Layout Options
Which layout option do you want to use?
Wide
Boxed
Color Schemes
Which theme color do you want to use? Select from here.
Reset color
Reset Background
Forums
New posts
Trending
Random
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Rules
Libraries
New Audios
New Comments
Search Profile Audios
Clubs
Public Events
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Trending
Random
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Forums
General
Olympus
The racial wealth gap is a key indicator of the economic costs of racism
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Konrad Cruze" data-source="post: 66039" data-attributes="member: 542"><p>That is not an argument but a lazy jab. Many of the political debaters don't have a background in all the studies they cite, but only read the results provided by others, which they cannot verify without cross-referencing or meta-analysis.</p><p>"Bro, you're still just vomiting the same half-read /pol/ copypasta"</p><p>You keep mentioning/pol/ even though it is not a place where people publish their findings without proper credentials for you to criticize, but rather an Image board. Instead, I used references to actual reports of Universities, articles by recognized institutions, and researchers with credentials. This completely proves your debate in bad faith. It was very obvious from the get-go when you and the other guy started making unnecessary remarks about my character. Like how I need to let go of my 'hate'. Attacking my character not my argument.</p><p></p><p>Also, you now finally admit to the different Hominid admixture that exists in all humans. However, you didn't disprove how all of these have an effect on human behavior and societal development. You just corrected the percentage I got wrong then treat it as some sort of victory of your environmental argument. You just say it is neutral by claiming some scientists say it, but you provide no proof. The scientist can easily have a political bias. Like the time Charles Murray was kicked out for saying race and IQ are related, violating his human right to express himself, then never proven wrong by the department, just said it against their political views.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]12297[/ATTACH]</p><p>Look at the above, how the so-called expert says something was alright; however, they were proven in the future to be harmful. These experts were paid to say this.</p><p></p><p>"Yeah, the 1985-1995 deseg program dumped $2B+ into facilities (11.7k/pupil, low ratios, labs/pools)—and it flopped. But your "own source" (Cato/Hoover reports) says why: "structural problems of our current educational system," not biology. They called out how fancy resources diverted from fixing systemic rot, poverty legacies, and segregation fallout. Test scores didn't budge because it didn't address the real issues—policy, family support, bias."</p><p></p><p>Once again, the expert himself has his political bias. He didn't explain how the resources were not properly utilized. He claims it, and you eat it up because it confirms your bias. However, I am not dumb who will just believe anything you say.</p><p></p><p>Also, you claim the evidence of poor white committing fewer crimes than richer black is saying the reverse, then you assume I am someone who will reject the evidence of my eyes. No they rate is clearly higher. I respect that you try to explain some flaws but you once again seem to be doing this out of your political bias. You took a study where someone claims that using proper contextualization, you can see poor white commit at the same rate as poor black. However, it is only true if you disregard every other evidence present. Since more graphs by different sources also claim they commit crimes at a higher rate. You are projecting my cherry-picking data when, in fact, it is I who is taking both socioeconomic and DNA inheritance into consideration. Look at the following table:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]12299[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>Let's not forget the 2 repeat Allele you ignored by simply talking about the limitations of the study. You didn't even try to take it into consideration and immediately disregarded it. Something that doesn't exist in Whites and has been proven to be found in relation to violent crime of Blacks. You just cherry-picked the fact that it had some limitations and skipped over it. Each author has their own bias, intelligence, and expertise. So, using only one author and not taking every other person's perspective into consideration is a flawed action.</p><p></p><p>At last, you also claim that Charles Murray's book on achievement after 1400 is biased but explain how. Then you go on to list achievements that happened before 1400 or achievements that happened in a small percentage of cases where he gave credit to others. I do have to admit I overlooked the Mali Empire's surgical/medical achievements. However, they didn't do much of the advanced. They didn't improve surgical techniques much nor medical science. They did do amazing in cataract removal surgery but that is all. A bunch of Taoist monks in medieval China created a proto-vaccine technique: Indians already knew about plastic surgery. They didn't improve commercial practices like the Crusaders with a Letter of Credit. They didn't improve much in the field of mathematics, physics, or chemistry like the Greeks and Arabs did. These achievements were, at best, adopting a practice already out there. Which is still respectable, but doesn't prove the point you are selling. They improved very little and adopted mostly already invented academic achievements that were traded to them by Arabs who documented Greek and their own achievements. That's not inventing anything or making an advancement in anything. They also didn't create a huge sewerage system, they didn't create a highly organized industrial sector, they didn't improve agriculture practices, something the Romans, Chinese, and Indians did way before them. Their urbanization was primitive in comparison, as they mostly had mud structures; they did not have a complex cooling system, nor did they have great comfort like European as their houses were small and had no great interior design. Their water management wasn't anything impressive as the ancient Roman, Indus, Persians, and Egyptians did. They did a competent job that is commendable. So what are the achievements that could disprove Charles Murray's claims?