Why you can't have an honest or civil conversation with most racists

You're just mad because I gave you a taste of your own medicine. I outsmarted you. I knew that your questions were designed as bait to make it look like I didn't know what I was talking about and I didn't bite for two reasons:

1. The questions were irrelevant to my knowledge of statistics.

2. You ignored arguments of mine directly relevant to the discussion.

And you're the one being dishonest if you pretend that this didn't happen....

Now if you are going to continue to accuse me of not understanding statistics because I didn't answer your questions I am going to maintain that you are scientifically illiterate because of your lack of knowledge of hormone biology which I exposed in this post. You also fail at basic logic if you do not understand that the reliability of an IQ test depends on the qualifications of those who administer it and their ability to provide proper test construction not whether or not it is an official standardized test or one you take online.

If you don't like my tactics don't dodge my arguments.

All it means is that unattractive fat White women are more inclusive of who they date because they are more desperate. The beautiful and intelligent White women are more exclusive because they have more options. However I have provided statistics that show that among White women liberals are more likely to date interracially than conservatives who are more racist and less educated. That proves that political ideology is a factor and not solely aesthetic preference which itself can change within a culture. And if your belief that Black aesthetics are just naturally unattractive to most White people why is it that interracial marriages are actually becoming more common as racist attitudes become less common?

You said most implying that it is a trend when it is not. Most people generally choose partners that are like them. Just because fat White women are more open to dating Black men doesn't mean that the average Black man who likes White women is choosing them.

Among White people liberals are more highly educated than conservatives.

It is a fact that interracial marriages suffer disapproval from societies including within the family. This is obviously a factor in high divorce rates not simply the compatibility of the couples.

Are you going to answer my question about mixed-raced children?

No, I didn't. You are twisting my words to imply that I think Black men who are more successful are more likely to want to date interracially. Black men who are more successful are more desirable to White women which is why you see a lot of rich Black men such as professional athletes with beautiful White women. These Black men are probably no more likely to desire White women than lower class Blacks they are just in a better position to get one. Most of them still date Black women.

That's simply isn't true. The handsome, physically fit and intelligent Black men are mostly dating White women who are like them in those attributes.

Fat women in general are not wanted by most men so they take what they can get. But just because fat White women are more likely to date interracially doesn't mean they are being accepted by Black men in large numbers.

 

People like you Egalitarian will always run away. I set you a specific set of questions because I knew you would ber be pinned down on any basic discussion of what statistics meant. You want to be able to dance around and misuse statististics like every blm activist does.

I can prove it again.


I challenge you to answer all my questions on the theiry of statistics and then Ill answer any specifics that you request. Im not going to answer first because the standard left tactic is never to keep any deal and always renege.

rhere are a range of questions. Answer and we can go on but I know you won't and its why we will always think you people are stupid and dishonest even if teh liberals pretend otherwise,

 

I made my arguments first so logically you should address them first. And if I renege on the agreement you can always boast that I ducked you.

 

Nah...you won't care. You are from the left. You people always lie and you will boast that you 'outsmarted' me by doing so.

 

You do realize that you are confirming my statements in the OP, right? You can't have an honest conversation with a racist. I made my arguments first so the proper discourse would be for you to address them first. Then I will answer your questions. If I don't you can always say I lied and most people will say I was dishonest in the exchange rather than thinking I outsmarted you.

 

Why would poor white kids go to good schools where they prepare for the SAT while blacks don't? Property taxes often pay for schools, and poor white people live in low-income areas, just like poor blacks do. By the way, a black family making 200k per year can easily afford SAT test prep, and I doubt they are unaware of SAT prep courses. It's also interesting to note that blacks lag behind by about the same amount on other tests, like the LSAT, which self-selects for people who have completed college. Surely black students are prepared with basic reading skills by the time they get to grad school, right? They are also behind, by the same amount, on the GRE.

https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/snapshot_test_taker_data_2015.pdf

http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/research-(lsac-resources)/tr-12-03.pdf

You said that black IQ's have gone up with income, but they still lag behind whites by about a standard deviation on the SAT, GRE, and LSAT. In the case of the SAT, blacks with incomes of 200k were at parity with whites at 20k. As you know, those test are highly G-loaded and used to make extrapolations of IQ.

