Actually, we can’t afford not to build the Wall

Author: TheDredPriateRoberts

Posts

Total: 163
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Yassine
This may have been true before the 60s, I can't find any source for this at all. & I very much doubt such claim... I read somewhere the average IQ of soldiers in Germany was around the 60. Regardless, if you know anything about IQ, you should know the average IQ of White people in the 1950s was 80 as well.
You didn't look very hard: (https://www.quora.com/Does-the-U-S-military-have-a-minimum-IQ-requirement-for-entry) explains this (https://www.usa.gov/join-military). I found these within 2 minutes.

If your claim about White people in the 1950s is true (citation needed), then fine. The average White person couldn't perform the tasks required by the modern military in the U.S. as for the German I.Q, again, citation needed, but you're really far away from the modern I.Q. of 99 (https://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=2812). In fact, it's so far away that I'm inclined not to believe that book.

Do you honestly believe that..? Do you honestly believe 40% to 50% of Blacks are so incapable?
The real question is how can you not believe this? Do you really think there is no functional difference between 81 and 135 I.Q? Are you aware that 71-84 I.Q. is classified as "Borderline Intellectual Functioning?" (http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iqclassifications.htm).

The fact is that it already is the majority, an advantage no minority has. & yes, you can not expect Whites to aline their interests with yours. Your interests are not necessarily the interests of all Whites, & I reckon of most Whites. 
LOL you're applying individualist thinking to IN-GROUP POLITICS xD

'Hey, why are all these Black Conservatives voting for Obama? Don't they know that their political alignment isn't in sinc with the Democrats? They're not ****WARNING:racist:WARNING**** are they?'

Why do you have an opinion on this topic? It's so thoroughly uneducated. This is literally the Dunning-Kruger effect hahaha

Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@keithprosser
Logically, if you're worried about IQ you should discrimate on the basis of a person's IQ not the average of their ethnic group.  You should dump anyone with low iq and keep anyone with high iq, regardless of their tribe.
You couldn't go a word without making a mistake. Humans aren't logical, in this regard. These in-group bias feelings evolved; they're not conscious thoughts. 

You don't understand politics.

Of course that might mean you lose out to
Nice anecdote. It's very convincing against sample sizes thousands of times bigger.


keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
These in-group bias feelings evolved;
So did ebola.


Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@keithprosser
Nice argument for genocide.
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@keithprosser
So did ebola.
This is a really good counterargument. I enjoyed how you addressed every point. We're all so glad that you spent your free time making this comment.

keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
I didn't attempt to answer every point.   I answered the single point that i quoted.

These in-group bias feelings evolved;
So did ebola.
My mind doesn't work on the same lines yours does.  You seem to think in terms of groups and tribes but i think each of us is an individual.  I am happy to be judged on my merits and faults - I don't want to be judged on the average of which ever group you want to place me in.

Being the same colour as Einstein doesn't make you super-smart!




TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
The Border Patrol released 250 migrants here on Tuesday and Wednesday and expects to free hundreds more in coming days because there is no room to hold them.
Border Patrol officials said two groups rushed the border simultaneously from different ends of Border Field State Park.

huh, imagine that.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
This is why humans are genetically tribalistic.


Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@keithprosser
I didn't attempt to answer every point.   I answered the single point that i quoted.
So you intentionally ignored good points.

Great.

My mind doesn't work on the same lines yours does.  You seem to think in terms of groups and tribes but i think each of us is an individual.  I am happy to be judged on my merits and faults - I don't want to be judged on the average of which ever group you want to place me in.
No, PEOPLE think in terms of groups and tribes; you're the aberration. You WILL be judged by what your race achieves, regardless of whether you want it or believe the world should operate this way. Africans, Whites, Hispanics and Asians all, primarily, think of themselves in terms of race -- you are outnumbered (https://imgur.com/a/MWT4uRo).

Furthermore, when you choose to disengage from politics and think as yourself as an individual, not only is it logically inconsistent (i.e. if Billy wants to murder Mandy, whose individualism takes precedence?), but it'll destroy your chance of winning politics (other people will group up and defeat you with votes).

It's like having two armies: one doesn't consider itself to be an army, but rather a group of individualists and philosophers. They discuss whether they should refer to themselves as an army, because not every facet about them is the same. They deconstruct the conception of tribes and groups.Meanwhile, the other army knows that it's us versus them, and they are blowing the individuals into the afterlife.

Being the same colour as Einstein doesn't make you super-smart!
No one is arguing against this -- this is a strawman. No one is conflating individualism with individuality.

Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6

It doesn't matter if you call us trash, because it isn't grounded in reality. My analogy was accurate; its insulting nature was incidental.
- Every container exudes what it contains. White people are human beings, all human beings are dignified unless otherwise denigrate themselves.


Buddy, it's an average net deficit for racial groups. No one is impressed by you sledgehammering your bachelor degree maths into something so simple. Go and wank yourself off with your maths elsewhere.
- Miss Cassie, attacking me does not make the solution any less false. You don't have to insult me when the truth does not suit you, especially since I did not even bother to dispute the results -but the method. It is known that the average net-wealth of a White household is ten times that of a Black household, & that the US was running a $500B deficit in 2014, which amounts to about -$1.6K per capita. Without any further calculation, it is simply expected that such deficit be reflected on the fiscal impact, more so in some groups (Blacks) than others (Whites) -& even more so in lower classes vs. upper classes.


You really are just wasting my time. You even use the term "economic" in the next paragraph, explaining that all of this is simple "economics 101" (I hope the irony isn't lost on people), and yet you're still harassing me over its usage here. Screw your head on before you waste my time with this stupid, worthless objection that even you implicitly don't agree with.
- This still does not explain how these fiscal measures relate to the economy (a term I use to refer to the actual economy not budget)? You can literally chose countless criteria of sorting different groups in fiscal impact, based on race, religion, class, education, wealth, region, state, age...etc, & end up with "pest" & "drain" groups every time. Then what?... If you chose race & you have a 10-factor difference between Black & White races in terms of net-wealth, of course you're gunna end up with such results, it would be shocking not to... You still have yet to address a single point I made.


Your middle argument is dreadful. Even if the U.S. is rich enough to afford wasting money (a very debatable point), why the hell would you want to waste it anyway? Another stupid argument, and that's assuming your point that the U.S. is rich enough to have this be sustainable.
- I mentioned no such thing. Spending =/= wasting. The US is not just rich enough to afford lower tax rates, it also enjoys being the owner of USD, the reserve currency of the world, which allows it to run a +trillion $ deficit without breaking a sweat, an impossible feat for any other country, In fact, the US is one of the few countries in the world without VAT (value added tax).