</p><p></p><p>You also do this racist behavior of undermining Mongolian achievement and only reduce to a barbarian. While I am here admitting to the achievements of Blacks, you just undermine Mongolians completely. To prove my worldview as racist, you became racist. You ignored the fact that the Mali Empire had easy access to valuable resources like gold, but the Mongolians had nothing. Mali had already established Berber routes, meanwhile Mongolian had to maintain the Silk Road themselves, bearing 50% of all losses and making trade safer in the region. You just called them looters showing you don't really know much outside those things that confirm your established world view. Let's not forget you picked Mali and skipped Zimbabwe because it was easier to gloat about one than to defend the other. While, I took a harder one to defend as an example.</p><p></p><p>I am not participating if you are only willing to talk in consideration of socioeconomic factors and completely disregard my findings by looking at their limitations. Even though there are limitations in your own argument as it never properly explains how the Hominid admixture has a null effect. Your biggest giveaway was when you admitted to it by correcting my given percentage of the admixture in an attempt to own me, then continued to say we all share 99.9% of our ancestry. Contradictory statements! You then took the achievement of one group and ignored the geographic reason behind their achievement, and then ignored the geographic reason behind the lack of their achievement to disprove my racial IQ claim. Going against what you preached simply to stop me from being right. This all proves that you aren't here to discuss but push a view. Let's not forget that you didn't disprove my Kansas City case study, simply quoted some dude with a liberal bias, taking all the blame on poor management, but didn't provide the proof of it. Nor provide listed if alleles that existed specifically in African for contribution to intelligence.</p><p></p><p>Edit: </p><p>I forgot to add to your Twin experiment where you claim it was only 30% inherited. While it was for 1000 different individuals they research med on for the twin experiment it was 50-80%. Twins are better subject for this experiment but however if you insist then other sources will be sited. According to a study by Plomin et al. (2001), genetics account for approximately 50-70% of an individual's intelligence, with the remaining percentage influenced by environmental factors and personal experiences.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Konrad Cruze, post: 66039, member: 542"] That is not an argument but a lazy jab. Many of the political debaters don't have a background in all the studies they cite, but only read the results provided by others, which they cannot verify without cross-referencing or meta-analysis. "Bro, you're still just vomiting the same half-read /pol/ copypasta" You keep mentioning/pol/ even though it is not a place where people publish their findings without proper credentials for you to criticize, but rather an Image board. Instead, I used references to actual reports of Universities, articles by recognized institutions, and researchers with credentials. This completely proves your debate in bad faith. It was very obvious from the get-go when you and the other guy started making unnecessary remarks about my character. Like how I need to let go of my 'hate'. Attacking my character not my argument. Also, you now finally admit to the different Hominid admixture that exists in all humans. However, you didn't disprove how all of these have an effect on human behavior and societal development. You just corrected the percentage I got wrong then treat it as some sort of victory of your environmental argument. You just say it is neutral by claiming some scientists say it, but you provide no proof. The scientist can easily have a political bias. Like the time Charles Murray was kicked out for saying race and IQ are related, violating his human right to express himself, then never proven wrong by the department, just said it against their political views. [ATTACH type="full" alt="1000076719.jpg"]12297[/ATTACH] Look at the above, how the so-called expert says something was alright; however, they were proven in the future to be harmful. These experts were paid to say this. "Yeah, the 1985-1995 deseg program dumped $2B+ into facilities (11.7k/pupil, low ratios, labs/pools)—and it flopped. But your "own source" (Cato/Hoover reports) says why: "structural problems of our current educational system," not biology. They called out how fancy resources diverted from fixing systemic rot, poverty legacies, and segregation fallout. Test scores didn't budge because it didn't address the real issues—policy, family support, bias." Once again, the expert himself has his political bias. He didn't explain how the resources were not properly utilized. He claims it, and you eat it up because it confirms your bias. However, I am not dumb who will just believe anything you say. Also, you claim the evidence of poor white committing fewer crimes than richer