Serious Question

Meanwhile back on topic

He's not n1x though

So if the just of the LTV is that input by workers is required to create any product or provide any service and therefore labour is the source of all value, then what are some of the criticisms of it?

You know, whether you lied or not about having cancer, when it comes down to it it's glorious. You either 1) lied about having cancer because of your desperate craving for attention and affection which you could only find on a Molluccan spear graving forum because you lack any peers to find some IRL, or 2) you legitimately have cancer and are going to die and your excuse for an existence will leave this world with you. It's more than just glorious, it's priceless. An enduring maxim of pricelessness that could actually form the grounds for a negation of the LTV, to at least be on topic just a little.

My question would be, if the LTV is disregarded than what does this mean for Marxism? sinking blow or not?

Can you please spare this thread from this madness? I was trying to ask a serious question

Baran used the surplus concept to analyze underdeveloped economies (or what are now more optimistically called "developing economies") in his The Political Economy of Growth.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus

Thanks!

price isn't value

LTV isn't not meant to explain an objective process, like turning water to steam. It's a metaphorical device to demonstrate that labor is the origin point of value.

Iron ore is useless. When it's in the ground it has no value. It's only valuable when socially necessary labor time is added to it, ie digging it out, refining it, smelting it, etc. It's "value" (which is not to be confused with its "price") is further increased when carbon is added, it's refined to steel, etc.

Socially necessary labor time further compounds the value of this material when you need specialized knowledge in order to make anything out of it. The blacksmith has to charge more money for his work because of the cost of supporting his apprentice, the years of teaching him arcane techniques, and so forth.

But none of that happens without human labor.

So the reason this is disregarded (among other things) is that it demonstrates that the worker is the creator of socially valuable things, like food or tools, as opposed to the capitalist, which just owns all the things that are used to make those commodities but does none of the work.

k

Hundreds of billions of dollars spent on tricking people into buying your product that's identical to your competitors + slathering everything with garish logos while creating no good or service in and of itself

Imagine how much shit you could get done with all the money that's wasted annually on reminding you that Coca-Cola still exists

Murica has crumbling bridges and toxic water supplies but capitalism thinks the most effective way to allocate resources is by wasting a huge amount of it on corporate mythology and branding

Time to take your meds for paranoid schizophrenia.
We have IP laws (not that I agree with them) to cover that issue.
>slathering everything with garish logos
Do you even know what garish means, you retard? It means that something is colorful to a degree that is tasteless, have you ever seen a logo? Pic related, it might not be impressive, but it's not garish.
Making people aware of a product is a service. Sales is also a service.

The people who work in advertising are in 1st world countries in a service economy, if they weren't providing that service they'd be providing some other service that isn't innately good according to whatever ideal of producing cuckporn you're interested in.

Wow, what's it like to have a sub-70 IQ? I wouldn't know because I'm not retarded, please explain the experience. Also, the phrase "capitalism thinks" is just laughably retarded.

It's a development, I guess.

IP laws do very little. There's still 50 million different brands of coke and there's very little difference. In fact, brands advertise new, 'healthier' versions of coke with a new kind of sweetener which we'll find out is even more carcinogenic than the one prior in 20 years, but only in 20 years because private lobbies make sure either no publicly released, open-end research is done on it or outright shills for it harder than the fact can come out. I wish I was making shit up, but this is how the 'light' meme (for not just coke, but most famously coke) came to be.

Well color me surprised.

Yes, we know what unproductive labor is.

waw.

I guess you can flaunt G4S if not only because it has a monopoly on the market via a demand it directly mandated to most western states as premier private security force, kek.

acefitness.org/certifiednewsarticle/1644/the-truth-about-stevia-the-so-called-quot-healthy/

bls no tred. :D::DDD

So, since everyone is the same can we kill all nonwhites since they're not different enough to exist separately from us?
It's illegal to knowingly misrepresent a product, so if you have proof of that feel free to make a case any time. Sort of like the "le wymyn are being underpaid for the same work meme", if you have proof of a single instance of this there are laws on the books to handle it, lawyer up and stop bitching.

Marx writing Das Kapital, yes we know.

You're retarded. Utility and bridges aren't "the private sector" you damned autist.

Do you know why high fructose corn syrup, which is more unhealthy than plain sugar is used in all our foods in the U.S.? Because the government has huge fucking sugar tariffs, to benefit the corn lobby. This isn't in the interests of "the private sector", it hurts everyone except for the corn industry, so once again this idea that government just uniformly acts in the interests of "le bribate segdor :DD" is proven false. As if it wasn't a stupid fucking idea in the first place.

Utilities and bridges*

...

JEJ. You really went there, didn't you? So much for that tactical NAP though, famalam. Oh, I forgot: it's neo-monarcho-feudalist nowadays, as you've realized an economic system based on private ownership cannot function without a universal instrument of rule.

M-muh IP laws doe!

No, writing is productive labor. This is some textbook Smitho-Ricardian shit, my classcucked friend.

You're hard pressed to find majority instances where private construction firms aren't subcontracted to make bridges, roads or other logistical utility or infrastructure in service of the state nowadays, bucko. Because we've been wiping away the public sector's functions ever since the '80s.

>to benefit the corn lobby
Exempli gratia, from yours truly. I don't even have to hand you a historical materialist view of private enterprise and the state that in fact superseded it in order to accompany it; you shit on the inseperable duality of private and state for me!

gg. Of course capitalists companies are competing against each other, and that include competing for governement's favors. In the end the State is still submitted to the private sector, as opposite to general interest.

Sage because this is freaking bait at this point.

Yeah, I'm out as well. This guy's too big of an autist to even bother. The kind of retard to think we've been leaving less in the hands of private firms for the past decades when that's quite literally been the outspoken way to go as far as state policy goes on a global, neoliberal scale.

k
Not when commies do it.
You're hard pressed to find majority instances where private construction firms aren't subcontracted to make bridges, roads or other logistical utility or infrastructure in service of the state nowadays, bucko. Because we've been wiping away the public sector's functions ever since the '80s.
That doesn't mean it's not under government control. If the government forces people to give them money, under the threat of imprisonment or death, and then spends that money on giving dindu welfare queens gibs and blowing up durkas in "[insert]istan" instead of building bridges, that's not a failure of the private sector.
Government has the guns, the private sector has lobbyists, you tell me which is more powerful.
Because you hide from your cognitive dissonance and post irrelevant memes? See Stephen Kinsella, he would not agree with Rothbard and he is also a prominent libertarian.

Plenty of groups lobby government, the fact that Jews (Israel lobby) and blacks (NAACP, etc.) lobby government for preferential legislation isn't an inherent part of capitalism, it's an inherent part of giving a democratically controlled monopoly institution immense amounts of unearned centralized power.

vid/time related youtu.be/s6zO-qhQx_8?t=14m26s

You're missing the point. The retail price is right on the cover of the comic book. If two people negotiate to some other price, then the retail price was less accurate in reflecting the product's value than that resulting negotiated price. Nintey-nine percent of the time the average adult will pay a cost that is a bit less than his or her assessment of the product's value, so to imply that price bears no importance is unrealistic.