Your last argument is inductive and not necessarily true, in that you assume European countries have higher taxes because the economies are struggling.
- Not struggling, just not as rich & don't own USD. The only countries in Europe with a barely higher GDP/capita are Norway, Ireland & Switzerland. The average GDP/capita in the EU is $38K, which makes the US's GDP/capita 65% higher...


Did you ever consider it's because they provide more public services? Perhaps it's due to their genetic, political persuasions? There are so many damn variables, dude. You don't know and you are just guessing -- please stop that.
- Not necessarily. The US spends per capita on healthcare alone twice as much as the most advanced European economies -like France or the UK or Germany. The US's per capita expenditure is higher than France's, despite total expenditure making up only 30% US GDP as opposed to almost half France's GDP.


-_-
- :-)


It's funny because France's budget deficit is almost identical to that of the African (and Muslim) net loss in France (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Q_bWBRrZo&t=410s). Not saying that France's budget deficit is purely because of Africans and/or Muslims, but it makes you think...
- It also makes you think how Germany has roughly the same numbers of Muslims yet boosts the highest surplus in the world... But you did not just reference a Youtube video to prove a point???  -_-  -_-  -_- 


The link doesn't work, but I think my argument is strong enough anyway, and you're almost certainly telling the truth.
- What argument?


Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre

Um did you ever consider the fact that the average African American I.Q. is 85, in that there literally won't be enough 130 I.Q. African Americans to do harder jobs (neurology, brain surgery, particle physicist etc.)?
- Assuming it is indeed 85 (I've seen lower estimates & higher up to 91), it is still more than the average White American IQ decades ago (80), thanks to the Flynn effect. Plus, there is plenty Black neurologist if that's what you're worried about, & Asian neurologists are wildly overrepresented. Then what? Is less than an outstanding number of neurologists perilous to society? 


Not to mention that the White genetic admixture would fade over time, and hence African I.Q. would regress towards a lower mean.
- I've seen studies regarding regressive trends in White population IQ in some European countries the past 2 decades (reverse Flynn effect). But you know the gap White-Black & White-Hispanic has been shrinking for a while, & according to some studies is projected to shrink even more [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4603674/]. 


These populations are not equivalent.
- The same way the White & Asian population aren't, indeed. Point?


Race is the primary way in which people construct self-identity. It's also the most important thing in terms of voting (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1448?page=5&post_number=110). Most people care far more about race than class.
- In today's America, indeed. This wasn't always the case in the West. Class is much more meaningful though. But then what?


They're a drain on their economies which serves themselves? Okay xD
- The same way Blacks & Hispanics serve the US's economy. Blacks have a higher income on average than people in New Zealand, Spain, Italy, South Korea... & in most European countries...


We wuz kingz.
- Feudal kingz yay ;-) King Canute yay


You didn't look very hard: (https://www.quora.com/Does-the-U-S-military-have-a-minimum-IQ-requirement-for-entry) explains this (https://www.usa.gov/join-military). I found these within 2 minutes.
- I heard this claim many times before, never any proof yet, it isn't quite IQ is it! First, even assuming everything there is true, the AFQT 10th-percentile relates to those enlisted in the first place, who are generally not among the best & brightest, for these tend to look for better prospects than the military. Second, Blacks are overrepresented in the armed forces, especially in the army, as opposed to Whites (there are almost as many female Black soldiers as White soldiers in the army). Assuming this reflects the corresponding distribution, 85 (or 91) average IQ, a 10th-percentile with 15 SD will fall to an IQ of 65 (72).


If your claim about White people in the 1950s is true (citation needed), then fine. The average White person couldn't perform the tasks required by the modern military in the U.S. as for the German I.Q, again, citation needed, but you're really far away from the modern I.Q. of 99 (https://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=2812). In fact, it's so far away that I'm inclined not to believe that book.
- Someone like you who almost swears by IQ should know more about this. No, it's not surprising since Westerns have been gaining IQ points (3-5 per decade) along the 20th century as they've been gaining height. The map doesn't really say much of anything. Comparative IQ is only meaningful on ceteris paribus basis & on variation basis, accounting for all factors & variables.


The real question is how can you not believe this? Do you really think there is no functional difference between 81 and 135 I.Q?
- I never said that. I have a much higher IQ than 135, & it tangibly shows. This does not mean an 81-IQ is incapacitating. According to you, 40% (or 50%) of Black Americans -& by extension 15% of White Americans- are intellectually impotent ; considering their population, this means there are many more such White individuals than Black individuals. Do you still believe that?


Are you aware that 71-84 I.Q. is classified as "Borderline Intellectual Functioning?" (http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iqclassifications.htm).
- Then over half White Americans back then (& 1 in 6 Whites today) were (are) below borderline intellectual functioning.


LOL you're applying individualist thinking to IN-GROUP POLITICS xD
'Hey, why are all these Black Conservatives voting for Obama? Don't they know that their political alignment isn't in sinc with the Democrats? They're not ****WARNING:racist:WARNING**** are they?'
- In-group loyalty isn't exclusive to racial identity, it may also extend to religious, ethnic, sectarian, class, national, sexual or political...identity. If you care about your racial identity, it doesn't mean everybody among your race does.


Why do you have an opinion on this topic? It's so thoroughly uneducated. This is literally the Dunning-Kruger effect hahaha
- You have it backwards, Miss Cassie. It seems to me you lost a bunch of IQ points just by exposing yourself to so much of this narrative. Where is the vivacious Zarroette? What do you seek to accomplish now? Black Americans are back to Africa & Hispanic Americans are back to Latin America, then what?


Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Yassine
Assuming it is indeed 85 (I've seen lower estimates & higher up to 91), it is still more than the average White American IQ decades ago (80), thanks to the Flynn effect. Plus, there is plenty Black neurologist if that's what you're worried about, & Asian neurologists are wildly overrepresented. Then what? Is less than an outstanding number of neurologists perilous to society? 
Firstly, the Black-White I.Q. gap has mountains of evidence (http://humanvarieties.org/2013/01/15/100-years-of-testing-negro-intelligence/). The times you might have seen higher or lower estimates is when they test the I.Q. of children. Genetic expression doesn't reach maturity until around the age of 24, and so the environment can greater impact the I.Qs of children than it can adults (aged 24 and up).

Secondly, the Flynn Effect is applied to both Blacks AND Whites. In other words, as the Black I.Q. has gone up, so has the White I.Q. All the Flynn Effect shows is that environment can have an impact on I.Q, which I agree with (I.Q. is approximately 80% genetic imo).

