• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Yoshi vs JordanN Debate Apocalypse Episode 1: "Stop calling Republicans Racists"

Status
Not open for further replies.

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,960
6,266
755
Once again, people say the same about Trump.

They go as far as to say he's running concentration camps. There will be articles that people could quote 10 years from now to say he was a Nazi.

Feelings =/= Facts
The only one using their feelings instead of factual evidence has been you, Jordan. It has been factually proven that Rushton supported and was a part of the Nazi regime in this very thread. Therefore, that makes him a Nazi. You ignored this multiple times. Your continued deflections just show how pathetic your argumentation has dropped. Do better.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: strange headache

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
The only one using their feelings instead of factual evidence has been you, Jordan. It has been factually proven that Rushton supported and was a part of the Nazi regime in this very thread. Therefore, that makes him a Nazi. You ignored this multiple times. Your continued deflections just show how pathetic your argumentation has dropped. Do better.
He was born in 1943 and died in 2012. That's not old/young enough to have supported Nazi Germany.

Once again calling someone a nazi =/= makes them one.

Otherwise, all the people who claim Trump is a nazi is supposedly proof of him being one.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
4,179
3,330
440
Instead of all the bickering about gene vs hereditary IQ (although it is hilarious), it seems everyone:

- agrees there is a gap
- agrees there is some combination of gene vs hereditary (whatever you think that split is)

Since, I was posting a lot in that HR 1044 thread, maybe a more constructive route going forward is people chiming in ideas how everyone can improve their IQ, education, incomes, so that all boats rise together.

And let's not get into extremes like..... every whitie is racist so there is zero chance of minorities ever improving.

For me since I'm a numbers geek, a key element to improving someone's income and well being is learning basic finances/budgeting/careers early

- Governments make family skills and budgeting a class
- Parents help their kids with budgeting tips more
- Governments give clear guidance that some jobs or fields are in demand more, pay more, and in terms of improving IQ, technical jobs might help kids boost their mental capacity

Add this all up, and there should be more kids (not all of course) getting better with their money, getting higher paying in demand jobs, so it helps both person and society with more workers in jobs where there needs someone.
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
14,109
2,644
1,570
32
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Again, all you guys arguing are arguing on the gene/environment split.

As I've seen in this thread, I think everyone has said people's IQ is one part hereditary and one part environment.

Jordan has stated he thinks based on articles it's an 80/20 skew to genes.

For anyone battling Jordan the split is off, then what split do you think it really is?
No, this is still wrong, we are not arguing the gene / environment split in terms of IQ causation. We are arguing whether genetic differences are (known to be) responsible for recorded IQ differences between black and white people. This is different.

Hitler was not a Asian supremacist.
Pride in one's own race, and that does not imply contempt for other races, is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them.
Once again, why would a Nazi publish a paper that clearly says White IQ is lower than Asian IQ?
To have something to point at to say "hey I am not a nazi because, see, this group I do not actually care about even has a slight advantage over ours, so the claim that blacks are genetically primed to be promiscuous dumb criminals is based in reason and science, not in white supremacy!"
 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
To have something to point at to say "hey I am not a nazi because, see, this group I do not actually care about even has a slight advantage over ours, so the claim that blacks are genetically primed to be promiscuous dumb criminals is based in reason and science, not in white supremacy!"
How many Hitler quotes do you got?
Because Nazi policy was based around the idea of an Aryan master race which did not include Asians.
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
14,109
2,644
1,570
32
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
How many Hitler quotes do you got?
Because Nazi policy was based around the idea of an Aryan master race which did not include Asians.
Still Asians got preferential treatment and Hitler even acknowledged superiority in some regards. And in contrast to Nazis coming after Hitler, he did not have to signal that he is totally different than the German Nazis in the 30s / 40s.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Still Asians got preferential treatment and Hitler even acknowledged superiority in some regards.
Preferred treatment how?

I would not take the words of Hitler serious, given this was the same man who violated neutrality/pacts and attempted to destroy the Russians (who he regarded as inferior to Aryans despite both being European).
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
14,109
2,644
1,570
32
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Preferred treatment how?

I would not take the words of Hitler serious, given this was the same man who violated neutrality/pacts and attempted to destroy the Russians (who he regarded as inferior to Aryans despite both being European).
People of Chinese or Japanese ancestry received preferential treatment not when compared to people of nordic or Germen ancestry, but to other ethnicities.
 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
People of Chinese or Japanese ancestry received preferential treatment not when compared to people of nordic or Germen ancestry, but to other ethnicities.
Where? In Nazi Germany?

And once again, Aryan policies did not even favor Russians, who are biologically closer to Germans than Asians. Why the fuck would you trust Hitler to not look down on them?
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Here is a speech by Hitler in 1933 clamoring for peace.

HITLER SPEECH ON ENABLING ACT 1933 said:
"If the Reich Government allows itself to be guided by these principles, one can surely expect the growing understanding of the foreign countries to ease the integration of our Reich in the peaceful competition of the nations. "

"We attach the most earnest significance to this plan; we are willing to cooperate with absolute sincerity on the basis it provides in order to unite the four great powers, England, France, Italy, and Germany, in peaceful cooperation to courageously and determinedly approach those tasks upon the solution of which Europe’s fate depends. "

"However, the National Government wishes to cultivate this spirit of a will for freedom in the German Volk. The honor of the nation, the honor of our Army, and the ideal of freedom-all must once more become sacred to the German Volk! The German Volk wishes to live in peace with the world. "
This guy could totally be trusted yo! He's actually a pacifist!
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
So here's something I don't understand.

Why would White Supremacists/Nazis give Asians a 5 point bonus instead of Whites? Why not make it the other way around and claim Asians score 100, and Whites always score 105?

What is the benefit of making Asians "look better" than your own race?

And notice that whenever the Asian/White gap is brought up, people always rush to the "culture" defense. Which also implies that White people just don't "study as hard" for some reason.