Under market socialism, the population is commanded by the government to consume undervalued product, as opposed to under a free market system where the manufacturer is forced to absorb a loss and thus gain better insight about market demands. Those with meager resources are forced, but not commanded, to consume undervalued product.

Yeah, bye lad.

triggered?

Trying hard here aren't you?

So much for muh voluntaryism and level-headed lolbert utilitarianism. You're too afraid to even credit the free market here, when it's really due tbh.

...

I know when someone who isn't an idiot completes a sentence it seems like a great feat to you, but I assure you it's not that difficult.

solid argument, bruv

Two can play at this game.

Like cuckwork.

Dont bully eachother, you only harm yourself with it by bringing yourself on the lowest level. Instead be smug and make an intellectual ironic comment.

Every time.

A centralized monopoly on violence is not an inherent consequence of private ownership of the means of productions you dumb fuck.

The Pinkertons were actually more hesitant to shoot because the courts were more skeptical of them than Federal agents.

I hope to fuck you're not yet another lolbert drone and are actually Live Love Autism classcuck.

Pinochet was a saint compared to any authoritarian leftist. He actually improved the Chilean economy, by leaving people to their own devices, and he voluntarily returned Chile to a democratic system within his own lifetime, more than any leftist dictator can say. And he only had to toss a few communists out of helicopters.

>Pinoshit literally installed by a CIA coup and a military junta
Every single time.

Alright, have fun autismo. Don't forget: you could be the one owning the boot instead of licking it some day!

You talking is giving me a headache, thus violating the NAP, thus kill yourself.

Practice your reading comprehension, I said he was better than any other authoritarian leftist, I didn't say Allende was an authoritarian. I didn't make any comparisons to Allende, though from a libertarian perspective (and not one where democracy = end unto itself) Pinochet was preferable.

>from a libertarian (read: propertarian, because 'libertarian' was a term stolen by private classcucks from the original European anarchist and libertarian traditions) perspective, dictatorship is preferable to democracy because it ensures the mainstay and the proliferation of le free marged
Gee, what a surprise.

No, a dictator who has some respect for property rights is preferable to a democracy when the population lacks that same basic respect. Respect for property rights is the end and if democracy is not amenable to that (as it usually is not) then fuck it. I don't care about democracy as an end unto itself, majority rule is a completely arbitrary principle and the idea that morally unacceptable "act A" magically becomes the incontrovertible ideal as soon as 50% +1 agree to it is fucking retarded.

This is how classcucked you are.

And this is also why I'm pretty much done here. There's no point talking to someone so deep into ideology.

I'm sorry, I thought you people were all about freedom. What about the freedom to actually choose what happens in your country?

We've gone full circle, folks: First capitalists wanted to end dictatorship, now they want it back.

You mean a semantic point that no one cares about? Liberal used to mean what is considered to be libertarian today in the U.S., I don't bitch about that semantic point every time I talk to a liberal, that would be rather autistic, wouldn't it?
Do you even tribalism you fucking cuck?

You mean the freedom to violate other peoples' property rights if you can convince a majority of retards to also want that? Nah, fuck that.
A dictatorship with economic freedom and property rights is preferable to a democracy of economic authoritarianism and the "political freedom" to oppose a super majority of parasites, but only in a meaningless way.

Top kek, Burgerfag. You mongoloids have your own little divide and conquer split between two liberal camps (rethug and democrap) where one is liberal and the other is not, but the rest of the world knows both parties are just a different shade of liberal and there's nothing your own autistic national retardation can change about that. Reals > feels, my friend.

You can't make this shit up. Prax to the max.

Breaking news: Ancaps value property rights over people. No one is surprised.

No, people that are net tax drains their entire lives and would never be supported voluntarily by their communities are parasites who are imposed on their communities by government.

Better than an unsustainable society of the majority stealing from an ever-shrinking productive minority. See: modern welfare states.

Not an argument.

Not an argument, also, I don't value peoples' desires enough to say that rights are invalid. There's never enough men that want to have sex with a given woman that raping her becomes valid, there's never enough plebes wanting a man's legitimately earned property for that right to somehow become invalid because muh dumbogreasy

Cry.
So close, and yet so far. Last I checked the minority aren't living under horrid conditions with no hope of escape. That's the majority. Welfare states exist because capitalism is wholly incapable of producing decent living conditions for the majority of people, so the state has to do everything capitalism refuses to pay for. I can assure you that capitalists are really happy about the state, because they're doing all of the expensive and unprofitable stuff for them, mostly by taxing their employees.

Also:
This is fun.

k, so according to leftists the peak of debate is just yelling non-sequiturs at each other.
GET YOUR HATE SPEECH OFF THIS CAMPUS!

You mean blacks and Hispanics? Because whites aren't the ones that are hugely dependent on the welfare state.

...

What? No, rape is a violation of self-ownership.

Woah there! Careful with that edge, don't want to infect people with Holla Forumstitis. Last I checked, blacks and hispanics were also human beings. You're also forgetting the large number of poor white families that are dependent on welfare ("white trash", I think the term is).

Also,
Can't handle muh witty bantz?

I figured.

You fool, you don't own yourself, you ARE yourself. The concept of self-ownership can have ugly consequences.

Human beings that are pretty dumb, on average.

Your mother's pregnancy had ugly consequences but we didn't make her get rid of her womb, now did we?

I was just yelling non-sequiturs because according to you that's acceptable rhetoric in a debate.

Keep it up!

Keep it up!

You're a meme.

>muh 'scientific' racism

it is always about muh moodpies

people generally don't bother to read even about basics of LTV

it is basically a theory about the source of market prices
LTV claims that any particular proportion of supply and demand have it's roots in material reality (such an original thought, i know)

any particular amount of concrete labor can only be called necessary, when product of said labor is needed by someone (another so-much-hard-to-grasp-idea, i know)

in relation to capitalism that means

any amount of abstract labor can only be called socially necessary, when product of said labor is sold on the market, means when surplus value is realized by capitalist

As to why only human labor counts as source of value, and all other factors of production only count as multipliers of value, it is because value is a social relation

in relation to capitalism that means

only humans can buy products

No, if you're a parasite, you're literally a welfare queen, you should be grateful bare fucking minimum. Not to the government, but to the people supporting you.

HOLY FUCK, HE'S ACTUALLY THIS STUPID!
amren.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2005-Color-of-Crime-Report.pdf
Crime victimization surveys and multiples prove blacks are not just targeted by rayciss police.
Wow, you're fucking retarded.
>Asiatic cheetah left Africa 30,000 years ago BIOLOGICALLY DISTINCT SUBSPECIES
Kill yourself.

Wow, amazing, you sure convinced me. Nazi masturbation fantasy soon, my white brother. The day of the rope is coming.

SJWs in charge of not being retarded niggers.

OK, you got me, it's only a white separatist group. Funny how it's only these people putting out studies that support your pre-scientific ideology. I guess peer-reviewed academia really is cucked by the SJWs.