Thirdly, even if there were plenty of Black neurologists (citation needed), are they all qualified? It is a well known fact that affirmative action is essentially granting Blacks access to universities they are not qualified for (https://imgur.com/a/sKOntfC). It's not just neurology positions that require filling. Can you show that we'd be okay without White or Asian neurologists?

I've seen studies regarding regressive trends in White population IQ in some European countries the past 2 decades (reverse Flynn effect). But you know the gap White-Black & White-Hispanic has been shrinking for a while, & according to some studies is projected to shrink even more [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4603674/]. 
It's funny because I knew why the data wasn't accurate before I even read the article. Of course, it took me about 10 seconds to find that this research was done on 17 year olds. Again, genetic expression doesn't reach maturity until the age of 24. So, you're comparing data about 17 year old, who are more affect by environment, with data regarding people ages 24 and up -- not congruent.

The same way the White & Asian population aren't, indeed. Point?
You were making a point, dimwit xD

In today's America, indeed. This wasn't always the case in the West. Class is much more meaningful though. But then what?
I enjoy how you have no data or proof of your assertions here. It looks really good against the data I provided. Perhaps it's time to do what Keith does and post anecdotes to counter-act data with large sample-sizes, so that we can readily affirm you as not knowing what you're talking about.

In the mean time, sane people are going to side with my data, over your bare assertions.

The same way Blacks & Hispanics serve the US's economy. Blacks have a higher income on average than people in New Zealand, Spain, Italy, South Korea... & in most European countries...
What are you doing lol. Blacks and Hispanics have a net drain on the US economy. Comparing their income to New Zealand, which has a totally different set of variables (i.e. cost of living, market demand etc.), without addressing those variables, is laughable. This isn't even to mention the fact that you're freely using the word "economy" now, after berating me for using it without explanation as to why I'm allowed to use it.

This is comedy.

I heard this claim many times before, never any proof yet, it isn't quite IQ is it! First, even assuming everything there is true, the AFQT 10th-percentile relates to those enlisted in the first place, who are generally not among the best & brightest, for these tend to look for better prospects than the military. Second, Blacks are overrepresented in the armed forces, especially in the army, as opposed to Whites (there are almost as many female Black soldiers as White soldiers in the army). Assuming this reflects the corresponding distribution, 85 (or 91) average IQ, a 10th-percentile with 15 SD will fall to an IQ of 65 (72).
It functions as an I.Q. test lol. Does it have to say 'this is an I.Q. test' for you to believe it is one? XD

Your first point isn't supported by any data. You're just guessing. You've provided nothing to say that low I.Q. people are more likely to join the army than high I.Q. people.

Your second point relies on your first point, and since your first point is just a guess, we can't agree with its conclusions. Also, you say that there are as many female Black soldiers as White soldiers in the army, and of course, again, there is no citation. Please stop wasting everyone's time by pretending your guesses are axiomatic.

Someone like you who almost swears by IQ should know more about this. No, it's not surprising since Westerns have been gaining IQ points (3-5 per decade) along the 20th century as they've been gaining height. The map doesn't really say much of anything. Comparative IQ is only meaningful on ceteris paribus basis & on variation basis, accounting for all factors & variables.
Lol are you attempting to insult me for believing in I.Q? Haha

Anyway, lets take your (uncited claim) that Western I.Qs have been increasing throughout the 20th Century by 3-5 points. Maximally, 1919-2019 = 10 decades. 5x10=50. 3x10=30. So, WW1 Germans, according to your (uncited) opinion, had roughly an average of 49-69 I.Q. In other words, they were functionally retarded. Since White I.Q. in the U.S is comparable to German I.Q, African 1919 I.Q. (using your beloved Flynn Effect) would have been from 34-53 I.Q. This means that the average African's intelligence could have been classified as "severe mental retardation", and at best "moderate retardation" (http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iqclassifications.htm).

Perhaps before drawing wild conclusions such as 'Germans had 60 I.Q.', it's best to apply your advocated "ceteris paribus" to your own arguments.







Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Yassine
I never said that. I have a much higher IQ than 135, & it tangibly shows. This does not mean an 81-IQ is incapacitating. According to you, 40% (or 50%) of Black Americans -& by extension 15% of White Americans- are intellectually impotent ; considering their population, this means there are many more such White individuals than Black individuals. Do you still believe that?
Any proof of your I.Q. being higher than 135? Mensa acceptance? Or are you going to rely on the nebulous "it tangibly shows?"

I never claimed it was "incapacitating." I claimed that it was too low to be in the military, which is factual. Nice try in twisting my words, though. I guess I'm near enough your unassailable "much higher IQ than 135" intelligence to pick up on your tricks.

I'm not sure "intellectually impotent" is an accurate descriptor. But sure, because there are more Whites than Blacks in the U.S, it's possible that there are literally more 81 I.Q. Whites than Blacks (I haven't crunched the numbers to be sure, wholly because it doesn't matter).

Then over half White Americans back then (& 1 in 6 Whites today) were (are) below borderline intellectual functioning.
This doesn't detract from my point, and it would be nice if you actually started providing data (or at least links that work). But sure.

In-group loyalty isn't exclusive to racial identity, it may also extend to religious, ethnic, sectarian, class, national, sexual or political...identity. If you care about your racial identity, it doesn't mean everybody among your race does.
Race is primacy in politics. You are literally arguing against facts (https://imgur.com/a/MWT4uRo). Exceptions prove the rule.

You have it backwards, Miss Cassie. It seems to me you lost a bunch of IQ points just by exposing yourself to so much of this narrative. Where is the vivacious Zarroette? What do you seek to accomplish now? Black Americans are back to Africa & Hispanic Americans are back to Latin America, then what?
I want a White ethnostate that doesn't persecute Whites for being White (unlike Australia).

Every container exudes what it contains. White people are human beings, all human beings are dignified unless otherwise denigrate themselves.
Your insult missed the mark because it doesn't comment on reality. Case closed.

Miss Cassie, attacking me does not make the solution any less false. You don't have to insult me when the truth does not suit you, especially since I did not even bother to dispute the results -but the method. It is known that the average net-wealth of a White household is ten times that of a Black household, & that the US was running a $500B deficit in 2014, which amounts to about -$1.6K per capita. Without any further calculation, it is simply expected that such deficit be reflected on the fiscal impact, more so in some groups (Blacks) than others (Whites) -& even more so in lower classes vs. upper classes. [+ the next paragraph response you write]
Mathemagics is not the truth. Nobody wants to see you twist a simple calculation into quantum physics maths, outside of comedic purposes. You can't dispute the results because they're correct lol. Whites, as a whole, are a positive impact on the U.S. economy. You can divide it into lower classes versus upper classes, but nobody important cares because sane people aren't Communists, and race is primacy in regards to politics. People would rather import a whole bunch of people their own race, than another, and the literal cost is just one of the reasons why.