That's not White Supremacy. Both sides are giving arguments for why the gap is genetic.
 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
14,109
2,644
1,570
32
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
So here's something I don't understand.

Why would White Supremacists/Nazis give Asians a 5 point bonus instead of Whites? Why not make it the other way around and claim Asians score 100, and Whites always score 105?

What is the benefit of making Asians "look better" than your own race?

And notice that whenever the Asian/White gap is brought up, people always rush to the "culture" defense. Which also implies that White people just don't "study as hard" for some reason.

That's not White Supremacy. Both sides are giving arguments for why the gap is genetic.
The benefit is to be ble to allow your talking point. It is in principle a sound discussion technique: Concede a bit on a minor point you do not care about ("another race may be even better, but it is only marginally"), to demonstrate you are actually reasonable on the discussion point you are actually interested in ("Blacks are an inferior, underdeveloped race that behaves more akin to wild animals, they fuck around and thus cause distribution of stds, they are uncivilised and a boon on society because they are naturally inclined to be thugs, and they are dangerously close to being intellectually dysfunctional because of their naturally much lower IQ").
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,822
7,548
775
The only one using their feelings instead of factual evidence has been you, Jordan. It has been factually proven that Rushton supported and was a part of the Nazi regime in this very thread. Therefore, that makes him a Nazi. You ignored this multiple times. Your continued deflections just show how pathetic your argumentation has dropped. Do better.
He can't, because if you take Rushton and his Pioneer Fund flunkies away from him, his whole ideological house of cards comes crumbling down and left with nothing of substance.

Because Nazi policy was based around the idea of an Aryan master race which did not include Asians.
What is the benefit of making Asians "look better" than your own race?
Your views are always so simplistic and reductive, it's not even funny anymore. I'm not going to honor your long rambling post about East Germany with a reply, because it's quite apparent that you know jack sh*t about German history. None of that tangential crap refutes my point that Germany is still feeling the effects of their reunification, contrary to your original statement.

Nazi race theory is not an objective theoretical construct and shows many internal inconsistencies. For example, the Japanese were considered "honorable Aryans" (Ehrenarier) and did not suffer the same discrimination as other ethnic groups. In fact, in his Political Testament, Hitler himself wrote the following:

“Pride in one’s race – and that does not imply contempt for other races – is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their history is superior to our own.

They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them.”
By your dumb argumentation, Hitler would not be considered a Nazi.

Admitting that some races are superior to your own in certain regards, does not automatically imply that you're not a race segregationist. Maybe Rushton's apparent dislike of black people was much stronger than his interest in Asians, or maybe he was just contempt that he had a bigger dick according to his own research. Who knows for sure, fact is that none of your arguments manage to refute that facts I've provided.

My argument the entire this time is that Asians in America do have higher IQ than White Americans. Whether or not they came here as high skilled workers doesn't change that.
Of course it does, it's not hard to assume that high skilled workers have, on average, a higher IQ than low skilled workers. If you only let high skilled workers immigrate to your country, you're gonna get skewed results when you measure their IQ. It's like only inviting men to a party and then wondering why there aren't any women.

Edit: Also, why don't they publish data showing all the races? Show me the black, white and Asian scores too.
Dafuq? That article got plenty of data showing that multiracial students have the same average test scores as whites for you to chew on. But you're not interested in digesting that information, simply because it goes against your own dogmatic beliefs.

People are calling Donald Trump a Nazi right now.
Stop deflecting, literally nobody in this thread is calling Trump a Nazi. The fact that other people resort to hyperbole when talking about Trump, doesn't imply that Rushton is innocent. I think to have provided sufficient factual and empirical evidence that Rushton is a supporter of Nazi ideology, he even presided over a whole organisation that was founded upon it.

If you get to call people you don't like Nazis, even if they never personally described themselves as such (i.e Rushton) then it's fair game for me to call you an SJW, because I perceive you are acting like one.
Hahahaha, stop it or I might start enjoying watching you going down the drain pager after page. How much more evidence do you frikkin' need to finally concede that point? Stop further embarrassing yourself, by this point you're the equivalent of somebody saying that the leader of the KKK can't be racist because he's got a black friend.

Take a long hard look at my post history, you fool! I provided hard evidence for my claims, and all you've got is a silly ad hominem in a desperate attempt to clear Rushton's name. "B... bu... but u a ESSJAYDOUBLEUUUUUUUU so Rushton can't be a racist Nazi" hardly constitutes an argument. That sh*t may fly in your little race realist echo chambers, but not here on GAF. Be smarter!
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: ArchaeEnkidu

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
The benefit is to be ble to allow your talking point. It is in principle a sound discussion technique: Concede a bit on a minor point you do not care about ("another race may be even better, but it is only marginally"), to demonstrate you are actually reasonable on the discussion point you are actually interested in ("Blacks are an inferior, underdeveloped race that behaves more akin to wild animals, they fuck around and thus cause distribution of stds, they are uncivilised and a boon on society because they are naturally inclined to be thugs, and they are dangerously close to being intellectually dysfunctional because of their naturally much lower IQ").
This is a complete conspiracy.

Once again, why aren't Asians scoring 100 and Whites 105? Who got together and said "Yeah, we're supremacists. But guys, we need to make sure Asians are still one step ahead of us for some reason."

It doesn't make sense.

Your second part of your post also pushes another conspiracy. IQ tests are based on pattern recognition. They are not designed to reward any particular race, while putting down others,
Asians, Whites and Hispanics can all just as easily fail them. Just as how Black people can still do well on them.


Ironically, it's egalitarians like you who cannot accept the test results without resorting to stereotyping people as "thugs" or "uncivilized".

I was the first person in this thread to rightfully point out, that races can be "different" without those differences implying any superiority/inferiority

Why can't groups be "different"? Why is the go to answer always "superior/inferior"?

Again, this is why I can't take the word seriously because of how easily manipulative it can be.