NCE ignores the fatality that is income ranges, reducing everything to a case by case basis of crime. Nobody here denies blacks commit more crimes because they're poorer; we deny that they commit more crimes because they're black. Studies such as this stand up to scrutiny to anthropology in general (which it fears and shuns) as well any and all peer-reviewed studies on the matter. This is also why your ideas aren't taken seriously in the world of science: you lack any and all rigor in your premises. That, or you're going to tell me the science market categorically denies your shitty work 'because of da ebil SJeWs!'.

Pioneer Fund is pretty self-avowed white supremacist, dude. We also don't care if racecucks are so subservient to intellectual quota scores that they'll bow down to Asians the second they see a higher digit rate and throw their otherwise shoddy at best peer-reviewed studied out of the windows upholding them as the master race (ignoring the highest scorers on IQ quotas, which are Ashkenazim lel).

I was a libertarian years before I was a race realist. Being a race realist has nothing to do with my set of ethics, beyond that I now have a greater appreciation for freedom of association.

Wrong.
youtube.com/watch?v=dbXN-l5WOyw

Ashkenazim are barely existent, so it's not really relevant.

Egalitarians have a stranglehold over Western science. In China, 100% of physical anthropologists surveyed believe race is a valid concept, it's more like 30-40% in the West. Eastern Europe also has a significantly less cucked view on race.

Text version.
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/07/17/re-why-do-black-people-commit-more-crime/

sooo…
what is a race?

how do you distinguish between races? by phenotype?
if not, then show me that race gene

I'll answer your question, but to start off:
"(Tang et al. 2004) were able to predict the self-identified race of Americans 99.8% of the time based on a moderate sampling of their genomes alone."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
therightstuff.biz/2015/09/30/human-races-exist-refuting-eleven-common-arguments-against-the-existence-of-race/

Race is a correlation of traits, not a set of genes unique to any given race (this is the common strawman of race essentialism). Race is based on your ancestry tracing back to a population that was genetically isolated from other races; Sub-Saharan Africans did not have significant genetic flow with Europeans did not have significant genetic flow with Arabs did not have significant genetic flow with Asians. You can nitpick about the gray areas of Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasian, Amerindian, but what's really important is
A: Was this population/group of populations in a significantly different environment for tens of thousands of years
B: Were they significantly isolated enough to be affected differently by natural selection?
If the answer is yes, voila, a race. Taxonomy is fairly arbitrary, but human races more than meet the standards that are applied to say that other species are subspecies. Again, google the Asiatic cheetah, while it's nearly extinct we know it became its own subspecies in 30,000 years after leaving Africa, Asians have been outside of Africa for 3 times that length of time (I have my reservations about Out of Africa but I am assuming it is correct when I have these discussions because it is the dominant theory.)

>race realist
Here come dat meme.

No, it absolutely does. Pic related is famously circulated on so-called 'race realist' circles for 'debunking' the effect of economic standing in determining tendency of crimes, but then while the average remains higher for blacks due to many other factors we see a sharp, near halving, decrease in criminal behavior in blacks. The fact of the matter is: economic standing is one of the most fatal statistical factors, and I'm not gonna bother watching an almost half hour long opinionstube video that tries to refute a liberal while talking the same long-winded liberal narrative style of cryptic smugness. I want statistics, anthropologic methodology and peer-reviewed studies, not some neckbeard parroting his autism on a video sharing website.

There are over 5 million individuals that belong the Ashkenazim ethnicity. They statistically trump any other 'race' when it comes to the meme digit. It's mostly because they're well-fed, properly educated and well-cultured, but yeah, they're smarter than 'whites' and 'Asians'.

Egalitarianism, that is the strive for equal opportunity, is a fundamentally universal value. If there's one thing you can thank le free market for, it's exporting these liberal values of meliorism, egalitarianism, pluralism, etc. all over the world.

The nation that imports the most Africans for studying programs and exchanges? The country that was famously founded on the communist principles of universal, internationalist emancipation? What of them? It should be noted that before you start mentioning China without second thought, straight from your textbook of arguing tactics, that I am myself a Chinese, born in China and raised in it.

The Chinese scientific methodology universally, by mandate of the Chinese Communist Party, follows anthropological methods uniquely. It believes in the concept of race as based on ancestry; 'black' is not a race, 'white' is not a race, nor is 'Asian'. Ethnic groups stemming from ancestral lines are much more complex than both cursory glances at skin color or such pseudo-science as phrenology that now, thankfully, lies in the dustbin of history for almost a hundred years. Your percentages are fucking mememorthy garbage.

And if there's one thing China discards, it's the blind liberal idea of 'tolerance'. A thing you would use to distance yourself from your fellow man just to profit off of his labor like the parasite you are.

No one denies that environment can influence behavior, if you weren't a complete idiot you'd recognize that race realists are arguing that in any given environment blacks will be more aggressively, not that no environment can exacerbate or discourage their violent tendencies.
Again, you can read this thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/07/17/re-why-do-black-people-commit-more-crime/, it's much faster than watching the video

I know, this isn't a refutation of any of my beliefs. I don't care if there are 5 million people with high verbal IQs, so fucking what? I've never denied this fact.

Pic related, link related:
collegium.hrvatsko-antropolosko-drustvo.hr/_doc/Coll.Antropol.28(2004)2_907-921.pdf

That is what race realists consider race to be, based on ancestry which was limited to a relatively isolated geographic region with a specific set of consistent environmental pressures over a long period of time.

will behave more aggressively*

...

...

Oh look, a bunch of cherrypicked statistics gathered by a couple of earnestly racist laymen. And they're controlling for poverty, so that means that socioeconomic factors can be safely discarded. Naturally, the influence of criminogenic, economically depressed environment isn't considered at all, because we are only looking at out of context individuals on a case by case basis. Looks like they gave a little covert nod to epigenetic factors with the lead mention, but they trot out the tired and disproven 'child abuse makes criminals' meme in the same sentence. Of course, nutrition is given no mention whatsoever.

It's funny, too, that they think the notion of crime going up when the economy is doing well works in any away against the proposition that poverty is a major influence. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but when 'the economy' does well, the bankers who benefit don't start mailing checks to all of America's poor people. You can say the the DOW is up 500 points but a man who trades crack for welfare money because that's what the local industry is isn't going to give a fuck.

Assuming that any aspect of human behaviour is reducible a single factor you can fit in one handy variable is the height of retardation. As expected of an ancap. Lots of things contribute, some of them genetic, but there is no conclusive evidence that genetics is anything but a spit in the bucket compared to everything else.

Your argument is invalid because you're a retard, which is probably why you can't proofread.

Calling statistics "cherrypicked" isn't an argument you mouth-breathing autist.

>They controlled for economic factors, so I'll just explain 100% of the gap away with the socio, look how clever I am, mom!

He said that might be a factor: "Environmental variables, such as lead exposure and child abuse rates, likely play a role too."

Nutrition affects IQ, maybe black people being stupid has something to do with them being shitty parents that abuse their parents and feed them poorly?

It does, you retard, the poverty rate should correlate with the crime rate, and it doesn't. If anything, the Handbook of Crime Correlates shows somewhat of an inverse correlation.