I mentioned no such thing. Spending =/= wasting. The US is not just rich enough to afford lower tax rates, it also enjoys being the owner of USD, the reserve currency of the world, which allows it to run a +trillion $ deficit without breaking a sweat, an impossible feat for any other country, In fact, the US is one of the few countries in the world without VAT (value added tax).
You haven't provided any numbers to show that the US is rich enough to "spend" money like this.

Also, can you please tell me why the U.S. needs should "spend" money importing people who drain the U.S. economy?

Not struggling, just not as rich & don't own USD. The only countries in Europe with a barely higher GDP/capita are Norway, Ireland & Switzerland. The average GDP/capita in the EU is $38K, which makes the US's GDP/capita 65% higher...
You literally said "struggling", and now you're arguing against your own statement hahahaha

"Much higher than 135 I.Q."

Not necessarily. The US spends per capita on healthcare alone twice as much as the most advanced European economies -like France or the UK or Germany. The US's per capita expenditure is higher than France's, despite total expenditure making up only 30% US GDP as opposed to almost half France's GDP.
It's wonderful how "most advanced" is a clearly defined term that doesn't narrow Europe down to three countries that fit your narrative, rather than give a true average of Europe. Amazing.

It also makes you think how Germany has roughly the same numbers of Muslims yet boosts the highest surplus in the world... But you did not just reference a Youtube video to prove a point???  -_-  -_-  -_- 
Firstly, I'm talking about Africans AND Muslims, rather than just Muslims. So, your comparison is already flawed from the get-go.

Secondly, you didn't provided any rebuttal to the Youtube video, other than laughing at the fact it's a Youtube video. The Youtube video actually is heavily cited work (you are allowed to cite the things you say, fyi). But your ad hom is obviously more convincing than cited work, so well done on the debunking.

What argument?
The fact that you ask this question proves that you don't have more than 135 I.Q.


Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
Firstly, the Black-White I.Q. gap has mountains of evidence (http://humanvarieties.org/2013/01/15/100-years-of-testing-negro-intelligence/). The times you might have seen higher or lower estimates is when they test the I.Q. of children. Genetic expression doesn't reach maturity until around the age of 24, and so the environment can greater impact the I.Qs of children than it can adults (aged 24 and up).
- Peaks for older adolescents, & thus adults. High heritability doesn't necessary imply "genetic expression". Regardless, no one is denying the Black-White IQ gap... For the US I seen estimates ranging from 0.7 to 1.1 SD, which is 10 to 17 IQ points. According to the study I cited previously, this gap is expected to shrink in the coming decades to 6.5 IQ points, roughly equivalent to the Black-White gap in the UK today (<0.5 SD).


Secondly, the Flynn Effect is applied to both Blacks AND Whites. In other words, as the Black I.Q. has gone up, so has the White I.Q. All the Flynn Effect shows is that environment can have an impact on I.Q, which I agree with (I.Q. is approximately 80% genetic imo).
- Indeed, but as you probably already know, the Flynn effect is much more marked in low-scoring groups (up to 5 points/decade), reason why the gap Black-White has been shrinking. I know who cited the 80% figure (Jenson), but that is discarded by the scientific community & has long been disproved. It has been proven in so many ways that environmental factors decidedly explain more than half the gap, once accounted for socioeconomic factors. It's probably more 80-20.


Thirdly, even if there were plenty of Black neurologists (citation needed), are they all qualified? It is a well known fact that affirmative action is essentially granting Blacks access to universities they are not qualified for (https://imgur.com/a/sKOntfC). It's not just neurology positions that require filling. Can you show that we'd be okay without White or Asian neurologists?
- This doesn't answer my question, is an outstanding number of neurologists essential for society? The UK has 30 times less neurologists than the US, it's doing just fine [https://www.eaneurology.org/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/Neurology_residency_training_in_Europe_02.pdf]. Greece has roughly the same average IQ as Black Americans, it's not doing too bad either. 


(citation needed),
- This is not a debate, it's a discussion. I'm not gunna bother looking for citations unless I'm doubtful about the information. Plus, you don't cite your sources either -images & videos are not citations... ;-) But if you really insist, I shall oblige. I never make stuff up.


It's funny because I knew why the data wasn't accurate before I even read the article. Of course, it took me about 10 seconds to find that this research was done on 17 year olds. Again, genetic expression doesn't reach maturity until the age of 24. So, you're comparing data about 17 year old, who are more affect by environment, with data regarding people ages 24 and up -- not congruent.
- Miss Cassie, had you actually checked the study you wouldn't be saying this, "We use the 17-years-old student group. They will form the later workforce and are the best predictor for the ability level of younger and older adults shaping the society...". & you mean 'heritability' -not particularly "genetic expression", for the former has been shown to yield overall moderate correlation, r=0.2 to r=0.7. You can understand correlation coefficient 'r' as the square root of how much variance is explained by said factor. That is, if heritability explains 4% to 50% of the variance, the corresponding coefficient is r=0.7=squareroot(50%) & r=0.2=squareroot(4%) (respectively). So 4% to 50% does not scream 'definite'...


You were making a point, dimwit xD
- I'm glad you're having a laugh, but maybe it's high time you stop with the childish insults & start with the arguments? Again, you said, "these are not equivalent populations", so are the White & Asian populations in the same sense. What is your point then?


I enjoy how you have no data or proof of your assertions here. It looks really good against the data I provided. Perhaps it's time to do what Keith does and post anecdotes to counter-act data with large sample-sizes, so that we can readily affirm you as not knowing what you're talking about.
- Can I ask what is it you majored in?


In the mean time, sane people are going to side with my data, over your bare assertions.
- Sorry to break it to you, but your data (if valid) does not support your claim...


What are you doing lol. Blacks and Hispanics have a net drain on the US economy. Comparing their income to New Zealand, which has a totally different set of variables (i.e. cost of living, market demand etc.), without addressing those variables, is laughable. This isn't even to mention the fact that you're freely using the word "economy" now, after berating me for using it without explanation as to why I'm allowed to use it.
- First, you still have to establish how Blacks & Hispanics are a net drain in the US economy (a strictly false claim, trust me). Economy =/= budget. Japan runs the third highest deficit in the world, so the Japanese must be a net drain on Japan's economy. China runs the second largest deficit in the world ($600B), the Hun Chinese must also be a net drain on the Chinese economy... yet China is one of the fastest growing economies in the world,,, Just NO! Second, Income = Real GDP/capita, i.e. GDP/capita in PPP (Purchasing Power Parity), a ratio to account for all the variables which may otherwise distort the measure (such as cost of living...). Good thing you noticed, but economists have already thought it out when they come up with these measures. Third, & again, indeed I'm using the word 'economy' to refer to the *actual* economy -unlike you, not the budget or the expenditure...