It is universally accepted that Men and Women possess different physical strength ON AVERAGE. Yet no one is called sexist or a hypocrite for pointing this out.

If I make the same scienitific observations when it comes to other human groups, then I do not want to be called racist for using these facts.
This is why 14 pages later, I have never given up. I see the debate about Race & IQ, to be no different than arguing that Women and Men possess physical differences.
99% of the world does not disagree with this fact. No one is called sexist for saying Women do not physically compete against Men on average. It's not the environment, it's not malnutrition, it is literally an accepted fact in biology that Men & Women have differences and a major explanation responsible for this are genes.

Race & IQ is the same thing. You cannot believe in the theory of evolution and the idea that all human beings are 100% identical at the same time. I shouldn't even need IQ tests to point this observable fact out. It is just reality that evolution never stopped at the neck. Different continents gave rise to different people. Instead of hating these differences, we should just acknowledge them for what they are. Just like Men & Women.
.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Nazi race theory is not an objective theoretical construct and shows many internal inconsistencies. For example, the Japanese were considered "honorable Aryans" (Ehrenarier) and did not suffer the same discrimination as other ethnic groups. In fact, in his Political Testament, Hitler himself wrote the following:
How many Japanese people were living in Germany at this time?
Germany was allied with Japan, which was located on the other side of the world and at war with a shared enemy (China).

It would have been easy for Hitler to say nice things about them, while his own country was enforcing 100% Aryan affirmative policies back at home.

Edit: I also pulled this nice little excerpt from your own wikipedia article.
The Chinese and Japanese were still subject to Germany's racial laws, however, which – with the exception of the 1935 Nuremberg Laws, which specifically mentioned Jews – generally applied to all "non-Aryans" although since Japanese and Chinese were given "Honorary Aryan" status these racial laws were applied to them in a more lenient manner as compared to other "non-Aryans" who were not granted "Honorary Aryan" status by Adolf Hitler. Hitler's government began enacting the laws after taking power in 1933, and the Japanese government initially protested several racial incidents involving Japanese or Japanese-Germans that year which were then resolved by the Nazi high command by treating their Japanese allies leniently in these disputes. Especially after the collapse of Sino-German cooperation and Chinese declaration of war on Germany, Chinese nationals faced prosecution in Germany. Influential Nazi anti-Semite Johann von Leers favored excluding Japanese from the laws due both to the alleged Japanese-Aryan racial link and to improve diplomatic relations with Japan. The Foreign Ministry agreed with von Leers and sought several times between 1934 and 1937 to change the laws, but other government agencies, including the Racial Policy Office, opposed the change.[25]
But but Hitler loved them! :pie_drooling: It was all for propaganda purposes as shown, the Chinese were quickly swept aside when they no longer looked favorable.

Once again, both you and @Yoshi have to the biggest suckers in the world to fall for Hitler's words, when he couldn't even be trusted to respect the neutrality wishes of his neighbors, while also waging a genocidal campaign against other biological Europeans such as the Russians.

By your dumb argumentation, Hitler would not be considered a Nazi.
I bet you also believe he's a pacifist too because of his Peace speech?

15 pages on Neogaf. All my opponents are getting destroyed heavily.

Facts will always beat feelings. Never give up on them no matter the odds.
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,822
7,548
775
How many Japanese people were living in Germany at this time?
It would have been easy for Hitler to say nice things about them, while his own country was enforcing 100% Aryan affirmative policies back at home.
The Asian population in America is about 6% (back then it was even less), so the very same could be said about Rushton.



Once again, both you and @Yoshi have to the biggest suckers in the world to fall for Hitler's words, when he couldn't even be trusted to respect the neutrality wishes of his neighbors, while also waging a genocidal campaign against other biological Europeans such as the Russians.
I think we've reached peak idiocy with your posts. In case it isn't already abundantly clear, I'll repeat it for your mentally challenged reading comprehension:

Nobody is defending or believing Hitler's words, it is only to demonstrate that your argument that Rushton can't be racist because he considers aspects of other races to be superior is completely f*cking bonkers! Hitler did the same in regards to Asians and considered some of their aspects to be superior to his own race!

Clear enough?

15 pages on Neogaf. All my opponents are getting destroyed heavily.
Must be nice living in that dream world of yours. Stop embarrassing yourself!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Yoshi

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
The Asian population in America is about 6%, so the very same could be said about Rushton.

I think we've reached peak idiocy with your posts. In case it isn't already abundantly clear, I'll repeat it for your mentally challenged reading comprehension:

Nobody is defending or believing Hitler's words, it is only to demonstrate that your argument that Rushton can't be racist because he considers aspects of other races to be superior is completely f*cking bonkers! Hitler did the same in regards to Asians and considered some of their aspects to be superior to his own race!

Clear enough?
You jabroni, I asked for evidence why would a supremacist/nazi switch scores around that makes Whites look worse than Asians on IQ tests when there is 0 initiative to do so? Where are the secret papers alleging Whites scores 105 IQ instead of Asians? This is the conspiracy that you and @Yoshi are pushing.

I already pointed out that Hitler's words were fickle. He was a notorious liar that only saw Japan useful for propaganda points but he quickly swept Chinese people under the rug when the tides had changed. He was not an Asian Supremacist.
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,822
7,548
775
You jabroni, I asked for evidence why would a supremacist/nazi switch scores around that makes Whites look worse than Asians on IQ tests when there is 0 initiative to do so? Where are the secret papers alleging Whites scores 105 IQ instead of Asians? This is the conspiracy that you and @Yoshi are pushing.
What the hell are you talking about? Nobody is pushing conspiracies. I am quite literally refuting your own argument with factual evidence about Nazi ideology. I can't possibly make it any much clearer.
Also, what part of "Nazis considered Asians as 'honorary Aryans'" did you not understand?



Here is frikkin' Konstantin von Neurath himself making a public statement that Asians are not considered to be colored people (in German, "Farbige").