Saying there were no differences in the environment that could have caused differences in cognitive ability seems insane to me. Some groups evolved in much colder conditions and some groups didn't, not to mention all of the different things I talked about during the development of humans. We are talking about 40,000 years of evolution. As for Rushton's specific narrative, it is totally irrelevant to me. It's also important to point out that all of the races, except sub-Saharan Africans, have Neanderthal DNA.

So you acknowledge that East Asians have higher IQ's? Are you aware that they tend to have higher non-verbal IQ? If so, what cultural explanation could there possibly be for this?

I'll have to check that debate out soon.

 

You must be joking. You wont answer and you will say how clever you were to outsmart me and your leftist friends will clap and cheer. You are a fraud and a liar. that is clear.

 

That's not logical. If I say I'm going to do something and I don't do it that will make me look bad to everyone. The truth is that you don't want to answer because you aren't capable of addressing my arguments especially concerning testosterone. I've already proven that I understand statistics.

 

I'll have to explore this issue further however it is noteworthy that when controlling for environmental variables the Black-White IQ gap can be eliminated and Blacks have made significant gains on IQ tests including g gains in recent years. This suggests that environment causes the gap.

We're actually talking about 100,000 years of evolution which is a short period in evolutionary time scales. I had that discussion on the board in this thread. The cold doesn't make people smarter. If humans already evolved high intelligence in Africa, as the sources I linked to showed, then there was no need for natural selection to boost intelligence any further. Whatever mental challenges humans faced in cold climates could be met because of this intelligence.

Why is it irrelevant when you are making essentially the same argument? Rushton also argued that the cold winters of Europe and Asia created an evolutionary pressure that increased intelligence. Now his theory was more complicated because he tried to make sense of it by employing a Life History strategy via the concept of r/K selection theory but the idea that humans become more intelligent in cold climates is the same as yours. Graves refuted Rushton's evolutionary arguments including the "Cold Winters Theory."

If the implication here is that Neanderthal DNA makes humans smarter then this belief is false. Archeological research indicates that modern humans were more technologically advanced than Neanderthal and replaced them whenever they made contact (Tattersall, 2000). This implies that modern humans were smarter. So any interbreeding that took place could potentially make humans dumber not smarter. DNA studies indicate that Neanderthal DNA in non-Africans accounts for only about 1-4% of the gene pool (Wall et al., 2013). This amount of admixture is statistically small and would not be of any evolutionary significance.

Differences between Eastern and Western cultures explain differences in cognitive thinking.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligence.aspx

Some cultural differences in intelligence play out on a global scale. In "The Geography of Thought" (Free Press, 2003), Richard Nisbett, PhD, co-director of the Culture and Cognition Program at the University of Michigan, argues that East Asian and Western cultures have developed cognitive styles that differ in fundamental ways, including in how intelligence is understood.

People in Western cultures, he suggests, tend to view intelligence as a means for individuals to devise categories and to engage in rational debate, while people in Eastern cultures see it as a way for members of a community to recognize contradiction and complexity and to play their social roles successfully.

Other researchers have come to similar conclusions. In a study published in Intelligence (Vol. 25, No. 1), Sternberg and Shih-ying Yang, PhD, of National Chi-Nan University in Taiwan, found that Taiwanese-Chinese conceptions of intelligence emphasize understanding and relating to others--including knowing when to show and when not to show one's intelligence. Such differences between Eastern and Western views of intelligence are tied, says Nisbett, to differences in the basic cognitive processes of people in Eastern and Western cultures.

You should check this one out as well when you have time.

[video=youtube;lUjo31DChcE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUjo31DChcE[/video]

 

These are massive sample sizes that need to be accounted for and haven't yet. I would take the millions of people who've taken these tests as evidence before I'd except a few studies in a psych lab, though I'm not saying they aren't valid. I think someone has to prove what the environmental difference is that is causing it, and I don't think they can use education or income to explain it--they must find something else (or a set of things) that are compelling and can explain all of the differences. Until a plausible, repeatedly tested variable can be forwarded to explain the gap, I will assume it is biological. Note that Native Americans aren't exactly known for having great environments either, and they are also ahead of the black population.