This is comedy.
- Now I know why I'm laughing... :-D
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6

It functions as an I.Q. test lol. Does it have to say 'this is an I.Q. test' for you to believe it is one? XD
- Well, not quite. There are many types of IQ tests -specialized or general. Although they corroborate each-other overall, different tests may lead to quite different sets of scores. The designation 'IQ Score' doesn't actually refer to a score, rather a statistical distribution along a Bell curve (the one that looks like a hill) in which the Mean (average, 50% on each side) is 100 & the SD (standard deviation) corresponds to 15 points, i.e moving away 1 SD on either side of the curve covers 68% of the distribution, 2 SD covers 95%. That, whatever the set of scores in whatever distribution, is forced into this fixed distribution. To avoid the obvious inconsistencies that arise from this, tests are thus unified following base distributions, & sometimes new participants are made to take older tests... all still not enough, reason why many IQ based studies lead to vastly different conclusions, despite the statistical nature of the subject. There is no reason to believe the distribution of AFQT is reconcilable with a standard IQ curve.


Your first point isn't supported by any data. You're just guessing. You've provided nothing to say that low I.Q. people are more likely to join the army than high I.Q. people.
- Aside from the incredible intuitiveness of this 'guess', the fact that Blacks are overrepresented -to the point where there are almost as many female Black soldiers as White counterparts, implies that the mean corresponds -at most- to that of the Black distribution, for otherwise Black males would have 20 times more chance at getting accepted in the army over White male, & Black females 50 times more chance, which is patently absurd (given Whites population is 5 times Black's, & 80 IQ => 10% of Whites & 40% Blacks, & that Black males & females are overrepresented by ~2 & ~5 times respectively) [https://www.cfr.org/article/demographics-us-military]. I simply can not fathom any worldly reason that would account for a 50-times disparity!


Your second point relies on your first point, and since your first point is just a guess, we can't agree with its conclusions. Also, you say that there are as many female Black soldiers as White soldiers in the army, and of course, again, there is no citation. Please stop wasting everyone's time by pretending your guesses are axiomatic.
- 'Evident' is the word. 


Lol are you attempting to insult me for believing in I.Q? Haha
- You seem to be having a lot of fun, that's nice. I wasn't insulting you, I was making the point that maybe you should be more acquainted with IQ stuff since it's such an important subject to you. 


Anyway, lets take your (uncited claim) that Western I.Qs have been increasing throughout the 20th Century by 3-5 points. Maximally, 1919-2019 = 10 decades. 5x10=50. 3x10=30. So, WW1 Germans, according to your (uncited) opinion, had roughly an average of 49-69 I.Q. In other words, they were functionally retarded. Since White I.Q. in the U.S is comparable to German I.Q, African 1919 I.Q. (using your beloved Flynn Effect) would have been from 34-53 I.Q. This means that the average African's intelligence could have been classified as "severe mental retardation", and at best "moderate retardation"
- Case in point, if you had been acquainted more with the subject, you wouldn't need a citation. The Flynn shift of 3 to 5 differs among lower & higher scoring groups. With the Flynn effect (1940s to 1990s) Black Americans gained 4-5 points/decade, while White Americans gained 3-4 points/decade... overall, Blacks gained +7 points over Whites.


Perhaps before drawing wild conclusions such as 'Germans had 60 I.Q.', it's best to apply your advocated "ceteris paribus" to your own arguments.
- Not my own conclusions. An illiterate countryman can easily score 70 or less in an IQ test. 


Any proof of your I.Q. being higher than 135? Mensa acceptance? Or are you going to rely on the nebulous "it tangibly shows?"
- This college professor made us take an IQ test, I scored 139. Though it wasn't in my native language, & I wasn't as fluent then as I'm now.


I never claimed it was "incapacitating." I claimed that it was too low to be in the military, which is factual. Nice try in twisting my words, though. I guess I'm near enough your unassailable "much higher IQ than 135" intelligence to pick up on your tricks.
- You said below "borderline intellectual functioning". I reckon you have a high IQ yourself, higher if only you stop exposing yourself to these websites & videos. ;-)


I'm not sure "intellectually impotent" is an accurate descriptor. But sure, because there are more Whites than Blacks in the U.S, it's possible that there are literally more 81 I.Q. Whites than Blacks (I haven't crunched the numbers to be sure, wholly because it doesn't matter). This doesn't detract from my point, and it would be nice if you actually started providing data (or at least links that work). But sure.
- Supposing the Black mean IQ is 90, then 35% of Blacks & 15% of Whites would fall under 85. & given Whites are 5 times the number of Blacks, this means 115% more such Whites than Blacks. If the mean IQ is 85, then 50% more said Whites than Blacks (this isn't a matter of data, it's just simple math). Either case, do you still believe all these are under borderline intellectual functioning?


Race is primacy in politics. You are literally arguing against facts. Exceptions prove the rule.
- The great irony here -according to the graph- is that 60% of Whites don't identify with ethnicity/race. So, I'm sticking with what I said, your interests don't necessarily aline with *most* Whites.


Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
I want a White ethnostate that doesn't persecute Whites for being White (unlike Australia).
- Alright. Why a *White* ethnostate? How does Australia persecute Whites for being White? (that's difficult to believe, since it's an overwhelmingly White majority country). What about the Aboriginal natives? Would you rather have a rich diverse Australia or a poor White Australia?


Your insult missed the mark because it doesn't comment on reality.
- That was not meant as an insult...


Mathemagics is not the truth. Nobody wants to see you twist a simple calculation into quantum physics maths, outside of comedic purposes.
- It's pretty basic maths...


You can't dispute the results because they're correct lol. Whites, as a whole, are a positive impact on the U.S. economy. You can divide it into lower classes versus upper classes, but nobody important cares because sane people aren't Communists, and race is primacy in regards to politics. People would rather import a whole bunch of people their own race, than another, and the literal cost is just one of the reasons why.
- I'm not disputing the results because they are patently expected. I don't need fallacious methods & dubious data to get there. When you're running a $1.1Tr budget deficit, it is necessarily bound to be reflected on the population, in some groups more than others, especially with a full order of magnitude in wealth gap. This, however, does not relate to the economy. As I said, if you omit millionaires, even Whites are gunna horde a good chunk of that fiscal deficit. This does not necessarily mean these White folks are a negative impact on the economy. On the contrary, many argue that it is the Middle Class that drives economic growth, not the Upper Class. The Upper Class is usually more geared towards Capital, while the Middle Class is usually more geared towards Labour. The latter creates real value, while the former just creates market value. You seem to be under the impression that I'm trying to "trick" you or something, I'm not. It is what it is.