Rushton putting Asian genes above the rest when it comes to IQ, does not refute his segregationist views and certainly doesn't take away from the fact that he was literally the leader of a Nazi organisation!
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Also, what part of "Nazis considered Asians as 'honorary Aryans'" did you not understand?
The part where they still persecuted the ones they didn't like and that Japan protesting the policies back in Germany untill the Nazis attempted to save face.

The Nazis were never Asian supremacists. They were always Aryan first.

Here is frikkin' Konstantin von Neurath himself making a public statement that Asians are not considered to be colored people (in German, "Farbige").
Is this your best proof? Once again, the Nazis genocided Russians too, and they where White! Looks like you and @Yoshi easily fall for Nazi propaganda.

Going to a wait for a post from either you or @Yoshi to now come out and say the Nazis wanted peace, because hey, they made a speech about it!

Nobody is pushing conspiracies.
So once again, explain where does Asians scoring 105 come from that a White Supremacists shouldn't have just left it at 100 or less? Why make the Whites look inferior with 0 reason to do so?

@Yoshi pushed the conspiracy that it was an act made to make the data look "reasonable" (which is stupid since people like Yoshi don't even care about IQ testing to begin with. Especially not data that even discusses the possibility of race differences existing).

The benefit is to be ble to allow your talking point. It is in principle a sound discussion technique: Concede a bit on a minor point you do not care about ("another race may be even better, but it is only marginally"), to demonstrate you are actually reasonable on the discussion point you are actually interested in ("Blacks are an inferior, underdeveloped race that behaves more akin to wild animals, they fuck around and thus cause distribution of stds, they are uncivilised and a boon on society because they are naturally inclined to be thugs, and they are dangerously close to being intellectually dysfunctional because of their naturally much lower IQ").
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,822
7,548
775
@Yoshi pushed the conspiracy that it was an act made to look the data "reasonable"
Which is entirely in the realm of possibility and you have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to counter his claim.

So once again, explain where does Asians scoring 105 come from that a White Supremacists shouldn't have just left it at 100 or less?
Stop deflecting with that stupid question that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. It is not important and I don't give a crap about what crazy arguments white supremacists use to justify their f*cked up positions. Fact is, their views on race are wildly inconsistent and irrational.

My point is that Rushton putting Asians above white people in some regards, is not sufficient evidence to refute the facts that he is a supporter of anti-black racist segregationist ideology and leader of a Nazi organisation, because other Nazi's did literally the same!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Yoshi

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Stop deflecting with that stupid question that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
You were the one who walked into it!

Fact is, their views on race are wildly inconsistent and irrational.
Which doesn't explain the conspiracy why would a Supremacist switch numbers around to make Whites score less than Asians.

Which is entirely in the realm of possibility and you have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to counter his claim.
That is a conspiracy for which no one has brought forth evidence of this.

And I do have a counter, other IQ Tests have confirmed the exact same thing.

 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,822
7,548
775
Which doesn't explain the conspiracy why would a Supremacist switch numbers around to make Whites score less than Asians.
Again, it does not f*cking matter, because it is not sufficient evidence to refute the claims that he was a Nazi supporter.

So far you have not even once addressed one single fact directly, such as Rushton being the head of a well known Nazi organisation and his segregationist quotes. Instead you're staging a silly goose chase because you simply have nothing to counter these claims.
 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Again, it does not f*cking matter, because it is not sufficient evidence to refute the claims that he was a Nazi supporter.

So far you have not even once addressed one single fact directly, such as Rushton being the head of a well known Nazi organisation and his segregationist quotes. Instead you're staging a silly goose chase because you simply have nothing to counter these claims.
There is no quote of him supporting the Nazis. There have been accusations made against him, but no personal testimony.

Just as how the media has tried to make an example of Trump by proclaiming him a Nazi. That is not evidence of him being one.
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,822
7,548
775
There is no quote of him supporting the Nazis.
Noooooo, he was just the leader of a Nazi organisation, but otherwise he's completely innocent. Stop being obtuse!

From his own book:



Ethnic pride, admiration for "Nordic" founders, sterilization of "unfit" people, prohibition of interracial marriage, expulsion of black people to Africa... tell me how these aren't segregationist and racist views? In his introduction he even goes to defend Wickliffe Draper who produced two documentaries funded by Nazi money depicting Germany's claimed success with eugenics.

These are all ideological cornerstones of Nazism, even if Rushton tries to deny that fact. He has no, absolutely no, regard for human dignity or rights and quite clearly considers black people to be inferior.

But wait, there's more:

Under Rushton's leadership, the Pioneer Fund continued to support extremists. According to Hold Your Tongue, a 1993 book by education expert James Crawford, the Pioneer Fund has "aided the Institute for Western Values — the same group [the late] Cordelia Scaife May [sister of far-right financier Richard Mellon Scaife] paid to distribute [the racist nativist book] The Camp of the Saints — and in publishing the autobiography of Thomas Dixon," whose white supremacist novels helped spark the Klan's 1915 rebirth. Recent Pioneer grantees have included white supremacist Jared Taylor and Pioneer Fund board members Rushton and Richard Lynn, who runs the one-man Ulster Institute for Social Research and has argued that blacks have a "psychopathic" personality.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Noooooo, he was just the leader of a Nazi organisation, but otherwise he's completely innocent. Stop being obtuse!
When did I say he was completely innocent?

If someone makes controversial statements, then charge them as being a controversial figure.

But someone being controversial does not automatically make them a Nazi.

If this book is Rushton's owns words, then he even states on page 210 that there is a contradiction, where the founders went to war against the WWII Nazis. In fact, he actually denounces the Nazis entirely.





Once again, accusations against people who could be deemed controversial, does not automatically make them a Nazi.

The same thing proliferates Trump's image.



Oh look, other politicians said it! So it must be true right?
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,822
7,548
775
Once again, accusations against people who could be deemed controversial, does not automatically make them a Nazi.
The same thing proliferates Trump's image.
Eugenics, forced sterilization, segregation and the dehumanization of other races are not mere 'controversial' views, they are an outright violation of basic human rights and dignity!