As I just fucking said, the rate of crime is not correlated with the poverty rate.

Controlling for poverty, family structure, and education reduces reduced the relationship between % black and violent crime by about half. Meaning you can at most say this covers half the variation, also:
"Black’s association with crime may be reduced by controlling for poverty and single motherhood because these variables cause crime, because these variables are caused by crime, or because Blacks tend to be poor, criminal, and from single parent homes due to some confounding variable." So you don't get to say, with certainty, that "at least half of the gap is due to poverty etc."

The most parsimonious explanation is that blacks have lower IQs, higher testosterone, smaller brain size, and a much higher frequency of genes such as MAOA2R that are highly correlated with crime. But leftists always abandon Occam's razor as soon as it becomes inconvenient.

You deny more than environment, and environment isn't even what anthropology at large posits. Which is that environment, as reduced to 'lol steppes and palm trees' is far from the full picture in what we should in our contemporary societies consider environment. Such things include housing, access to education, our peers and their influence on us, etc. This is why you're not taken seriously: you attack the liberal man of straw as found on Ellen that posits racial variances in crime and other such things purely on their flimsy rhetoric. In reality, the world of sciences and more specifically anthropology is far beyond all of that, and you're just arguing against nothing at all. It's just like the modern day outrage culture retards that make 30 minute analysis videos of a woman with dyed hair being a retard on the streets; the actual discipline of feminist rhetoric occurs inside universities and is applied with a materialist, scientific methodology. The same shit happens with studies on human behavior based on ancestry, race or ethnicity. Nobody outside of the reactionary bloggosphere takes you seriously anymore, and nobody ever will.

You've posited that the NCE isn't a white supremacist group because it considers the broad, immutable and unscientific category of 'Asian' more intelligent than whites. You did this both while ignoring that the NCE is an outspoken, self-avowed white separatist group and displaying their ignorance of the fact that it is the Ashkenazim, which are in the folk speech of 'race' considered white and would thus make the 'white' folk concept of race the best with their own rhetoric.

Yes, I've had a compressed PDF of this study already. It's very important you look at the third paragraph of the China headtext. This study does not simply analyze what race means to the university departments at large, but colloquially as well.

Then the first step for your kind to ever be taken seriously to relevant audiences would be to entirely drop the unscientific ontologies that are 'white', 'black', 'Asian', etc. and to accept the universally accepted anthropological premise that socioeconomic factors shape the vast majority of outcomes in humans.

Further reading to debunk your pseudo-science and the, at best, lobbies that fund them: debunkingdenialism.com/2016/07/23/genetic-clusters-racial-medicine-and-fishes/

>does not simply analyze what race means to the university departments at large per nation*

Also, consult this on 'muh heritability of neurological traits' (before you pull it out like the textbook pseudoscientist you are): debunkingdenialism.com/2012/08/11/the-widespread-abuse-of-heritability/

Blacks produce shitty communities that attract and can provide poor quality education, this totally invalidates race, right?
Black people make shitty peers and therefore the fact that this has a compounding effect on making other blacks even stupider proves race is an invalid concept, right?

Feminism isn't a discipline it's a cult :^).

See: collegium.hrvatsko-antropolosko-drustvo.hr/_doc/Coll.Antropol.28(2004)2_907-921.pdf
Also, appeal to authority/popularity, so I don't see why I care. But you don't win, even if we assume that playing the authority game is a valid strategy for reaching the truth.

k

I was referring to American Renaissance and the Color of Crime when I said they acknowledge the superiority of East Asians on IQ tests/income/lower crime rates. Anyways, this is just guilt by association, so I don't care. If their views are invalid because they are racists, 95% of Western scientists views are invalid because they are egalitarians (assuming you're not just a close-minded bigot who assumes only your side is exempt from bias.)

LE LEFTISTS WON'T TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY!
I don't care if you niggers invite me to your dinner parties.

Lel, muh question begging.

I'll consider it when you actually address the evidence I've presented beyond applying adjectives to it.

Dinner parties are bourgeois.

Race is a spook. Everyone is an individual and if you see blacks, whites, mongoloids and so on, you are just seeing spooks. Does the word "black" completely exhaust what a black person is? This is why you could say race is a social construct, or better, a spook, not because there's nothing scientific in it (although there isn't anyway) or because "everyone is the same and equal", but on the contrary, because everyone is completely different, unique I could say, making the term "white" or "black" completely useless, uninteresting, for it says nothing about that person, but only an attribute, a property of him. It is his property, not he its .

Straight from the dustbin, just like metaphysics.

Seriously dude, you're a fucking joke.

Spooky af fam.

Literally 90% of the world is neoliberal. Leftism is pretty much dead unless you're a burger who, at the same time pretends to realize 'liberal' in American is a shitty buzzword that isn't left wing (like you did before kek), or cognitively avoids the fact and continues shouting at his bogeyman.

Even 'East Asian' is an unscientific categorization that ignores the very wide and impactful differences between, e.g. a Han and Manzu Chinese, a Mongol and a Uyghur, etc. Even the Japanese peninsula has multiple racial clines that vary so vastly despite evolving on the same grounds and climates for decennia. This not only shows your personal ignorance on anthrophological methodology, but proves that you don't even have a grasp on what methodology Asian faculties utilize, whom all unanymously accept these discrepancies as major enough to never utter the term 'East Asian', let alone 'Asian', in their peer-reviewed findings. It'd be nice if you did some reading of those PDF files before sharing them, and would save yourself the trouble to see I uploaded the same PDF you have, compressed, instead of relinking it.

You've proposed nothing but links to documents you haven't read and opinionstube neckbeards nobody listens to or will listen to.

Anyways, I'm out for now. This wasn't even remotely interesting. I'll see if you've done any reading and see if future replise are any more interesting.

right above
National wealth =//= poverty rate in a given community

Congratulations! You've identified that these factors contribute to crime. However, since they only explain about half of the association, you went and decided that the rest must be genetics because they're lazy, violent niggers. You're a spooked ding dong who bought into tribalist idpol peddled by intellectually dishonest ideologues. There is no conclusive evidence that genetics is anything but a spit in the bucket compared to everything else.

Not an argument. Just a claim.
"Any time we categorize objects we decide to group things one way as opposed to another. In this sense, all categories are social constructs. If we wanted to, we could get rid of the category “table” and, in its place, invent two new categories: one for all “tables” that are brown and another for all “tables” that are not brown. Of course, it is more useful to have one single category which denotes all tables and so that is what we go with. But the point is that we choose to “go with” one category scheme and not the other. Thus, there is something “social” or “artificial” about all categories.

But this isn’t specific to race. All categories are tools and their validity must be determined by whether or not they are useful. And I have already shown that race is useful.

It is worth noting that most biologists have always known this about race. Some of the first biologists to talk about race, such as the previously referenced Linnaeus and Blumenbach, commented on the fact that racial categories were invented by culture and, to some extent, arbitrary (Stuessy 2009) (Blumenbach 1775). And yet both men knew that human races had real and significant biological differences.