You haven't provided any numbers to show that the US is rich enough to "spend" money like this.
- Please refer to previous posts. The US economy is larger than all the EU's combined, despite having 60% the population. Having the USD as the global reserve currency & petrodollar, enables the USA to print as much USD as it wants, with little repercussions. Basically, the USD is traded like a real commodity -like buying actual gold, for as long as countries around the world continue to buy more USD -for reliability or convenience. 


Also, can you please tell me why the U.S. needs should "spend" money importing people who drain the U.S. economy?
- Most immigrant ethnicities (save those from Latin America) have a higher average income than Whites, even the Syrian immigrants. Maybe the US shouldn't or doesn't need to import more people, but this is irrelevant to the topic at hand regarding Blacks & Hispanic in the US. I do believe it's in the long-term economic interest of the US to import more immigrants -not for any diversity bullsh*t, but to accumulate human capital, or otherwise significantly raise fertility rates.


You literally said "struggling", and now you're arguing against your own statement hahahaha
- Nope, din't, but you did my friend... As per usual, attacking me & hardly addressing what I say.


It's wonderful how "most advanced" is a clearly defined term that doesn't narrow Europe down to three countries that fit your narrative, rather than give a true average of Europe. Amazing.
- I'm not sure what you're on about here, but YES indeed, the US healthcare spending per capita is by far the highest in the world, dwarfing all other countries. Amazing ain't...


Firstly, I'm talking about Africans AND Muslims, rather than just Muslims. So, your comparison is already flawed from the get-go.
- This does not make your point any more valid, which has yet to address what I said btw. Having Blacks (&/or Muslims) doesn't imply having a budget deficit. Japan's deficit is 3 times France's, yet has virtually no Blacks (or Muslims).


Secondly, you didn't provided any rebuttal to the Youtube video, other than laughing at the fact it's a Youtube video. The Youtube video actually is heavily cited work (you are allowed to cite the things you say, fyi). But your ad hom is obviously more convincing than cited work, so well done on the debunking.
- I watched about 5 min of that video, no citation founded, just a load of foaming at the mouth rants. The guy sounds really angry, Coming from France, he ain't got the faintest clue what he is talking about. I lost a couple IQ points just listening to it. If this is your standard of "heavily cited" -shockingly low standards (no offense)-, then you probably need to reassess your positions. 


The fact that you ask this question proves that you don't have more than 135 I.Q.
- It was a serious question. I like discussing & arguing with you because you voice what you believe & justify what you believe, & you are not a slave to the mainstream bs. That warrants respect. But I get it, you don't like negros & spics (no offense to these wonderful people) & I'm guessing Mozlems too (or moose-limbs as they like to call us), you don't like them roaming in what you see as your White territory. & I have the sneaking feeling that even if Black Americans have higher IQ & higher income than Whites, it would't matter. Case in point, you don't like kikes either (no offense to our Jewish brothers), they do have a higher IQ & higher income than Whites. I don't know if this qualifies as racism, it doesn't matter. My question is, beyond all these guises of IQ & whatnot that don't really matter, what is the rationale the basis the foundation the idea that drives your beliefs about Whiteness & ethnic purity? Would you befriend or marry a non-White person? Do you believe all European ethnicities are equally White & equally welcome?

EternitiesGate
EternitiesGate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6
0
0
1
EternitiesGate's avatar
EternitiesGate
0
0
1
The INVADERS could care less about "AMERICA" and its idiotic Politics...they seek a place to get away with whatever they can

They understand the CORRUPT system that is called GOVERNMENT...it is why they are running away from their own version...
they have nothing to lose....the illusion of "AMERICA" is like DISNEYLAND for children...an amusement park where people go 
to ESCAPE tyranny and oppression....

In AMERICA...tyranny and oppression = DEBT - CRAPPY JOBS - STUCK IN TRAFFIC - LOUSY EDUCATION - LOUST HEALTHCARE
LOUSY NEIGHBORHOODS - WORTHLESS POLITICIANS - RED TAPE - 

Ultimately "AMERICA" is a glorified maze where the masses are drowning not thriving....Masters of ILLUSION....regardless,  it's better
than what these pathetic runaways have or had....

A wall is a necessity because HUMANS are PARASITES towards other HUMANS...there is no other natural PREDATORS of the species

So the species consumes and exterminates itself....with a simple formula....FEAR - INTIMIDATION - VIOLENCE are the tools used to
cull the masses into slavery....the few benefit from the total exploitation of the masses...SIMPLE !

A wall is a temporary barrier, if built, it's just a matter of time before it is removed and the cycle begins again...it's PLANNED TO BE THIS
WAY....just like financial planning...WAR - POVERTY - OPPRESSION are planned way ahead of time....IT's a GAME of THRONES...

YES, just like the TV series only it's played NOW with different resources and technologies....SAME GAME = SAME RESULTS...

The masses are nothing but ASSES to experiment on and with by the FEW who control them.....are YOU a PLAYER or a PAWN ?  
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Yassine
Peaks for older adolescents, & thus adults. High heritability doesn't necessary imply "genetic expression". Regardless, no one is denying the Black-White IQ gap... For the US I seen estimates ranging from 0.7 to 1.1 SD, which is 10 to 17 IQ points. According to the study I cited previously, this gap is expected to shrink in the coming decades to 6.5 IQ points, roughly equivalent to the Black-White gap in the UK today (<0.5 SD).
The reason you are getting these incorrect conclusions is because you are comparing apples and oranges. Traditionally, mature adult African Americans and Whites have been compared (i.e. 24 years of age and older). You will actually get a higher expression of genetics the older you get (up until the age of 24). Using figure 2 from this research paper (http://sci-hub.tw/10.1017/thg.2013.54), we can see that heritability of I.Q. is lower in 17 year olds than it is in 24 year olds. Hence, you need to compare the same age group -- your study doesn't.

Indeed, but as you probably already know, the Flynn effect is much more marked in low-scoring groups (up to 5 points/decade), reason why the gap Black-White has been shrinking. I know who cited the 80% figure (Jenson), but that is discarded by the scientific community & has long been disproved. It has been proven in so many ways that environmental factors decidedly explain more than half the gap, once accounted for socioeconomic factors. It's probably more 80-20.
This is really getting tedious -- it's just too easy to say something wrong, and then force the other person to spend 5 times the amount of time fixing what you wrote. But anyway...