Stop comparing people that are in support of the ideological tenants of actual Nazism to Trump. I never saw Trump arguing for a ban on interracial marriage, forced sterilization, eugenics and the expulsion of black people. Both are not the same and by downplaying Rushton's views your are outright contributing to the spread of racist views.

Even if, and that's a big if, you don't view anything wrong with Rushton's support of these anti-humanistic eugenic practices because of your f*cked up dogmatic race realistic ideology, it should be pretty evident that Rushton has a pretty strong bias against black people. His work is not based on mere scientific interest but serves as a propagandist means to justify his own racist policies.

I don't give a crap if Rushton refuses to call himself a Nazi, many Nazis did in the past. Of course he would try to refute these claims, otherwise he would risk being even further discredited by the scientific community. But his support of the very same racist policies that enabled the atrocities of the Nazi regime speak for themselves. His leadership of an organisation that was funded by Nazi money, his continued support of outright supporters of Nazi ideology and Hitler, his outright dehumanizing views on black people are nothing more than the expression of a full-blooded racist.

The fact that you are so bone-headedly refusing to acknowledge Rushton's disgusting segregationist views because you cannot let go of your dogmatic perspective on race merely confirms @Yoshi 's initial assumptions. I'm done with you and your willful ignorance. I'm not going to waste any more time on you or your racist literature, I've seen enough of that swamp. Instead, I'll let your disgraceful comments in this thread stand testament to your incredible stupidity.

I was willing to give you the benefit of doubt, but after your continued willful ignorance on the facts provided, all that's left to say it this: There's people being wrongfully smeared as racists and then there is you!
 
Last edited:

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,693
1,210
445
deaftourette.com
I looked up Rushton a bit (I'm still sleepy and may yet go back to sleep) but his comments from an interview with a Toronto newspaper is telling:

"If it really was a colour blind society, and nobody even noticed race,
maybe there would be some more justification for it (the criticism),"
he told the Citizen.

"But people are pulling their hair out and are saying, 'What about
Toronto the Good? Where did it go to?' What about Ottawa? I'm sure it
is the same? What about Montreal? I'll bet you it's the same. I'll bet

it's the same in every bloody city in Canada where you have black
people. It's inevitable that it won't be. So there you go."


Also...

In 2005, Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson of New York University wrote an article for Psychology, Public Policy, and Law noting that Rushton ignored evidence that failed to support his position that IQ test score gaps represent a genetic racial hierarchy.



Click here to read it
 

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,960
6,266
755
Of all the hills JordanN has chosen to die on, defending Rushton's beliefs (those pesky "feelings") is one of the most bizarre.
As @strange headache said succinctly: "He can't, because if you take Rushton and his Pioneer Fund flunkies away from him, his whole ideological house of cards comes crumbling down and left with nothing of substance. "

He has to defend this idiotic hill because without it, he has nothing. Every passing post just makes his actions more of a joke, not that they weren't already to many here.
 
Last edited:

ssolitare

Banned
Jan 12, 2009
17,167
2,039
1,180
Basically
As @strange headache said succinctly: "He can't, because if you take Rushton and his Pioneer Fund flunkies away from him, his whole ideological house of cards comes crumbling down and left with nothing of substance. "

He has to defend this idiotic hill because without it, he is nothing. Every passing post just makes his actions more of a joke, not that they weren't already to many here.
Basically. He's motivated by his motivations, the data that he uses is just a random tool to justify his motivations. Some of the arguments that he makes isn't even made by the researchers of the bad data, but stuff he throws together by looking at line graphs and saying "see look". That's not a data driven approach.
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,822
7,548
775
And I do have a counter, other IQ Tests have confirmed the exact same thing.
Oh look, another fraudulent (sample size = 19, lol) study from the 80's by one of Rushton's Pioneer Fund buddies:



Are we starting to see the common theme here? That's all you've got, sources funded by the same racist organisation.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Even if, and that's a big if, you don't view anything wrong with Rushton's support of these anti-humanistic eugenic practices because of your f*cked up dogmatic race realistic ideology,
This is you rambling on and on about nothing I've said that ever supports this.
I never once said I defended his views. Why would I? I'm not interested in them. As far as I'm concerned, I'm only interested in information that talks about the possibility of group IQ differences. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't give a crap if Rushton refuses to call himself a Nazi, many Nazis did in the past. Of course he would try to refute these claims, otherwise he would risk being even further discredited by the scientific community.
Once again, all these claims, no evidence to guide them.

Stop comparing people that are in support of the ideological tenants of actual Nazism to Trump. I never saw Trump arguing for a ban on interracial marriage, forced sterilization, eugenics and the expulsion of black people. Both are not the same and by downplaying Rushton's views your are outright contributing to the spread of racist views.
This is a fallacy.

By the way, have you noticed all your comments from Rushton came after the 90s? I.e, after the study he published back in 1989? While I wont rule out the possibility that he never had those views, I would like to see evidence that suggested that his views at any time coincided with his work.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
4,179
3,330
440
No, this is still wrong, we are not arguing the gene / environment split in terms of IQ causation. We are arguing whether genetic differences are (known to be) responsible for recorded IQ differences between black and white people. This is different.
Not sure what you mean.

So for example, let's say Whites have 100 IQ, Blacks have 90.

Jordan will say based on articles it's an 80/20 split skewing to genes. 80% genes, 20% environment.

So your view of why there is a 100 vs 90 IQ is due to ??????

Just wondering what your factors are.
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
14,109
2,644
1,570
32
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Not sure what you mean.

So for example, let's say Whites have 100 IQ, Blacks have 90.

Jordan will say based on articles it's an 80/20 split skewing to genes. 80% genes, 20% environment.

So your view of why there is a 100 vs 90 IQ is due to ??????