Clearly then, race realists have long known that race is a “social construct” and pointing this out does nothing to refute the race realist position."

"the term "white" or "black" completely useless"
It's not useless. Not only is it vital in epidemiological studies, because the races are so significantly different isn't important not to treat them the same from the perspective of any caring physician, but because these groups fall around consistent averages and therefore we can predict certain things about a person based on their belonging to a group. If you knew a person was black, you'd know they have denser bones than you and are less likely to suffer osteoporosis, they're much more likely to rob, rape, or murder you, they're much less likely to be able to engage in any task requiring high intelligence, etc. such information is useful and valid.

There is no conclusive evidence that your head is not 5 feet up your ass at this very moment.

Call me when any actual scientific community acknowledges you and your 'science' as valid, let alone acknowledges you at all kek.

No one said it's immutable you autist, if you genetically re-engineered blacks to not have low-IQs clearly the differences between the races would not be arranged as they are now.

Those differences are mostly non-genetic,
k

"“Clinal” just means that human traits, and genetic differences, tend to change slowly and as a function of geography. For instance, as you move further from the Equator, skin color tends to become lighter. The point that race deniers are making is that this gradual change in variation doesn’t have any “hard lines” that demarcate one race from another. Instead, races blend into one another.

This is true but irrelevant. Scientists often impose discrete categories on continuous variation. For instance, color categories like “blue” and “green” are discrete categories imposed on the perfectly continuous variation that is the color spectrum. In fact, zoologists even have a word for situations in which subspecies are connected by intermediate populations that change in a clinal fashion: intergradation.

Besides, human genetic variation is not, in fact, just like the color spectrum. Same-race populations are more genetically similar than different-race populations even when all three populations are separated by the same geographic distance (Rosenberg 2005).

In summary, human genetic variation is not perfectly clinal and, even if it was, that would not preclude the imposition of discrete categories on human variation, nor would it be abnormal within the context of subspecies taxonomy. For these reasons, the cline argument fails to discredit race."

See

Latinos confirmed for superior race.

They already have, dumb ass:

The source of the black-white difference in 1(2.
This is perhaps the central question in the IQ controversy.
Respondents were asked to express their opinion of the
role of genetic differences in the black-white IQ differential.
Forty-five percent believe the difference to be a
product of both genetic and environmental variation,
compared to only 15% who feel the difference is entirely
due to environmental variation. Twenty-four percent of
experts do not believe there are sufficient data to support
any reasonable opinion, and 14% did not respond to the question. Eight experts (1%) indicate a belief in an entirely
genetic determination.
http:[email protected]/* */

Pic related: emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/2013-survey-of-expert-opinion-on-intelligence.pdf

If by Latinos you mean Mestizos (60% Indio, 40% European), they have IQs around 90. Color me unimpressed.

I have claimed nothing but the first point. In my post.

However, IQ is definitely influenced by the environment - heritability of IQ is lower among poor blacks than rich whites, suggesting that some external factor is limiting poor blacks' genetic potential for intelligence.

There is a positive correlation between both high testosterone and low-activity MAOA genes and crime, but expression of the low activity MAOA gene can be affected by the environment, though I'm afraid I don't have the studies handy. However, even if it was not the case and both of those things were entirely genetic (in other words, all genes expressed perfectly in all cases no matter the conditions of the organism in question), there would still be no proofs that these factors you've listed account for 50% of the difference in crime rates between blacks and whites.

Until you provide some convincing evidence for this being the cases, I am going to continue maintaining that

There is no conclusive evidence that genetics is anything but a spit in the bucket compared to everything else when it comes to the difference between the crime rates of blacks and whites.

They're still Eastern Asians mixed with Caucasoids.

Oh my kek, I bet you think blacks can't swim because the water (in their environment) is racist, too, right?
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/6/1392.full

Actually, American Indians are Eastern Europeans/Western Eurasians.
"“Genetics as a Means for Understanding Early Peopling of the Americas,” which concerned the genetic sequencing of two ancient Siberians’ bones discovered in the 1920s and now in the Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg. Analysis of a bone in one of the arms of a boy found near the village of Mal’ta close to Lake Baikal yielded the oldest complete genome of a modern human sequenced to date.
Of the 24,000 year-old skeleton that was Exhibit A, Willerslev was quoted in The Siberian Times, as saying, “His DNA shows close ties to those of today’s Native Americans. Yet he apparently descended not from East Asians, but from people who had lived in Europe or western Asia.” He added, “The finding suggests that about a third of the ancestry of today’s Native Americans can be traced to ‘western Eurasia.'”"

pantherslodge.com/american_indian/official-native-americans-europe/

Then we can compare adult blacks who had high SES families to adult whites from low SES families, if we just use SAT scores as a proxy for IQ, we know rich blacks perform worse than all but the absolute poorest whites (below $20,000/year). Of course, in recent years, 🍀🍀🍀((College Board🍀🍀🍀)) has guarded its stats on such figures. Assholes.

The first point I refer to is the one I repeated in big red letters at the end of my reply.

I haven't even heard of brain size being considered as a factor in any serious criminological study, and it sounds like phrenology garbage, so I am withholding judgment.

Furthermore, the article you linked does not appear to mention the brain at all. It does however agree with the point I explicitly did not make but you still put in my mouth, that "It is clear that variations in human body composition are the result of a complex multifactorial entanglement of lifestyle, environmental, and genetic differences." I guess that's a win for me?

Stupid ancap.

"Similarly, Kposowa, Breault, and Harrison (1995) analyzed crime variation across 2,078 U.S counties and found that the proportion of the county that was Black continued to predict crime even after controlling for county differences in poverty, divorce rates, income inequality, religiosity, population density, age, and education."
jstor.org/stable/591624?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

It's correlated with IQ. 0.45, according to a bunch of MRI studies.

Furthermore, the article you linked does not appear to mention the brain at all. It does however agree with the point I explicitly did not make but you still put in my mouth, that "It is clear that variations in human body composition are the result of a complex multifactorial entanglement of lifestyle, environmental, and genetic differences." I guess that's a win for me?
I was just making a point about the fact that blacks don't swim well because of their body comp and egalitarians are just pretending it's muh environment.
Body composition differences don't exist in an environmental vacuum, correct.

Maybe you should leave the thinking to the big boys and go have some ice cream?

Pshh Mexican natives are fucking Asians.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131120-science-native-american-people-migration-siberia-genetics/

That study doesn't support your argument at all. It looks at statistics at the county level, ignoring differences between white and black people and communities within the counties. Proving the presence of a correlation between the proportion of population that is recorded as Black by the census and crime rates within a county does not support the proposition that this correlation is due to genetic differences. There is no evidence for that, in fact.

It isn't IQ. Even if it was, you have no evidence that both IQ and other criminogenic factors aren't affected by another variable that also influences the crime rate.

It looks as if your argument is built entirely upon your scientific illiteracy. Do you even have an education past high school?

So they're Siberians?

Even cooler…

If you control for everything and the only predictor is that "more black = more crime" the most parsimonious explanation is that there is some innate attribute(s) about blacks that cause their populations to be more criminogenic.

