Eugenics: Why are "racist" white countries so much richer?

Che Geuvara said that? Oh well then it must be true

No, he was right. Most of the countries in the data have been exploited and pillaged by other states. In turn, the other countries have profited from such action, expanding their wealth whilst diminishing that of others, hence causing a major part of the inequality.

 

Sure, but as you just said, correlation does not equal causation. If you think the inequality is due to race, provide scientific evidence.

 

Correlation implies causation. The burden is on you to show the consistent pattern is not due to race.

 

Wrong. Correlation DOES NOT EQUAL causation.

LOL Not at all. All I need say is that race is one of many correlative sets of data that sit alongside socioeconomic inequalities. If you want to say race is the cause that is your claim which YOU need to prove. Until you do, I dont have to consider it a cause at all.

 

Of course correlation does not equal causation. But in the absence of other explanations a consistent correlation between two variables suggests or implies that one causes the other.

It's reasonable to go with that as a working hypothesis in the absence of a better explanation.

Nothing correlates better with socio-economic failure than race. Name these other correlative data sets otherwise.

Therefore, race is the most likely cause.

Nothing is PROVEN. Nothing ever is.

 

But there are two many consistent correlations for you to simply say the cause is race.

Nonsense. You cant just guess. You either know, via a genuine analysis of data, or you dont. You have made no attempt at analysis.

Once again, correlation does not equal causation. It could be a combination of others.

Nonsense. It could be a combination of other factors.

When you make the claim that race results in certain socioeconomic outcomes you need to prove this claim, less its just an irrelevant opinion.

 

So name these other correlations? And name some exceptions.
For any other correlation so consistent, a level of causation would be assumed.
But because of Marxist politics, an unusually high burden of absolute mathematical proof is set on the correlation between race and poverty.
You are welcome to believe that, I don't, and in the absence of a more plausible explanation I consider a link between race and economic failure to be a fact.

 

The list is endless - culture, geography, weather, resources, history, politics, so on and so forth.

No, causation is NEVER assumed.

Marxist?

No, the same applies to any other correlative data.

You would consider it to be a fact because you are biased. You have not proven they are linked - you have just guessed.

 

None of those things correlate to economic failure to even a fraction to the degree race does. In fact most of them don't correlate AT ALL.
Clearly you've never heard of Occam's razor.

Causation is assumed all the time in science. Parsimony and maximum likelihood is a fundamental principle. Nothing is ever proven. You do not understand the basics of science.
I consider it a fact because it is the most likely explanation, and the best correlated variable. Much, much better than any other.

 

All of them correlate.

LOL Occam's razor is not a method statistical analysis.

Once again, get it through your head, correlation does not equal causation. You cannot assume causation.

 

Correlation does not equal causation.
You can assume causation.

 

Sure, but then I can just as equally assume there is no causation. Assumptions are meaningless.

 

No, because the correlation suggests the opposite conclusion as more likely.

 

Yes, but it must be proven more than a mere correlation in order to be considered a genuine cause.

 

Nonsense. Nothing is proven. It's all probabilities.

 

Ok.

 

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/chap2.pdf

 

Most Asians have very small, round heads, compared to the typical northern European head, but the racist idiots here claim that Asians have the highest IQs. Thus, most of the "scientific" work used to support the genetic superiority of one race over another must be bull (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Cranium volume map from Beals and Dodd:



Black is largest, then checked, etc.

Keep making things up, sooner or later you'll get one thing right I promise!

 

I find it remarkable racists in this thread still cant tell us why we should bother with racial differences, even if they are substantial.

 

Are you joking? Nobody ever asked such a thing so there has been no demonstration that I can't. I have spent the whole time here correcting an endless stream of pseudo-scientific nonsense and lies from "anti-racists".

 

Consider, if that is true, that I posed the question now then.

 

If you reall want to be taken seriously, you should not cite a terrorist schmuck like DcDonald to support your positions.

 

A professor of evolutionary psychology is a "terrorist"? Does your idiocy know any limits?

 

Are you from this planet???

In Africa there was no infrastructure of any kind, nor written language of any kind, until Europeans migrated there. Those African countries where European presence was extensive (i.e. South Africa) are now the richest. Those countries that saw the least European influence (Liberia) are now the poorest.

How could there even have been indigenous "industrialization" on a continent where nobody had a means of recording their own history, much less an ability transmit educational material?

Had Europeans never colonized Africa the inhabitants of the continent would still be referred to as "uncontacted peoples" relegated to hunter gatherer living, just like the Amazonian tribesmen.

There is absolutely zero evidence whatsoever that Africans were on the verge of some sort of societal, educational, or technological breakthrough before the arrival of Europeans to their shores.

Had Europeans never set foot in Africa the life expectancy there would still be in the mid-20s instead of the mid-40s where it is now.