Just wondering what your factors are.
I do not have a set opinion of the reason of the difference, because it has not been sufficiently researched. Possible factors outside of genetics are:
- upbringing
- the community people live in
- parent's education
- wealth
- education
- language usage
- nutrition
- psychological effects of society's expectations
- skewed statistics (always consider the source!)
 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
As @strange headache said succinctly: "He can't, because if you take Rushton and his Pioneer Fund flunkies away from him, his whole ideological house of cards comes crumbling down and left with nothing of substance. "

He has to defend this idiotic hill because without it, he has nothing. Every passing post just makes his actions more of a joke, not that they weren't already to many here.
No, I'm confident this evidence remains correct, as demonstrated by other sources (i.e WW1 Army Tests, 1979 California court ruling, hell people where even quoting Murray and Flynn in this thread who already said that the gaps in IQ scores wont change thanks to genetic factors coming in play).

Keep in mind, I am a big proponent of seeing more researchers outside the usual suspects discuss this field but guess what?
There's still a huge bias against it by the media.

So it's actually Catch 22. Race & IQ is still accurate, but the public's hatred of it means it forces "outsiders" to try and tackle it.

Even honest attempts at discussing the differences are shunned/taboo.

 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
I do not have a set opinion of the reason of the difference, because it has not been sufficiently researched. Possible factors outside of genetics are:
- upbringing
- the community people live in
- parent's education
- wealth
- education
- language usage
- nutrition
- psychological effects of society's expectations
- skewed statistics (always consider the source!)
And yet in all your examples, I already discussed many times that in the case of Europeans or Asians, they all differ by environment/socio-economic status, but IQ results remain dominated by ancestry.

Again, explain why the U.S and Europe are more similar to each in other IQ than Africa? There is no proof they all use the same language, education or nutrition but White Americans still score 100 points on average compared to Europe.

And even the poorest White state in America, still has a very high IQ score compared to the richest. Genetics and environment continues to be an 80/20 split.

Could those poor White Americans score higher if they were given more opportunities. Sure? Is it going to be a drastic difference? No.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
4,179
3,330
440
I do not have a set opinion of the reason of the difference, because it has not been sufficiently researched. Possible factors outside of genetics are:
- upbringing
- the community people live in
- parent's education
- wealth
- education
- language usage
- nutrition
- psychological effects of society's expectations
- skewed statistics (always consider the source!)
Yeah, that's what I mean. These are environmental kinds of factors. So you skew to environment even though you think there's no sufficient research. I'm not going to bother trying to find the post because it's going to buried among the million posts, but I remember you even saying you agree to some gene influence.

Your view is actually odd because on one hand you think there isn't sufficient research to make IQ claims, but personally think it has to do with environmental issues. Yet debunk research and theories by scientists that seem to have a combo of gene and environmental, yet your personal guesswork opinion is environmental?
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Basically. He's motivated by his motivations, the data that he uses is just a random tool to justify his motivations. Some of the arguments that he makes isn't even made by the researchers of the bad data, but stuff he throws together by looking at line graphs and saying "see look". That's not a data driven approach.
I don't know where this grand conspiracy comes from that I view IQ data as anything but natural group differences. What is that saying? People want to see what they want to see?

You could remove everything about Rushton's background, it still has nothing or very little to do with the message I am after.

Why can't groups be "different"? Why is the go to answer always "superior/inferior"?

Again, this is why I can't take the word seriously because of how easily manipulative it can be.

It is universally accepted that Men and Women possess different physical strength ON AVERAGE. Yet no one is called sexist or a hypocrite for pointing this out.

If I make the same scienitific observations when it comes to other human groups, then I do not want to be called racist for using these facts.
This is my own words from page 9. I could probably go further back but it's enough evidence for now that I don't care about superiority/inferiority. I just care about labeling scientific differences for what they are.
 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
14,109
2,644
1,570
32
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Yeah, that's what I mean. These are environmental kinds of factors. So you skew to environment even though you think there's no sufficient research. I'm not going to bother trying to find the post because it's going to buried among the million posts, but I remember you even saying you agree to some gene influence.

Your view is actually odd because on one hand you think there isn't sufficient research to make IQ claims, but personally think it has to do with environmental issues. Yet debunk research and theories by scientists that seem to have a combo of gene and environmental.
I do not quite know whether you have trouble understanding my position or if you are trolling me.

Intelligence is a multifactorial property, it depends on genetical and environmental variables. So the intelligence of an individual is a function in its genetics and its environment. This is true for white people and black people alike. The fact that different IQs exist at all is explained by both factors.

Now we come to a specific group-based differential: The IQ difference between black and white people in the US. Even though each individual's IQ depends on both factors, genes and environment, this does not necessarily mean that both factors are at fault for the differential. Beause one factor could be evenly distributed over both groups, whereas the other factor might differ between two groups. Thus, finding that IQ depends on both factors and that the groups "blacks" and "whites" have different mean IQs, does not mean that both factors are at fault for the difference.

Let me explain this to you with a simple example: Your net income depends on your gross income and the taxes you pay.

Now person A has net income 2500$/month, whereas person B has net income 3000$/month. This could have several different reasons:
- Person A might have a lower gross income, but pay the same amount of taxes, e.g.
Person A gross: 4000$
Person A taxes: 1500$
Person B gross: 4500$
Person B taxes: 1500$
- Person A might have a the same gross income, but pay the higher taxes, e.g.
Person A gross: 4000$
Person A taxes: 1500$
Person B gross: 4000$
Person B taxes: 1000$
- It could even be that Person A might have a higher gross income, but pay higher taxes that counterbalance this:
Person A gross: 4500$
Person A taxes: 2000$
Person B gross: 4000$
Person B taxes: 1000$

(there are of course more possible scenarios)

Now take "gross income" to be "genetical influence on IQ", "taxes" to be "environmental influence on IQ", person A to be the average back person and person B to be the average white person and you should hopefully be able to see how it is consistent to think IQ is dependent on both, genes and environment, yet to think it is unknown whether there is a genetically caused IQ differential between black people and white people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strange headache
Oct 26, 2018
4,179
3,330
440
This is my own words from page 9. I could probably go further back but it's enough evidence for now that I don't care about superiority/inferiority. I just care about labeling scientific differences for what they are.
Some people just don't like "bad stats".