What is Occam's razor? Oh, right, the thing leftists ignore as soon as it contradicts their social views.

Ayncaps are truly crypto-fascist cancer. I'd say wipe them out but I doubt it'd be worth the effort to kill a few hundred fat autistic faggots.

My God, a libertarian supports one unjust political system that better protects property rights (a primary concern for libertarians) over another unjust political system that does not protect property rights? It's almost like he's more concerned with the obvious logical conclusions of his set of ethics and not with appealing to Democrats!

Leftists are truly crypto-Australopithicine cancer. I'd say wipe them out, it'd be worth the effort to remove their troglodyte alleles from the gene pool.

Something which they didn't do.

Think of it this way - the things that we've studied and that we can study (usually because they're easily conceptualized and measured or because governments happen to record them on their censuses) only account for 50% of the difference. The things we haven't studied, including various genetic factors (there is no single 'genetics' factor), each make up an unknown proportion of the remaining 50%. (Also, I'm taking the 50% factor on faith - given that it came out of a white supremacist's mouth, I wouldn't be surprised if it was false.)

You don't know whether that 50% is entirely due to genetic factors. Your entire argument is that "well, you don't know that it isn't genetics, so obviously it must be entirely genetic." That is not how parsimony works. If you have two competing arguments, you might want to pick the more parsimonious one for various reasons given the context, but there is no ironclad rule that the more parsimonious argument is always right. In your case, though, you do not have an argument.

Or rather, you have an argument, which is that there is a direct causal relationship between being the peculiar genetics of Blacks and crime rates. Now, that would be really difficult to prove, so let's just stick with a correlation now. So H1 is that the correlation between Black genetics and crime, r = .5. H0 in this case can be that r = 0.

You have no evidence that r = .5. You do not have a workable conceptualization of Black genetics and you have no method of measuring this unconceptualized Black genetics. Black people do not all share the same set of genes; they are not clones. You could look at Individual genes and see if they correlate to a history of crime, but even that is excellent because the degree to which genes express or if they express at all is influenced by numerous factors, many of which are external. (An example used to explain this concept to 1st year undergrads is a bonsai tree - it might have the genetic potential to be tall, but by controlling its environment you can keep it tiny and cute.) From a biological perspective, race as it appears on the US census is a worthless concept. It does not guarantee the presence of a specific genotype, as genotypes differ between individual Black people. If you want to say that all Black people have the same set of criminogenic genes, and that those genes are responsible for the .5 difference between them and whites regarding crime rates, it is on you to prove that. This is something you have not done.

Because of this, you have no conclusive evidence that r = 0.5, much less that that relationship is causal in nature. And because we believe in science, our default state is skepticism. We do not say that unproven hypothesis H1 should be accepted just because it's simple. That would be fucking stupid. We say that it should be accepted when there is proof. Therefore, I'm forced to conclude that you're full of shit.

So we just don't know because everyone is an individual and shit..

Alright, now how about we kill every individuals who commit crimes? In the end, more blacks are gonna be dead so it's gonna be the same thing anyhow.

BUT THAT'S WRONG, YOU RETARD
"Black’s association with crime may be reduced by controlling for poverty and single motherhood because these variables cause crime, because these variables are caused by crime, or because Blacks tend to be poor, criminal, and from single parent homes due to some confounding variable."
So you don't get to say, with certainty, that "at least half of the gap is due to poverty etc."
The innate trait of blacks that is most likely to cause them to commit their crimes is much more likely to be a genetic than a cultural one since 1) there is no "oops, where'd it go?" when transferring genes (whereas you can lose a culture in 1 generation), 2) you would expect many exceptions to a merely cultural difference 3) since low-IQ and certain genes are so well correlated with crime.

Which is what you would expect if they were biologically predisposed to be less intelligent than whites and have higher time preferences and less self-control (the latter two contentions are not even debated.)

Put simply, controlling for poverty and single motherhood also controls for the natural result of a stupid, aggressive population.

If you control for those things and the association drops by half, then it's safe to say that half of the association is due to those things. Dumbass.

I've done the work of formulating your hypothesis and conceptualizing your variables for you. Now go out and do science, because there is still

No proof that genetics is anything but a drop in the bucket compared to everything else when it comes to the black/white crime difference.

But there could be be, if you do some science! Now, did you even finish High School? Do you even know what genes are?

Holy shit, you're so fucking retarded. I can't believe you're going to make me explain this to you like a child, but I guess that's fitting because apparently you have the intellectual capacity of a retarded kid in junior high.
But it's not the quantity of money and rarity of crime that actually makes Pop A read books, so controlling for those when you compare Pop A to other Pops just means you select for more intelligent Pops elsewhere, which might lead you to the conclusion that "people will read more if they have more money and safer communities" but we just established, at least in this hypothetical, the reading is a result of the intelligence not the low crime . Do you get how controlling for "irrelevant" variables like poverty can also mean you're fucking up the analysis because blacks being stupid and making bad decisions causes them both to commit crimes and be poor?

have few problems with crime*/commit few crimes* woops

wew

I am saying that that which causes crime (stupidity, impulsivity) also causes poverty, controlling for the latter and pointing to the reduced gap and saying "see, that reduction in the gap, we know that is just environmental" doesn't make sense. We can't conclude one way or the other if that gap is environmental or genetic. It's a maximum limit on how much is due environment, not the minimum.

Leave it to the liberal to be such a rich worshiping cock-sucker

As opposed to a poor worshiping cock-sucker?

Congratulations, you've just stumbled onto the concept of correlation does not imply causation! As a matter of fact, I did not talk of causation anywhere, I am saying that half of this correlation (a word used synonymously with association) is due to the aforementioned factors.

As a matter of fact, your argument can also be used against you.

But it's not actually the bad breath and criminality that causes blacks to be poor, it's actually because the government puts chemicals in black people's water that makes them smell and have poor impulse control which leads to both bad smell and criminality, and therefore poverty. Do you see how this might give you the impression that black people are poor because they're smelly criminals instead of the actual reason which is government chemicals in their water?

I am saying that which causes poverty (chemicals), also causes bad breath and criminality.

See how that works? Two of the things you mention are empirically correlated to the dependent variable. One is not. Just as with the chemical conclusion, your statement that black crime is caused by intelligence and intelligence is caused entirely by genetics has

NO PROOFS

There is more empirical evidence for a correlation between environmental factors and criminality than there is for your retard hypothesis.

I fail to see how this renders variables like poverty irrelevant being that the black race has more or less existed in poverty since there bringing to the american continent. perhaps you can enlighten me?

Every races have existed in poverty since their bringing to the american continent, except maybe the jews.

kek

So the blacks owned the ships they where brought on and where paid for there labor on plantations?
wew

Yeah, some blacks do own the ships and some blacks do own slaves.

Your point?

I believe that approximately 40-80% of the black/white gap is genetic. So, no, I am not a genetic determinist. Anyways, pic related.
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-and-iq-related-genes/

(In IQ)

A few black owned ships, just like a few blacks aided white colonialists in capturing slaves, and just like how some blacks aided plantation masters in keeping slaves. Never the less the vast majority where slaves. Never the less abject poverty existed for the vast majority of freed blacks after slavery. I guess what i am trying to say is that, this is not an argument my friend

How is not an argument?

