Comes In Written Word - Yorkshire Air...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Racial eugenics
32 Answers
In my recent question, 'Why more left-wing posters, sp1814 gave the following reply when I was accused of being a fascist.
/// AOG certainly isn't a fascist in any way, but he does believe in racial eugenics (AOG - perhaps you could furnish us with the weblink you posted a while back which implied the racial inferiority of black people).///
/// Having a belief in eugenics is equal to, or perhaps worse than believing in the tenets of fascism.///
Well I answered his point regarding 'eugenics' (to which I received no reply), but at the time I could not find the link he requested, although he is wrong in stating that the link implied the racial inferiority of black people, on the contrary it states, "in some things blacks are superior to whites and Asians".
I wish others to read this, and make their own comments.
http://psychology.uwo...volution_Behavior.pdf
It may not be PC and some findings may shock some into shouting racist, but some things need to be said.
/// AOG certainly isn't a fascist in any way, but he does believe in racial eugenics (AOG - perhaps you could furnish us with the weblink you posted a while back which implied the racial inferiority of black people).///
/// Having a belief in eugenics is equal to, or perhaps worse than believing in the tenets of fascism.///
Well I answered his point regarding 'eugenics' (to which I received no reply), but at the time I could not find the link he requested, although he is wrong in stating that the link implied the racial inferiority of black people, on the contrary it states, "in some things blacks are superior to whites and Asians".
I wish others to read this, and make their own comments.
http://psychology.uwo...volution_Behavior.pdf
It may not be PC and some findings may shock some into shouting racist, but some things need to be said.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Why not provide a link to Mein Kampf while you're at it.
Philippe Rushton is not exactly mainstream science and was barred by his University for some of his methods including asking his students details of the sexual anatomy and function
He's also published in and spoken at conferences of nice publications such as "American Renaissance"
http://en.wikipedia.o...i/J._Philippe_Rushton
Philippe Rushton is not exactly mainstream science and was barred by his University for some of his methods including asking his students details of the sexual anatomy and function
He's also published in and spoken at conferences of nice publications such as "American Renaissance"
http://en.wikipedia.o...i/J._Philippe_Rushton
// J. Phillipe Rushton, the reports author has spoken at conferences of the American Renaissance (AR) magazine, in which he has also published articles. Anti-racist Searchlight Magazine described one such AR conference as a "veritable 'who's who' of American white supremacy."
The Pioneer Fund was described by the London Sunday Telegraph (March 12, 1989) as a "neo-Nazi organization closely integrated with the far right in American politics." It has also been criticized by some scientists and journalists, and in various peer-reviewed academic articles. Critics of the fund include the SPLC, IQ critic William H. Tucker, and historian Barry Mehler and his Institute for the Study of Academic Racism. //
I have not read this report, but the credentials of it's author do not bear scrutiny.
The Pioneer Fund was described by the London Sunday Telegraph (March 12, 1989) as a "neo-Nazi organization closely integrated with the far right in American politics." It has also been criticized by some scientists and journalists, and in various peer-reviewed academic articles. Critics of the fund include the SPLC, IQ critic William H. Tucker, and historian Barry Mehler and his Institute for the Study of Academic Racism. //
I have not read this report, but the credentials of it's author do not bear scrutiny.
From WIKI
Steven Cronshaw and colleagues wrote in a paper for the International Journal of Selection and Assessment in 2006 that psychologists need to critically examine the science employed in Rushton's race-realist research. Through a re-analysis of the validity criteria for test bias using data reported in the Rushton et al. paper, they assert that the testing methods were in fact biased against Black Africans. They disagree with other aspects of Rushton's methodology, such as the use of non-equivalent groups in test samples.
Steven Cronshaw and colleagues wrote in a paper for the International Journal of Selection and Assessment in 2006 that psychologists need to critically examine the science employed in Rushton's race-realist research. Through a re-analysis of the validity criteria for test bias using data reported in the Rushton et al. paper, they assert that the testing methods were in fact biased against Black Africans. They disagree with other aspects of Rushton's methodology, such as the use of non-equivalent groups in test samples.
Gromit
/// I have not read this report, but the credentials of it's author do not bear scrutiny. ///
Then I suggest that first you do so, before just reproducing the comments made by other sources.
By doing this you can then comment personally on what you have read.
e.g.. "I definitely don't agree with that", "well perhaps he has a point" or maybe "I will have to research this further before making a 'knee jerk' reaction".
/// I have not read this report, but the credentials of it's author do not bear scrutiny. ///
Then I suggest that first you do so, before just reproducing the comments made by other sources.
By doing this you can then comment personally on what you have read.
e.g.. "I definitely don't agree with that", "well perhaps he has a point" or maybe "I will have to research this further before making a 'knee jerk' reaction".
AOG
I have better things to do with my time than read 50 pages of a discredited Scientific paper. I am neither a statistician or a scientist, so even if this report was credible, it would be unlikely that I would understand it.
I am slightly impressed that you have read it. You normally do not read past the Daily Mail headline, nevermind read a full article.
On the evidence of the several years of your postings, I would have thought a scientific paper, full of complicated statistics was beyond your grasp.