I don't get it. Who gives a shit.

If every census and research paper says Asians are the smartest and make the most money due to factors x, y, z and other groups struggle with weaker stats, who fucking cares.

It's like the non-believers think all these papers and stats are fake.

Just using common sense, every human is lumped into different groups in terms of being different..... looks, height, voice, some races are prone to some diseases more than others due to hereditary fuck ups, some people seem to live longer than others, yet somehow the one magic metric (IQ) is equal among every one? That doesn't even make sense.

Just to show how nobody even cares about IQ score differences, I've never seen any Nazi KKK group even promote these stats trying to make it look like they are smarter than others.

As I tried in a post last night, maybe if people stopped crying about IQ differences and tried to come up with ideas how to bridge the gaps and make everyone on earth a bit smarter, things would be better.
 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Now take "gross income" to be "genetical influence on IQ", "taxes" to be "environmental influence on IQ", person A to be the average back person and person B to be the average white person and you should hopefully be able to see how it is consistent to think IQ is dependent on both, genes and environment, yet to think it is unknown whether there is a genetically caused IQ differential between black people and white people.
If I wanted to apply this scenario to genders, would you be willing to accept that the differences between Men & Women are caused by a wage gap?

If I asked the richest female CEO to benchpress against the poorest Man I found off the streets, do you believe the differences would be in the magnitude of the millions?

(This scenario is not meant to mock women by the way.)

This is why the argument fails whenever I keep talking about socio-economic factors in relations to IQ. More money by itself doesn't account for intelligence. Shit, that's the whole point of IQ Tests! You don't pay money to get better at them! You could throw your entire lifes savings away, it is still unlikely you will ever score in the absolute genius ranges that is 130+ points or more.

There are dirt poor White Americans right now who have an average IQ of around 98. I have no idea what their nutritional habits are. I don't know how many times they flunked or passed school. But the fact remains they still manage to score only 4 points less from Americans who makes 5x or more their wages.

If you gave these poor White Americans 5x the wealth, they are not going to score 490 points on IQ Tests. This is proof right here that genetics represents a ceiling for intelligence.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
4,179
3,330
440
Now person A has net income 2500$/month, whereas person B has net income 3000$/month. This could have several different reasons:
- Person A might have a lower gross income, but pay the same amount of taxes, e.g.
Person A gross: 4000$
Person A taxes: 1500$
Person B gross: 4500$
Person B taxes: 1500$
- Person A might have a the same gross income, but pay the higher taxes, e.g.
Person A gross: 4000$
Person A taxes: 1500$
Person B gross: 4000$
Person B taxes: 1000$
- It could even be that Person A might have a higher gross income, but pay higher taxes that counterbalance this:
Person A gross: 4500$
Person A taxes: 2000$
Person B gross: 4000$
Person B taxes: 1000$
What is fact is WHite people have higher IQs than Blacks, so Person B is White, and Person A is Black.

So in your opinion given your 3 scenarios, which set you think is the main cause for the IQ gap?

Set A = Whites better genes, both races equal environment

Set B = Same genes, but Blacks have worse environment

Set C = Black better genes, but get destroyed in environmental factors

And remember you even said there isn't any sufficient research to explain anything about IQ gaps, so your debating is really your own personal opinion - which means you are choosing your own personal opinion vs. scientists tabulating scores and doing theories for probably 50+ years.

Never the less, I'm interested to see which set you think is the biggest influence on the gap - despite it being all your own guesswork.
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,822
7,548
775
Some people just don't like "bad stats".
Nobody has a problem with "bad stats" so long as they are well researched. We do have a problem with reductive and biased conclusions based on fraudulent data though.

If every census and research paper says Asians are the smartest and make the most money due to factors x, y, z and other groups struggle with weaker stats, who fucking cares.
The issue is not that Asians have better IQ score in the U.S., the issue is about why that is.

If I wanted to apply this scenario to genders, would you be willing to accept that the differences between Men & Women are caused by a wage gap?
You keep making these fallacious analogies. The biological differences between men and women has nothing to do with racial differences based on genetics and environmental factors. These are two completely different issues. The main issue here is that you keep providing unreliable data by biased researchers funded by a racist Organization.

You are still failing to acknowledge this issue, while being unable to explain the impact of nutrition and a highly selective immigration policy on these results. You're also unable to explain why these results are not reproducible in a European context, or a Asian genes different this side of the pond?
 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
You keep making these fallacious analogies. The biological differences between men and women has nothing to do with racial differences based on genetics and environmental factors.
Men and Women have different physical strength on average. Next to no one claims it's wages/malnutrition that causes the gap. They believe biological forces are at work.
Different races have different average IQs. Even AFTER controlling for environment, these gaps don't go away. They are at least 80% biological and 20% environment.

The main issue here is that you keep providing unreliable data by biased researchers funded by a racist Organization.
What is biased/racist about this 1979 court ruling that confirms a gap exists?

The judge noted that black children on the average scored 15 points below white children on standard intelligence tests such as the Wechsler intelligence scale and the Stanford‐Binet scale. The average on such tests is 100.
Also, was it not you or someone else who tried to use Murray and Flynn to debunk my research despite both of them agreeing with the same conclusion I made?

Murray prefers to look at test scores by birth cohorts, e.g., how the scores of white and black 18-year olds stack up to one another. Those data show no closing of the gap on tests administered since the late 1970s. It remains at about 15 IQ points
When his turn came, Charles Murray noted that the black/white IQ score gap did close somewhat during the 20th century, but that the data show that the narrowing stalled sometime in the 1970s. "The remaining gap will be with us indefinitely,"
Murray argued that general intelligence, so-called "g," a general factor that governs performance on all cognitive tasks, is highly heritable. He noted that g has a biological background in the brain.
. He noted that the programs established by the No Child Left Behind Act have had almost no effect on the black/white educational achievement gap.
In every example, the environment has always been controlled for. There is a genetic gap that still wont go away. You and @Yoshi both keep ignoring this. I have never once said environment never has an affect. It just no longer matters when you understand where the remaining gap comes from.