The vast majority of whites do own ships nor slaves.

And majority of white were slaves too, in another country called Russia.

...

...

www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

>in 2016
It never felt so good to [current year].

Yes however these whites where not working as indentured servants in borderline sub human conditions(however i do admit they where poor)
and conditions there where just perfect after slavery was abolished, I mean its not like they had a revolution or something….amiright?

They were though, I mean, they do the same jobs as slaves do.
The current russians still live in squalor compared to the blacks in America.

Got any that weren't penned by a dude who chaired or took money from a white supremacist group?

Got any proofs to claim he's wrong?

pics related

Do you have any sources by people that don't hold "progressive"/egalitarian views on immigration, civil rights, etc.? But in this general vein of thinking I would first think of Rushton, Lynn, Murray, Jensen, Gottfredson, and I believe Kevin Beaver did some work on MAOA.

...

Indeed some did (even thought they where ultimately out-competed by slaves who worked for nothing)
But this dose not disprove my point, In fact it helps it, poverty leads to poverty (unless your implying Russians are genetically inferior also).

does*

Russians would have recovered a lot faster from serfdom if they didn't jump straight into communism (which depressed the IQs of Eastern Europeans, and kept their economies shit for decades)

...

And? Poverty to poverty

Not really, the blacks didn't work as hard as the chinks did. Slaves were closer to pets than serious workers.
The russians living in squalor still commit less crimes than blacks living in America.

Wouldn't Russians, by virtue of being a superior race, naturally adopt the glorious voluntaryist capitalist economic system by virtue of being higher on the IQ charts?

You can depress the IQ of whites below 100 with a shitty environment. This doesn't mean you can raise the IQ of purebred Africans to above 90. It's easier to destroy intelligence than create it.

Nice meameeame.

The current capitalist Russia is already beating the USSR in GDP gap.

What? Capitalism made everyone richer, even poor people in capitalism live richer live than poor people in 3rd world countries.

They did post 1991.

Used to, for about ~9% tops at a historical post-1991 apex. The economic just shrunk 5%, and is now below 1991 GDP.

Irrelevant
chart?

...

when what?

When they're BTFO

Well, if the vodka and drug abuse spikes post-USSR indicate any negatives from an economic system with systematic unemployment and failure to meet basic needs for non-rural inhabitants…

Is this what the kids are calling an argument these days?

XD!

No, just 'avin a giggle m8.

I will call you when it raises again.

But it's safe to say it already surpassed the USSR.

Rushton doesn't meet the criteria, given that he chaired a white supremacist organization with a clear political agenda. As for the others, give me some studies here, not last names. For the record, I don't buy the pure environmental hypothesis, but your conclusions about crime are just as retarded.

How do you determine whether an African is purebred if you don't have a comprehensive family history on hand. Wouldn't this qualifier mean that American Blacks get a free pass, given that most of them have white ancestors?

Low activity MAOA I know about and have studied. It still only has a small positive correlation to violent crime.

In any case, none of what you have posted qualifies as evidence for your initial claim that Blacks are poor criminals because they're stupid.

Read

That's the sad part, really; it was simply a planned economy with distribution and production based purely on demand. The USSR was further from a communist society than a socialistic one, which really bodes poorly for Yeltsin's oh so promising onlook a liberalized Russia, which for the past two years is shrinking below pre-1991 levels and suffers from social and economic problems like homelessness, drug abuse and rampant criminality.

Its a little unfair to compare today's Russia with past Russia since of cores there would be growth once opening up
K ;^>

Then I guess we should praise state capitalism.

I'm sure you can get the Jews at the ACLU or the Southern Poverty Law Center to call anyone a racist white supremacist who wants to holocaust 6 million Jews if they claim that racial differences in IQ are in large part due to genetic differences.

They're 20% European, so we can expect them to have somewhat higher average IQs (as is consistent with real-world observations.)

MAOA 2R is more than small.

Blacks are quite stupid the only question is to what degree is that a result of genetics as opposed to environmental variables.

NAHHH!
Though it was slightly more stable then post "stad gapitalism" Russia, both where shit

Stable?

I can see modern Russia going for another 100 years, the USSR? Nah.

If there was a blanket statement to end them all…

On average, compared to whites and East Asians.
Satisfied :^)?

That's easy to say since it no longer exists

I really need to find some way to get money from statements like this. Some way that does not include me waiting for a decade or two to prove me right.

"Wage labour is voluntary but taxes are THEFT AND FORCE :DDDD"

Ah yes I forgot about that death penalty for not paying taxes in burgerland.

"and then spends that money on giving dindu welfare queens gibs"

There's no such thing as welfare in the United States, the closest thing we have is food stamps and TANF. Neither of those things can make you independent from porky.

still arguable if factoring in the highly debated material conditions that lead to "stupid"
and I've yet to see any society torn apart from integration

This anCap got BTFO so hard i feel sad for him

If you don't pay a large amount and prevent the government from retrieving you'll eventually have some police show up, you'll be on your way to imprisonment, unless you resist enough to be killed. The threat of pay up, or go to jail, or die if you resist is always there.

I don't need your sympathy, turkroach.

I really should.

After all the Tsar regimes did last longer than the USSR, and modern regime is basically that kind of neo feudalism.

Just calm down man. do we really need to sling insults?

Leave it to the ancap to derail an LTV thread about how niggers are inferior, proving once again that they're all closet fascists

REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

The difference between "need" and "want" depends on your point of view.

I kinda like how my thread has evolved so far. It has been a stimulating argument

the fucking irony hurts, man

The threat of initiation of force is nothing like the "threat" of "if you don't sustain yourself, you will die."

REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
I thought we went over this
But still tho. come on now

Nah, state capitalism (Lenin's NEP) formally ended in the '30s and was superseded by centrally planned economy afterwards. If you want to praise Lenin for his 5 year NEP though, go ahead, but make sure not to confound it with post-NEP Russia ('33-'91) which did not have a market for distribution, and hence wasn't capitalistic.

I am not even a turk but meh
At least i don't call a system that threatens me to die of hunger if i don't work for others voluntary relationship and freedom

...

Yeah, my views haven't changed at all on it.

I guess you can lead a horse to water….

We live in a system where land and the means of production are privately owned. If I want to sustain myself I either (a) have to inherit these things, (b) steal food and squat (with the threat of the state throwing me in jail), or (c) put in back-breaking labour 40+ hours a week in exchange for scraps while my boss profits off my work.

Yep, in comparison taxes are totally more coercive in nature.

Challenge: enter an anthropology department and utter the names 'Rusthon', 'Hernstein' or 'Murray' and see who takes you seriously. I'm waiting.