I believe Asians and blacks have been separated for around 40-60 thousand years, which is plenty of time for cognitive differences to emerge. I'm not saying differences necessarily had to emerge, but I feel like it would be highly likely, given all of the confounding cultural variables that affected evolutionary development over time. I think it is more likely than less likely. My argument does not rely on cold weather as an explanation at all, I just threw it out there as an example.

I'm not using it as evidence of superior intelligence, only further evidence of possible differences due to biology, whatever they may be. It was obviously of evolutionary significance if it affected physical differences in the way the body is shaped.

.

It does not explain differences in cognitive thinking, at least not by itself. People of East Asian descent in other countries, even when they are adopted by whites, show a pattern of relatively high non-verbal IQ and more modest verbal IQ. There is nothing in the environment of Asian Americans that would explain why they score lower on the verbal sections of tests than whites, but higher on the non-verbal sections. It's also interesting to note the higher verbal IQ's of Jews coupled with more modest non-verbal IQ's. Why this pattern?

I definitely will. I also hope I can find some more recent debates. These look like they are extremely old.

 

So random wanderings are why nearly all prison rape is black-on-white and why nearly all rape on the streets is black-on-white to the tune of that 50% of rapes committed every year by black people are rapes of whites?

So if 50% of the time blacks were raped it was whites doing it, you would call it the results of random wanderings. Even while you can't prove these are the result of mere random wanderings, but are assuming so.

Did you consider other possible contributors here or is this just another correlation-equals-causation argument?

 

Provide sources for your claims...

1) That nearly all prison rapes are Black-on-White.

2) That 50% of all rapes committed by Black men are done to White women.

I didn't say that Black-on-White rape was primarily the result of random encounters but rather that statistically Black men rape White women at a lower rate than random chance would predict. It is common knowledge that most rape victims know the rapist. The point of this argument is that there is no evidence that Black men in general are targeting White women as victims. If a White woman gets raped it is far more likely that a White man is the one who raped her. Black-on-White rape is not the epidemic that White racists make it out to be.

 

Empress. Domt bother...Egalitarian plays the usual trick of demanding you answer questions and never addressing thems himself. He knows he will play around with statistics and refuses to address real issues

 

"Poor work ethic?" Tell that to the slaves who were out there laboring from sun up to sun down while the masters sat on the porch sipping mint julips.
It's not that Blacks commit more crimes, it just that they are targeted/stopped by the police more. If Whites were stopped more often their crime ststs would be much different.
The out of wedlock birth rate does concern me. But, I'd rather see them being born than being aborted. (Bristol Palin agrees)

 

I am talking about the personal encounters I have had, I was not alive during the slave trade and my family was in Scotland. I try not to live by the sins or the gains of my long dead relatives.

The crime rate is not as easily dismissed as you proclaim, even accounting for the disparity between arrests blacks per capita make up a much larger percent of violent crime than any other ethnicity.

Statistically being born out of wedlock or into a single parent home (or absentee home for that matter) leads to in increase of poverty, lower educational attainment and increased rates of incarceration which in turn causes more fatherless homes. So forgive me if I don't celebrate children being abandoned by their parents, regardless of their race. I would much rather have fewer successful children born then more delinquent ones.

 

This is correct, of course, but Moriah and egalitarian don't 'do' facts. They do rhetoric and waving their hands about ut ask them a question they don;t like and they will refuse to answer and claim they 'outsmarted' you.

These are people, remeber, who think Hanibal was black because 'they read it somewhere'

Of course they commit vastly more crimes and this nonsense about 'the police stop them more' is pure lying ...and they know it.

Abortion is a great savior. I think we need far more free abortion clinics in ghetto areas.

 

By accident I watched a documentary just yesterday about a racist by the last name of Cobb. He was trying to take over a small town in North Dakota and got his arse run off by the local community. He and his supporters put a bad taste in my mouth.

I care about my culture and heritage; am proud of the contributions that we've made to the world. The history of my country is important. In America we support the idea of a homeland for the Jews. We allow the black people to lobby on behalf of their race. We even have a black history month. So, in my view, when some people are concerned about the impact of racial amalgamation and assaults on culture (when so many people want to come here and then not assimilate), it is not morally wrong and IF it's predicated upon ideological bias, then so what.... it's acceptable for the rest of this country.