I don't know where you got this conception from. The Black-White I.Q. gap is not shrinking. Maybe if you compare children the age of 5, wherein the environment is a strong determinent of I.Q, against older people, then you could make that conclusion (under false pretences). You didn't even cite anything here, so I don't know what you want me to say other than you're wrong lol.

As for the 80% figure, it's not an unpopular figure. Your 20-80% environmental-genetic split is certainly not the dominant view. We're equi-distance from the average of 50% heritability (https://imgur.com/a/mSqOS5L). 

It would also, again, be nice if you could use sources to support your claims, instead of spurging with wild claims backed by nothing.

This doesn't answer my question, is an outstanding number of neurologists essential for society? The UK has 30 times less neurologists than the US, it's doing just fine [https://www.eaneurology.org/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/Neurology_residency_training_in_Europe_02.pdf]. Greece has roughly the same average IQ as Black Americans, it's not doing too bad either. 
Look, I don't have research specifically on the topic of neurologist number. As for your U.K. claim, the U.K. is significantly smaller than the U.S. As for the specific threshold to when there is a dearth of neurologists, I don't know it. But you'd think, if you're importing a whole bunch of people with I.Qs. a couple points over the necessary I.Q. to get into the military, that finding neurologists out of those people, or nuclear physicists, teachers, university professors, anthropologists, laywers etc. might be quite hard.

As for proving that the UK is just "fine", please elaborate on how your paper shows that.

As for Greece, I'm pretty sure it defaulted not too long ago (and was part of the reason Brexit was pushed). Then again, I don't know a whole lot about it off the top of my head.

This is not a debate, it's a discussion. I'm not gunna bother looking for citations unless I'm doubtful about the information. Plus, you don't cite your sources either -images & videos are not citations... ;-) But if you really insist, I shall oblige. I never make stuff up.
This is not an acceptable excuse. When you make claims, you need to present data, regardless of the environment. That is how you construct a worthwhile argument. Stop being a petty drag on this discussion.

I have constantly cited sources. I'm not going to waste my time counting them up or something like that, because it's just so obvious that I've sited way more than you. Those images are the results of research (some are even tagged with the study they come from), and the videos are collaborations of research. Frankly, there's a chance you're lying about the quality of sources I'm providing, because it's bloody obvious that I'm citing frequently with quality sources. I'm not sure why you'd intentionally lie about something so empirically obvious. You need to watch what you say, champ.

Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Yassine
Miss Cassie, had you actually checked the study you wouldn't be saying this, "We use the 17-years-old student group. They will form the later workforce and are the best predictor for the ability level of younger and older adults shaping the society...". & you mean 'heritability' -not particularly "genetic expression", for the former has been shown to yield overall moderate correlation, r=0.2 to r=0.7. You can understand correlation coefficient 'r' as the square root of how much variance is explained by said factor. That is, if heritability explains 4% to 50% of the variance, the corresponding coefficient is r=0.7=squareroot(50%) & r=0.2=squareroot(4%) (respectively). So 4% to 50% does not scream 'definite'...
I've discussed the fatal flaw in your study above.

you said, "these are not equivalent populations", so are the White & Asian populations in the same sense. What is your point then?
Spanish and Black people are genetically similar, despite having similar I.Qs. Was that really too hard to comprehend?

Can I ask what is it you majored in?
No.

Sorry to break it to you, but your data (if valid) does not support your claim...
Nice. You stripped the quote out of context and made a broad, generalised (attempt at a) rebuttal. Really good argument. Everyone knows what you are talking about. They are learning so much.

First, you still have to establish how Blacks & Hispanics are a net drain in the US economy (a strictly false claim, trust me). Economy =/= budget. Japan runs the third highest deficit in the world, so the Japanese must be a net drain on Japan's economy. China runs the second largest deficit in the world ($600B), the Hun Chinese must also be a net drain on the Chinese economy... yet China is one of the fastest growing economies in the world,,, Just NO! Second, Income = Real GDP/capita, i.e. GDP/capita in PPP (Purchasing Power Parity), a ratio to account for all the variables which may otherwise distort the measure (such as cost of living...). Good thing you noticed, but economists have already thought it out when they come up with these measures. Third, & again, indeed I'm using the word 'economy' to refer to the *actual* economy -unlike you, not the budget or the expenditure...
Firstly, when you're wasting $800 Billion per annum ($200 Billion more than the second biggest deficit, according to you) for nothing more than 'muh melting pot' and 'dun be raciss', you're impacting the economy negatively. IF (and this is not the case) you were actually using that debt to build something worthwhile (a hoard of leeches and underminers isn't worthwhile), then maybe you could argue your distinction between budget and economy.

Secondly, I don't know what point of mine you are responding to.

Thirdly, you're writing as if the economy and the budget are immune from each other. When you have -$800 Billion in the budget, the economy is affected. Is that clear for you now?


I'll respond to the rest later; I've got work in the morning...

Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre

The reason you are getting these incorrect conclusions is because you are comparing apples and oranges. Traditionally, mature adult African Americans and Whites have been compared (i.e. 24 years of age and older). You will actually get a higher expression of genetics the older you get (up until the age of 24). Using figure 2 from this research paper (http://sci-hub.tw/10.1017/thg.2013.54), we can see that heritability of I.Q. is lower in 17 year olds than it is in 24 year olds. Hence, you need to compare the same age group -- your study doesn't.
- To put this to rest, just like I've been saying. The use of 17 yo assessments as data source is very common in practice, for their abundance & very high correlation with adult assessments, "at the national level measurement in student age can be taken as an approximation of the ability level of adults" "the correlation is r = .95", which is close to the measure your own source -had you checked it- provides (some 0.05 variance). This means that the variance error is at most 1 IQ point (given the gap is about 10), which is insignificant. 


This is really getting tedious -- it's just too easy to say something wrong, and then force the other person to spend 5 times the amount of time fixing what you wrote. But anyway...
- Then stop saying wrong things...


I don't know where you got this conception from. The Black-White I.Q. gap is not shrinking. Maybe if you compare children the age of 5, wherein the environment is a strong determinent of I.Q, against older people, then you could make that conclusion (under false pretences). You didn't even cite anything here, so I don't know what you want me to say other than you're wrong lol.
- I would've thought you knew about the gap shrinking.


As for the 80% figure, it's not an unpopular figure. Your 20-80% environmental-genetic split is certainly not the dominant view. We're equi-distance from the average of 50% heritability (https://imgur.com/a/mSqOS5L). 
- I've seen that one before, if I remember it had very low response rate. I like this one better, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_and_Public_Policy], 15% all environment, 1% all genetic, 45% both. Plus, I've seen many studies explaining over half the gap just by accounting for SES (socio-economic status).