11-8 hours a week of work won't hinder my freedoms

But why are you still clinging to capitalism ?
Look at how miserable the world is with it how the system filed all of humanity except the little imperialist few at the top

Pretty sure there's plenty of native Africans with IQ in the 100s+. I've taken classes with plenty of them, and they've consistently shown themselves to be less dumb than your ass. One of the big reasons that the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans hovers around the 90s is that the educated urban ones are lumped in with the many subsistence farmers and other poor rural people whose mental growth is severely retarded by poor nutrition and sanitation, which are compounded by a lack of education and public infrastructure.

Your guy is a racist white supremacist (or if you'd prefer, a white separatist) because he is tied to an organization that dogmatically advocates the racial superiourity of whites over others and holds that the world should be divided along racial lines.

MAOA genotype is a significant contributor but a minor one in the grand scheme of things. You have consistently tried to minimize socioeconomic factors that are robust predictors of criminal behaviour, reproduced in hundreds if not thousands of studies across several countries and instead promoted a racialist genetic hypothesis that enjoys no empirical support whatsoever.

If you're talking about the present system you're disregarding the welfare state, so no, you won't starve, and also charity (2% of US GDP, the vast majority of that from private donors), you're also disregarding the prohibitive regulation/barriers to competition,, tariffs, bailouts, unnecessary empire, etc. that makes us all poorer (thereby increasing the amount you need to work to be self-sufficient, and so on.) You're also disregarding the fact that if you save up for a year or two you can afford enough to buy some land in the middle of nowhere in the midwest and become a subsistence farmer.

Challenge: enter a department staffed by radical feminists, utter the name "Phyllis Schlafly" and see who takes you seriously. Wait, people don't agree with people who disagree with them? Weird.

Central bankers/assholes getting bail outs/people winning favorable regulation and contracts are not an inherent part of capitalism.

Yeah, if you have a group with an average IQ around 75 some of them will be smart. So what?

HAHAHA, no, it's more like 70-75.

Okay, you're welcome to take a bunch of these dindus to Europe, feed them and educate them, and see me laugh when they have IQs well below 85.
can you prove that negative statement, my dude ;)?

What's next: da joos control anthropology?

don't tempt him cause he will

Tell me more about how many conservatives are in psychology.

Why should the ones who rise to the top of the capitalist pile not manipulate political circumstances to their own benefit using force and coercion? Why would the self-interested capitalist have any interest in allowing others to compete with him instead of creating a state to uphold his interests?

Capitalism couldn't even have come about without the interference of the state. Do you think the free peasantry just got up and left their comfy independent lives to go work in a factory for 12 hours a day?

Oh, just this.

Based on a discredited study that's predominantly touted by stormnigger blogs. But it's actually around 80, my mistake.

But capitalism own mode of function even in free market economy will replace these authoritative body with ones similar in function privatized in ownership
Guilds monopolies and trade unions will be the new state like care takers of capital

Capitalism profit lust always strikes again with a gov or with not

Boi he dun it

Are you retarded? Do you think that the effects of malnutrition and brain damage are reversible if you start eating McDonalds and shitting in a toilet every day? How is that working out for you?

Burden of proof is on you, stormfag.

Capitalists didn't create the state's economic powers, but they would be fools not to attempt to influence want the state monopolizes such power.

Yeah bro, that's why there was totally a centralized bank with monopoly powers before legal tender laws etc.

I meant take them when they're at a very young age you autist.
no u

once the state monopolizes such power*

for the last time, the welfare state doesn't exist. Food stamps don't mean shit if you don't have a house.

lmao do you have any idea what life is like for a working class person? You live paycheck to paycheck, there are no savings

You're delusional. Even if you made enough to save some money, you aren't going to buy land after two years. Land is scarce and expensive. In order to survive you'll need to have enough land to grow food for yourself and to sell, since you'll still need to buy clothing, pay for utilities, etc. also being a farmer in a capitalist system in a gigantic pain in the ass

I love how reactionaries always come up with hypothetical "well-you-can-do-X" scenarios instead of engaging in actual structural critique. Which makes sense, after all they want to preserve the system so giving faux-advice on how to survive in it is about all they are capable of. Still depressing though.

Where is the study that has done this? Or did you pull
Out of your flabby ass? Also, prenatal health is just as important to intelligence as postnatal, if not more so.

Wow, what an amazing technique. You totally nullified the burden of proof.

How many layer of irony are we on with this one?

I meant take them when they're at a very young age you autist.
There are also prenatal factors, do you think you were safe from everything in your mother's womb?

Maybe if you buy a new iphone every 6 months and eat out several times per week.

Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study :3

The proof is the aforementioned brain size differences, IQ differences, race differences in frequency of IQ-affecting genes, differences in skull morphology
Those dindus breed like r-selected rabbits so you won't have to wait long to find some pregnancies you can monitor.

...

Like fucking clockwork

You don't even know what phrenology is you fucking retard. Saying that IQ correlates with brain size isn't phrenology, it's the result of numerous MRI studies.

retard

...

I honestly haven't seen a thread with over 50 replies not get completely derailed on this board in about a month.

From the Brookings Institute:
"at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.

Our research shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class (defined as earning around $55,000 or more per year). There are surely influences other than these principles at play, but following them guides a young adult away from poverty and toward the middle class."
brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/
If you can't follow these rules you're a fucking retard and you deserve to be poor, the only one I would soften my stance on is the "full-time" job part because a variety of regulations makes it very unattractive to hire employees full-time.

...

Clearly the structure isn't that bad if only 2% of people that don't act like retards are in poverty.

Sure thing, buddy.

How is this proof that there is correlation between the genetics of blacks and crime rate? How is this in any way evidence against environmental factors being the cause of crime rate? None of this has anything to do with the crime rate. You have proven nothing. You can't even prove that nutrition and sanitation isn't the root cause of the IQ differences, since your stormnigger """""science""""" avoids that topic altogether, probably for being politically incorrect.

...

*at various ages
Also I realized I wasn't saging this whole time. My apologies to everyone involved.

hue

It's proof there's a correlation between the genetics of blacks and IQ, and if you get a correlation between genetics and IQ you have an implicit correlation between genetics and crime (since IQ is so significantly negatively correlated with crime
Yes, I can't prove a negative, you are correct.

If the structure of your study prevents it from being able to provide evidence for your agument, then yes, it is meaningless.

You are claiming that black people have a distinct innate characteristic (let's call it N) that makes them genetically predisposed to both crime and poverty. You are furthermore claiming that environmental factors such as poverty are irrelevant as they are actually caused by N. However, intelligence is affected by environmental factors such as nutrition and sanitation which are strongly related to socioeconomic factors, as you yourself have agreed at
Like I said at the outset, I accept that intelligence has a genetic component. I also accept that intelligence has an association with crime. (Note, however, that as per your own logic in your books example, there is no causal relationship here, and the possibility therefore remains that a third confounding variable, let's call it WHITE muh privilege, is influencing both intelligence AND crime.) What I do not accept is that the influence that genetics has on crime through intelligence is even comparable to the influence of environmental and socioeconomic factors that you stridently insist are totally insignificant.

Let me rephrase that. You can't prove that nutrition and sanitation are irrelevant to intelligence. You made the claim that environmental factors are irrelevant to crime and that genetics is not, so prove it.

It's called being stupid and having a high time preference.