You are still failing to acknowledge this issue, while being unable to explain the impact of nutrition
The history of Europe and Asia has been one plagued with malnutrition. This is by far the worst example to argue against, since I even made mention no such famines have existed in America. And yet White Americans still have the same average IQ as Europeans.

The diets of Europeans also aren't all the same. It doesn't matter, it never mattered.

Edit: I also posted numerous times that poor White Americans have an average IQ of 98 which is 4 ~ 6 points less than the richest states. Unless you're going to start telling me that Appalachian people all eat Lobster for dinner and chococlate gold flakes.

and a highly selective immigration policy on these results.
I never disagreed that immigration doesn't select for the best. So you MUST acknowledge that Asians in America are still higher IQ.
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,822
7,548
775
Men and Women have different physical strength on average. Next to no one claims it's wages/malnutrition that causes the gap. They believe biological forces are at work.
Point is that both issues have nothing in common and that you keep comparing apples to oranges.

Different races have different average IQs. Even AFTER controlling for environment, these gaps don't go away. They are at least 80% biological and 20% environment.
You keep repeating this over and over and over again, yet fail to realize that this is far from scientific consensus and the only sources backing this up are funded by your little Nazi Pioneer fund.

What is biased/racist about this 1979 court ruling that confirms a gap exists?
First of all, nobody is denying that the gap exists. Second of all, a random ass judge in the 80's is a poor substitute for scientific consensus, no matter how often you keep dredging this up.

In every example, the environment has always been controlled for.
By that you mean your racist authors simply ignored environmental factors in order to establish their genetic superiority and justify their segregationist policies.

The diets of Europeans also aren't all the same. It doesn't matter, it never mattered.
Citation f*cking needed!

I never disagreed that immigration doesn't select for the best. So you MUST acknowledge that Asians in America are still higher IQ.
So you finally concede that immigration policies are skewing the results, which directly refutes your claim that the IQ race gap is purely genetic.
 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Point is that both issues have nothing in common and that you keep comparing apples to oranges.
Genders are biologically different.
Races are biologically different.

You could make the argument females grow up in different environments or possess different wealth, but the crux of the "physical strength" argument still asserts basic biology.
Saying all races are 100% the same is not scientific. Differences do exist that are not explained y environment.

Someone even wanted to know what causes the phenomenon of black children scoring better on IQ tests but the gap disappears when they reach adulthood.
I posted evidence that even directly correlates with said research, that black people actually physically mature faster than others

Once again, all races cannot be 100% the same. The theory of evolution debunks this idea from the start. The "environment" is actually humans being isolated on different continents for thousands of years. Different continents either had different mutations or environmental pressures that affected the groups who lived there.

But start talking about IQ, but you and @Yoshi literally cannot fathom the idea that evolution did not stop at the neck. The head has always been the source of the greatest differences in modern humans. Start comparing skeletons of some of our older ancestors but even millions of years ago, our bodies below the neck didn't change much.




You keep repeating this over and over and over again, yet fail to realize that this is far from scientific consensus and the only sources backing this up are funded by your little Nazi Pioneer fund.
80% genetic intelligence is a fact.

The heritability of intelligence increases from about 20% in infancy to perhaps 80% in later adulthood.

General cognitive ability yielded a heritability estimate of about .80 in two assessments 3 years apart as part of the Swedish Adoption/Twin Study of Aging.
First of all, nobody is denying that the gap exists. Second of all, a random ass judge in the 80's is a poor substitute for scientific consensus, no matter how often you keep dredging this up.
LOL

We see the same gaps all over the world. Even the people who went to "debunk" Lynn's finding still came up with the same/similar number.
I'm not even sure what's left to discuss anymore. The 15-point gap is not environment.

Results show that average IQ of Africans on these tests is approximately 82 when compared to UK norms. We provide estimates of the average IQ per country and estimates on the basis of alternative inclusion criteria. Our estimate of average IQ converges with the finding that national IQs of sub-Saharan African countries as predicted from several international studies of student achievement are around 82.


So I've literally quoted several sources now that made no mention of Rushton, and yet you are still pushing the propaganda that the gap is being caused by 100% environment.
Once again, IQ = 80% genetic and only 20% Environment.

By that you mean your racist authors simply ignored environmental factors in order to establish their genetic superiority and justify their segregationist policies.
LOL
He noted that the programs established by the No Child Left Behind Act have had almost no effect on the black/white educational achievement gap.

Citation f*cking needed!
Have fun?


I don't concede anything.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
@strange headache asked for non-Rushton sources. I gave him all of them in post #748.

Yet the data for all this shit is still the same.

This basically amounts to prolonged denial. Like people who once looked at Climate Change data and keep asking "but how is this still man made?".
Or the people who looked at the theory of evolution and say "but what about the missing link?".

Now, there was never a strong basis that all humans on earth are 100% the same. That's the real pseudo-science being pushed by people who ignore genetics.

Edit: And once again, everyone is free to watch the debate Rushton had with Suzuki back in 1989.. The same "environment vs genetics" was already discussed 30 years ago. This is not a new argument at all and the other side (Suzuki) did not have any facts to counter him with.



Maybe 30 years from now, people will say the same about me. In 2049, we will still have people who deny genes in favor of "it's all environment".
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
This is a triple post but here is an excellent excerpt from the debate made by Rushton:

"I would like to say that, I AM NOT A RACIST"
"I believe that a racist is a person is who would treat all members of a group the same, and ... try to deprive people of their civil liberties"
"I am NOT advocating and do not believe in anything of that nature."

This was 30 years ago...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.