It would also, again, be nice if you could use sources to support your claims, instead of spurging with wild claims backed by nothing.
- I have, if only you actually read them...


Look, I don't have research specifically on the topic of neurologist number. As for your U.K. claim, the U.K. is significantly smaller than the U.S. As for the specific threshold to when there is a dearth of neurologists, I don't know it.
- Not that smaller!


But you'd think, if you're importing a whole bunch of people with I.Qs. a couple points over the necessary I.Q. to get into the military, that finding neurologists out of those people, or nuclear physicists, teachers, university professors, anthropologists, laywers etc. might be quite hard.
- Conceding you premise, maybe not in abundance but just enough, as Whites had enough 50 years ago. If your concern is global & regional success, then I would agree, lower average IQ may lead -among other factors- to low competitiveness, which is why many believe the US & Europe will not be able to keep up or compete with China in the coming years & decades, especially in STEM fields. So, if Blacks should find it hard to compete with Whites, so should Whites find it hard to compete with Asians, especially since the latter are significantly more numerous. 


As for proving that the UK is just "fine", please elaborate on how your paper shows that.
- The UK in many ways is one of the most successful countries out there.


As for Greece, I'm pretty sure it defaulted not too long ago (and was part of the reason Brexit was pushed). Then again, I don't know a whole lot about it off the top of my head.
- Still a high income country, doing better than most. & that was due to bad policy, not IQ.


This is not an acceptable excuse. When you make claims, you need to present data, regardless of the environment. That is how you construct a worthwhile argument. Stop being a petty drag on this discussion.I have constantly cited sources. I'm not going to waste my time counting them up or something like that, because it's just so obvious that I've sited way more than you. Those images are the results of research (some are even tagged with the study they come from), and the videos are collaborations of research. Frankly, there's a chance you're lying about the quality of sources I'm providing, because it's bloody obvious that I'm citing frequently with quality sources. I'm not sure why you'd intentionally lie about something so empirically obvious. You need to watch what you say, champ. 
- Quality sources = academic, referential, official, renown sources =/= images. You could instead link to the direct study so I can look into the context & source directly.


I've discussed the fatal flaw in your study above.
- I don't know, I'll stick with "the best predictor for the ability level of younger and older adults".


Spanish and Black people are genetically similar, despite having similar I.Qs. Was that really too hard to comprehend?
- Wut??? Maybe you should go back & recollect what you were trying to say.


No.
- Kewl.


Nice. You stripped the quote out of context and made a broad, generalised (attempt at a) rebuttal. Really good argument. Everyone knows what you are talking about. They are learning so much.
- Wut??? Your source is not supportive ; you denied most Whites don't identify with race, & proceeded to quote a source that proves just that. So...


Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre

Firstly, when you're wasting $800 Billion per annum ($200 Billion more than the second biggest deficit, according to you) for nothing more than 'muh melting pot' and 'dun be raciss', you're impacting the economy negatively. IF (and this is not the case) you were actually using that debt to build something worthwhile (a hoard of leeches and underminers isn't worthwhile), then maybe you could argue your distinction between budget and economy.
- LOL! You know that money doesn't disappear, as it is put back into the economy, as opposed to the trillions & trillions in stocks & bonds in perpetual virtuality that never see the light of day. Good health & good security leads to good economy.


Secondly, I don't know what point of mine you are responding to.
- This one, "Comparing their income to New Zealand, which has a totally different set of variables (i.e. cost of living, market demand etc.), without addressing those variables, is laughable."... Not so laughable though.


Thirdly, you're writing as if the economy and the budget are immune from each other. When you have -$800 Billion in the budget, the economy is affected. Is that clear for you now?
- If it's so clear to you, why don't you explain it to us? A budget deficit is not necessarily bad for the economy. The $4T debt-deficit in quantitative easing given in bailout to the defaulting banks & corporations post-2008 recession (which btw are run by Whites) was not just not bad for US economy but critical for its maintenance. China's $600B deficit this year is also primarily aimed to stimulate the economy, rather than drain it -much of it is to help the less advantaged. Even in case the budget deficit is bad for the economy, it does not follow that a particular group of people are a drain to the economy. The middle & lower class populations -most of whom are White-  are not a drain to the economy.


I'll respond to the rest later; I've got work in the morning...
- Enjoy.

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@disgusted
A bill of rights does not bestow freedom of speech

Again you actually need to bone up before you post and spout the complete bollocks you always spout. 

The English Bill of Rights is an act that the Parliament of England passed on December 16, 1689. The Bill creates separation of powers, limits the powers of the king and queen, enhances the democratic election and bolsters freedom of speech.
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
CBP Press Conference - Current Border Crisis

Democrats See Surging Illegal Immigration Numbers as 'Opportunity,' Not a Crisis


Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
MSM predictions have been wrong about everything the last 2 years.

TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
more democrat voters for the roles.

Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Wait... the CBP says that El Paso illegal immigration is reaching breaking point, and your saying the solution is building a wall?

Where?

In front of the existing wall at El Paso?


TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Ramshutu
if it was the same wall yeah that would be pretty silly, if it was a superior wall and the existing one isn't adequate then it would make sense, are you listening to that fake news again?  LOL  when did anyone, anyone at all ever say that a wall is all that was needed?  I think the herdsman is missing you, better get back to the flock.
here you go https://duckduckgo.com/?q=el+paso+border+wall&atb=v152-2__&ia=images&iax=images  looks more like a fence you'd see at a high school baseball field.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Don't argue with him. He likes open borders and invasions from socialist dystopias.

And MSM never gets tired of losing.

We’re going to LOSE. We’re going to LOSE so much. We’re going to LOSE at enforcing fair trade with China, we’re going to LOSE at the border. We’re going to LOSE so much, you’re going to be so sick and tired of LOSING, you’re going to tune into CNN and go ‘Please, please, we can’t LOSE anymore.’ You’ve heard this one. You’ll say ‘Please, Mr. Don Lemon, please Mr. Cuomo, we beg you sirs, we don’t want to LOSE anymore. It’s too much. It’s not fair to everybody else. And Jeff Zucker is going to say ‘I’m sorry, but we’re going to keep LOSING, LOSING, LOSING, We’re going to make America Blue Again.”
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
little bo-peep is looking for him :(
the flood gates will be opened in 2020, too many drink from the democratic kool-aide believing in all the free stuff they will get.  Look how people flock to give-a-ways, trample each other on black friday.  that's what gets the turn out, empty promises that can't be fulfilled.  It's been working for a very long time.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The Romans had it right.

Bread and Circuses while the barbarians are at the gates.

The number one issue for 2020? Free healthcare for all, even illegal aliens.

Bread and Circuses.