I have better things to do with my time than read 50 pages of a discredited Scientific paper. I am neither a statistician or a scientist, so even if this report was credible, it would be unlikely that I would understand it.
I am slightly impressed that you have read it. You normally do not read past the Daily Mail headline, nevermind read a full article.
On the evidence of the several years of your postings, I would have thought a scientific paper, full of complicated statistics was beyond your grasp.
Gromit
No need to throw insults at me, just to try and cover up for your self confessed incapability at being able to read and then comment on a said subject.
/// have better things to do with my time than read 50 pages of a discredited Scientific paper. I am neither a statistician or a scientist, so even if this report was credible, it would be unlikely that I would understand it. ///
"Better things to do with your time"??????
That is rich coming from someone who will spend hours typing into a search engine until he finds something that sup[ports his blinked argument.
You state that it is a discredited Scientific paper, yet I can also produce evidence that the paper is very credited..It is all dependant on who is giving out the credits and who is black listing it. But then isn't this true of any scientific paper, even book, film, play etc,etc?
/// it would be unlikely that I would understand it.///
Well I am sorry Gromit, I can't do nothing for you regarding that, unless to say, "forget your encrusted political leanings", "take your head out of the sand", and "take off those rose tinted specs", then maybe? maybe? but don't hold your breath.
No need to throw insults at me, just to try and cover up for your self confessed incapability at being able to read and then comment on a said subject.
/// have better things to do with my time than read 50 pages of a discredited Scientific paper. I am neither a statistician or a scientist, so even if this report was credible, it would be unlikely that I would understand it. ///
"Better things to do with your time"??????
That is rich coming from someone who will spend hours typing into a search engine until he finds something that sup[ports his blinked argument.
You state that it is a discredited Scientific paper, yet I can also produce evidence that the paper is very credited..It is all dependant on who is giving out the credits and who is black listing it. But then isn't this true of any scientific paper, even book, film, play etc,etc?
/// it would be unlikely that I would understand it.///
Well I am sorry Gromit, I can't do nothing for you regarding that, unless to say, "forget your encrusted political leanings", "take your head out of the sand", and "take off those rose tinted specs", then maybe? maybe? but don't hold your breath.
// The r and K strategists differ in the number of eggs they produce. The r-strategists are like machine-gunners. They fire so many shots that at least one of them will hit the target. The r-strategists produce many eggs and sperm, and mate and give birth often. The K-strategists, on the other hand, are like snipers. They put time and effort into a few carefully placed shots. K-strategists give their offspring a lot of care. They work together in getting food and shelter, help their kin, and have complex social
systems. That is why the K-strategists need a more complex nervous system and bigger brain, but produce fewer eggs and sperm. //
See, Machine Gunners and Snipers, that's all clear then.
systems. That is why the K-strategists need a more complex nervous system and bigger brain, but produce fewer eggs and sperm. //
See, Machine Gunners and Snipers, that's all clear then.
What others have written?.
Oh Like Charles Murray and Arthur Jensen? two more with dubious racial-IQ theories.
Mind you AOG you want to be careful of some of this stuff. As I recall some of them have far Eastern people as gentically brighter than Europeans
Do you accept that or do you only accept theories that show Europeans as the Master race?
Oh Like Charles Murray and Arthur Jensen? two more with dubious racial-IQ theories.
Mind you AOG you want to be careful of some of this stuff. As I recall some of them have far Eastern people as gentically brighter than Europeans
Do you accept that or do you only accept theories that show Europeans as the Master race?
jake-the-peg
On the contrary, I would be the first to admit, that the Chinese and some other Far Eastern people, are much more genetically brighter than Europeans.
But I also believe that the British must be somehow special, taking into account what we have achieved for people coming from such a small island.
But having said that there will be some on this site that are not prepared to admit this, only to say what we have achieved has been down to rape, pillage, conquest and being involved in the slave trade.
You see, you can say "White men can't jump" but dare to say Blacks are not quite on par in certain things, then you are in trouble.
On the contrary, I would be the first to admit, that the Chinese and some other Far Eastern people, are much more genetically brighter than Europeans.
But I also believe that the British must be somehow special, taking into account what we have achieved for people coming from such a small island.
But having said that there will be some on this site that are not prepared to admit this, only to say what we have achieved has been down to rape, pillage, conquest and being involved in the slave trade.
You see, you can say "White men can't jump" but dare to say Blacks are not quite on par in certain things, then you are in trouble.
'Blacks are not quite on par in certain things'
just doesn't have the same ring to it as "White men can't jump"
but white men can jump.
http://www.olympics.o...Jonathan_Action_1.jpg
just doesn't have the same ring to it as "White men can't jump"
but white men can jump.
http://www.olympics.o...Jonathan_Action_1.jpg
Why is *race* so very important to you, AOG ?
I think most of us are aware of to which *race* we belong, we can also use our eyes to have a guess at the *race* of those around us.
However, I tend to use the content of a man's character rather than the colour of his skin as the yardstick by which I judge him.....
I think most of us are aware of to which *race* we belong, we can also use our eyes to have a guess at the *race* of those around us.
However, I tend to use the content of a man's character rather than the colour of his skin as the yardstick by which I judge him.....
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.