I don't think that your view is valid because you DO want to use a control word in order to avoid the reality. We will do things like tolerate an Amish community and allow them to live their lifestyle, but if someone had a white community that operated the same way, you'd have a cow. It's all about the fact that they are associating with other whites.

If you want to have a civil and honest debate with someone capable of the job, then agree not to make the whole thread about name calling and I'll accept any and all challengers.

 

I know why you can't have one with me. Because you and those who run this forum are que-ers! You can't say anything relevant around here or at most other forums without getting banned. If you want to see what the "racist" point of view is, I have some suggestions for you to type into your browser and see what was said at other forums. Before the person who wrote them was banned. "Racism" is GOOD! Do you disagree?" "Is the White species superior?" "Are negroes worth the trouble?" "Examples of free speech." See what those do for you.

 

I agree with your premise that it is too easy to get banned from this site if you bring forth a credible argument that refutes the narrative the mods support.

That being said, the way that most racist organizations operate they get defeated in almost every instance. And, insofar as banning goes, I personally got banned from Don Black's little website for challenging the status quo. So, the racists have no room to talk when it comes to suppressing unpopular viewpoints. As stated, I DO care about my culture and my heritage - which means that the liberals lump me into the same pot with cowards like Don Black. And, funny thing here, my father worked in Don Black's political campaign some decades back when he ran for mayor in Birmingham.

What whizzes me off is that racists don't want an honest discussion any more than the liberal left does. Again, I would debate either side and if you can't get beyond censors we could always debate on neutral ground. PM would be the better way to discuss that aspect... if you wanted to REALLY discuss the topic.

 

Yes, countless forums ban people for racist facts.

Meanwhile I've never seen a forum ban anyone for mocking Polish people.

I remember on a forum called Topix, I could put forward a few facts about Blacks, Muslims, Hispanics, or Jews , and get banned, while some people called for Polish people to be killed in genocide, and constantly called Polish people dumb, but never once did they get banned,

It seems it's only wrong to attack those who aren't White.

Yet, we have people promoting White privilege, oh the irony.

 

Sounds like you're both just mad because no one's buying into your Stormfront bullsht.

 

Sure, I could discuss things through PM. But why not really do the censoring mods a favor and lock myself in the basement. Then discuss things with myself. As for Don Black, fu-ck that nig-ger lover. In my opinion both stormfront (which don black runs) and VNN are secretly run by jews so they can keep track of those who are against them.

Having been run off from about every other forum, I joined stormfront. I was banned after my first thread. So I did a little checking on Don Black. It turns out he spent a couple years in prison for being involved in a coup plot in some negro run and populated country. To be involved in such a plot would require a lot of personal interaction with negroes. There are only two kinds of people who would willingly have personal contact with negroes. Either a negro lover or a jew. Neither of whom have any business running a White patriot forum.

 

Yes. By the looks of things, only White people can be "racist." All those who think so can blow me!

 

I for one am pissed off that I can't even debate the issue without getting banned. So revel in your politically correct doomsday cult. Knowing that debate on the matter isn't allowed. That's an incredibly cheap victory. Which is worth about as much as used toilet paper.

 

The question from the OP was nothing more than a trick.
Obviously, the OP is aware of the millions of youtube vids, and FBI stats.
Obviously, the OP is also aware that, blacks make up 13% of the US population.
Obviously, the OP is aware that black males are 6% of that population.
Obviously, the OP, wanted rub our noses in the fact that political correctness has silenced a common sense response.
Obviously, the OP, knows this!
What, the OP failed to realize was, the, amount of liberals and their ability to hate.
I want to thank the OP for starting this thread!
Just a note to the OP. I know liberal politicians are providing the promise of free stuff and safe spaces but , you do realize we have the Army, Air Force, Marines and the Navy so that a panzy can be a panzy .....right?

So, if the US has to go back to the draft to protect the US from other panzies.

Are the US armed forces going to have to extend basic training so, that you can have a meaningful departure with your puppy or kitten or ghey friend ?

You know whats funny? Even 14 year old's see the modern day progressive as a joke.

Hey, I understand that Obama wants a third term....If that's sounds appealing to you...vote Hillary or Bernie.