If Evolution is in fact true then can leftists explain the reason that it apparently stops at the neck and that I.Q. can not differ race to race?
The Notion that I.Q. cant be different in groups of a species that live apart for tens of thousands of year is quite Anti-Science No?
only one of these can be true
Pick one
Isnt the differentiation in I.Q. between groups good for socialism/communism?
Isnt a Low I.Q. unthinking population much better to build a socialist planned economy with
Other urls found in this thread:
apa.org
unz.com
web.ornl.gov
debunkingdenialism.com
americananthro.org
physanth.org
livinganthropologically.com
archive.is
archive.is
archive.is
archive.is
archive.is
twitter.com
OK, idiot. Where can I find a partially evolved hominid?
please read an actual book op
I.Q. is as flawed a metric as the equally cited General intelligence findings. None of this is, of course, corroborated in such a manner that the political and social corollaries found in any racial sciences and their prescriptions on the human condition except as a necessary precondition to what they already projected onto man: a hierarchical disposition of intelligence, affording space to discredit the universalist project. Even were the empirical question of the effective numeration of intelligence be supposed, it does not naturally conceive of the political body that tends to use this as an argument; the scientistic tendencies of the contemporary reactionaries is by equal measure the denial and distancing from science that would eclipse their own foundational empiricism. Unable to effectively foreclose upon the scientific empiricism, except as a fragmented essentialism, and completely distanced from the philosophical contours of his own argument - the contemporary reactionary MUST necessarily lay claim dogmatically to the empiricism of its fragmented thought and assert, antinomically, that it effectively covers the whole of being, though it doesnt and never will
Of course, you never meant to come and debate in good faith, so it doesn't matter anyways
It's not a mindset inherent to marxism. Marx thought that Africans were stuck in an agrarian state and were incapable of communism due to their stupidity.
You shouldn't cite literal data falsifiers in any kind of discussion, friendo.
what does Autism Level even have to do with evolution? are you implying that evolution is some kind of straight line and that we directly evolved from the blacks around today? first of all, that's not accurate at all. and second of all, doesn't that contradict your whole "we wuz atlanteans n shiet" spiel with you race realists anyway?
haha eppin benis
This is all because of that fucking Kraut and Tea, video isn't it? We're going to have a lot of threads like this for a bit, I imagine. Oh well. I'm curious to see what our homebrew geneticists can bring to the table, on both sides.
that's called a quote, not a citation
maybe read some actual psychology instead of hack pseudoscience?
I meant it in a colloquial sense.
...
Not an argument
Show me one respected race realist who claims this
He can't show you a respected race realist of any kind.
Ignoring people like Jared Taylor dosent mean that people like Jared Taylor dont exist sweety :)
I was fully aware of Jared Taylor's existence while making that comment.
Still havent shown me a single race realist who apparently claims "We wuz atlanteans"
Could it be because no one is claiming this and that was just a baseless claim sweetums? :)
He doesn't need to because "race realism" is just a sad attempt at making a familiar flavor of shit more palatable to the public. Maybe one small step above the people who have given up on the pretense of scientific rigor.
Dude, I wasn't even trying to make an argument lol. I was just giving speculation about the sudden influx of race threads
1. Not a rebuttal And/or Argument
2.
And what is this "familiar flavor of shit"?
...
Let's imagine you're right. There is a racial difference in Autism Level.
So what? How does that being true or not true affect material reality?
These differences could be eliminated within a few generations through socialist eugenics anyway.
"Low Autism Level" populations have successfully built socialism, see Burkina Faso which became independent and self-sufficient agriculturally under Thomas Sankara.
No one contests a genetically appreciable difference between demes, just that the assertion that they necessitate different categories or breeds of the homo sapien are not even spurious at best, and are more than likely an ideological projection to support an already existent form of stratification amongst humans (which, unlike your theories, has basis in historicity)
...
If you're not here only to ask rhetorical questions and preaching for the chuch of lolniggers but you are genuinely interested with what are arguments opposed to racial realism are:
web.ornl.gov
debunkingdenialism.com
americananthro.org
physanth.org
livinganthropologically.com
Roberts, Dorothy (2011). Fatal Invention. London, New York: The New Press.
Lee et al. 2008:
Harrison, Guy (2010). Race and Reality. Amherst: Prometheus Books. "Race is a poor empirical description of the patterns of difference that we encounter within our species. The billions of humans alive today simply do not fit into neat and tidy biological boxes called races. Science has proven this conclusively. The concept of race (…) is not scientific and goes against what is known about our ever-changing and complex biological diversity."
And not the first time a thread of this kind appeared here mind you.
archive.is
archive.is
archive.is
archive.is
archive.is
It doesn't stop at the neck.
It's just race is purely a social construct. The actual variations begin at smaller groups - ethnic groups, maybe families. And then this is negated by variations in education and from individual to individual (based, perhaps partially, on specifically inherited traits as well as educational, economic, and environmental background) which is where it becomes apparent that even if one group has a higher Autism Level than another one average, the variation is not large or inherent enough to base policy around it. And if you do base policies on supposed racial correlation to Autism Level, you can also do the same for some difference between the English and the Irish or the Chinese and the Tibetans or something.
Also, Autism Level is not a genetic trait to begin with. That is, the test, the number, is not. So both the races and the Autism Level that supposedly varies between them are things which cannot prove or disprove evolution. It's a bit like saying that either the amount of furries (FQ) differentiates between Crusaders and Saracens or evolution is false.
It's quite anti-science to assume it would be and that the difference would only apply to along the lines of certain broad pre-evolutionary classifications, and then that it would remain static years after the groups had all been thoroughly mixed. To be clear, that last bit isn't a hypothetical, it's life after colonialism.
How would third worldists handle this?
it's literally where the nordic perception of aryan superiority comes from in the first place. you and your buddies are just retards who won't take their brainlet ideology to its conclusion
Ok there's a difference. Now what? Do you want to help those that are disadvantaged, or do you want to use these differences of Autism Level to discriminate against people?
are you implying niggers are people?