

do you have blond hair and blue eyes tho

 

Of course. I am master race

 

the only thing world war 2 proves is that quantity eventually beats quality.

 

Ok, new subject.

 

I know this is a joke/experiment to see if someone can prove you wrong but you dont give any reasons for the things you want to do so there is no reason to believe you.

 

Men have been dominant/Superior to women since the beginning of human history. We are going against nature to say they are equal. They are not. Obviously, they are not.

That said, I believe it's way easier to be female than male, and much more desirable even if they are viewed as inferior. Most women would disagree with this statement, but how many of them acractully wish they were a man? Not many. Most of the time it's the men wishing they were women.

Gays... Again, going against nature. We don't want to embrace this behavior, and definitely don't want them raising children. It ***** them up in the head.

If we offed all the stupid people, we would have far fewer leeches to society and human progress would surge. Maybe not kill the dumb people, but use them for labor or something.

As far as the blond/blue eyes, I just picked my personal favorite, but if everyone looks the same, there is far less inequality. Humans were meant to live in tribes, not all connected over the internet. No wonder we are so divided these days, with so many different cultures having access to each other.

No value system is right or wrong, but it's the clash of systems that's causing the problem.

There is no right or wrong, good or evil.

My solution is not the only way, but it would be my personal preference.

 

- I can agree men have been dominant over women but in history men have abused power and lots of women never really had a chance for lots of power like men had. Lots of men suppressed power from women but that doesn’t mean women can’t take all of the men’s power, Which is why some people hate feminists due to their toxic behavior, (But not all of them) towards men.

- And for gays and lesbians, I have a theory about why people choose to be gay or lesbian. People who have been emotionally hurt turn to being gay or lesbian. (Although this is only from one person as I will have to look more into this)

I know a girl a who is lesbian who dealt with childhood issues due to her dad abandoning her which was traumatizing for a little 7 old. I don’t see her any more for some reason. I met her when

- And for stupid people, we should give them the right education as they are only considered stupid due to them not being able to access knowledge or being mentally disabled like people who have OCD, ADHD, and Schizophrenia. Even people who may be a narcissist or deal with Antisocial personality disorder should be treated like real people even though they may be impulsive or selfish at times.

- This idea would be impossible and the reason why systems would clash because we all would have different ideas and ideals. We all would have different experiences and which could give us a new perspective on life. So if we all wanted to have all of the same ideals we would have to be limited to information and all put in the same experience over and over again which sounds like a bad idea because that may friend is what you call a dystopia.

- I can agree, there is no right or wrong. It’s just based on what happens to us that leads us to do what we do because we are human. We hold information and transfer it back. It’s just a matter of who has their facts.

If this post is a joke. Good thing I only spent 30 mins.

 

i really hope your not serious

 

completely true, all the facts check out