black is saying the reverse, then you assume I am someone who will reject the evidence of my eyes. No they rate is clearly higher. I respect that you try to explain some flaws but you once again seem to be doing this out of your political bias. You took a study where someone claims that using proper contextualization, you can see poor white commit at the same rate as poor black. However, it is only true if you disregard every other evidence present. Since more graphs by different sources also claim they commit crimes at a higher rate. You are projecting my cherry-picking data when, in fact, it is I who is taking both socioeconomic and DNA inheritance into consideration. Look at the following table: [ATTACH type="full" alt="1000077175.png"]12299[/ATTACH] Let's not forget the 2 repeat Allele you ignored by simply talking about the limitations of the study. You didn't even try to take it into consideration and immediately disregarded it. Something that doesn't exist in Whites and has been proven to be found in relation to violent crime of Blacks. You just cherry-picked the fact that it had some limitations and skipped over it. Each author has their own bias, intelligence, and expertise. So, using only one author and not taking every other person's perspective into consideration is a flawed action. At last, you also claim that Charles Murray's book on achievement after 1400 is biased but explain how. Then you go on to list achievements that happened before 1400 or achievements that happened in a small percentage of cases where he gave credit to others. I do have to admit I overlooked the Mali Empire's surgical/medical achievements. However, they didn't do much of the advanced. They didn't improve surgical techniques much nor medical science. They did do amazing in cataract removal surgery but that is all. A bunch of Taoist monks in medieval China created a proto-vaccine technique: Indians already knew about plastic surgery. They didn't improve commercial practices like the Crusaders with a Letter of Credit. They didn't improve much in the field of mathematics, physics, or chemistry like the Greeks and Arabs did. These achievements were, at best, adopting a practice already out there. Which is still respectable, but doesn't prove the point you are selling. They improved very little and adopted mostly already invented academic achievements that were traded to them by Arabs who documented Greek and their own achievements. That's not inventing anything or making an advancement in anything. They also didn't create a huge sewerage system, they didn't create a highly organized industrial sector, they didn't improve agriculture practices, something the Romans, Chinese, and Indians did way before them. Their urbanization was primitive in comparison, as they mostly had mud structures; they did not have a complex cooling system, nor did they have great comfort like European as their houses were small and had no great interior design. Their water management wasn't anything impressive as the ancient Roman, Indus, Persians, and Egyptians did. They did a competent job that is commendable. So what are the achievements that could disprove Charles Murray's claims? You also do this racist behavior of undermining Mongolian achievement and only reduce to a barbarian. While I am here admitting to the achievements of Blacks, you just undermine Mongolians completely. To prove my worldview as racist, you became racist. You ignored the fact that the Mali Empire had easy access to valuable resources like gold, but the Mongolians had nothing. Mali had already established Berber routes, meanwhile Mongolian had to maintain the Silk Road themselves, bearing 50% of all losses and making trade safer in the region. You just called them looters showing you don't really know much outside those things that confirm your established world view. Let's not forget you picked Mali and skipped Zimbabwe because it was easier to gloat about one than to defend the other. While, I took a harder one to defend as an example. I am not participating if you are only willing to talk in consideration of socioeconomic factors and completely disregard my findings by looking at their limitations. Even though there are limitations in your own argument as it never properly explains how the Hominid admixture has a null effect. Your biggest giveaway was when you admitted to it by correcting my given percentage of the admixture in an attempt to own me, then continued to say we all share 99.9% of our ancestry. Contradictory statements! You then took the achievement of one group and ignored the geographic reason behind their achievement, and then ignored the geographic reason behind the lack of their achievement to disprove my racial IQ claim. Going against what you preached simply to stop me from being right. This all proves that you aren't here to discuss but push a view. Let's not forget that you didn't disprove my Kansas City case study, simply quoted some dude with a liberal bias, taking all the blame on poor management, but didn't provide the proof of it. Nor provide listed if alleles that existed specifically in African for contribution to intelligence. Edit: I forgot to add to your Twin experiment where you claim it was only 30% inherited. While it was for 1000 different individuals they research med on for the twin experiment it was 50-80%. Twins are better subject for this experiment but however if you insist then other sources will be sited. According to a study by Plomin et al. (2001), genetics account for approximately 50-70% of an individual's intelligence, with the remaining percentage influenced by environmental factors and personal experiences. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General
Olympus
The racial wealth gap is a key indicator of the economic costs of racism
Top
