1. Blacks have a far higher stranger violent crime rate than whites.
In some American communities this is true. Why? Isn't Hunter claiming that blacks are more likely to be violent due to their skin color? In his world there are no ideas they have chosen to hold that would account for being quicker to initiate violence. By iignoring the relationship between ideas and actions, Hunter becomes a neanderthal racist. ------------------------------
IQ is a standardized test that purports to measure intelligence. I don't have the time nor inclination to use this post to go into that. I'll just say that it does NOT measure intelligence. There are serious problems with each of the many variants (Stanford Binet, Wechler Adult, etc). Hunter is claiming that blacks are less intelligent (as a group). Hunter is a racist. --------------------------
"...average intellectual inferiority of blacks compared with whites is that if they are in fact as smart as whites then their average failure in society compared to whites must be due to society and whites, not to themselves. Therefore they are right to feel resentment at that society and whites. Like a Leftist Steve ladles self-righteous hatred into the less intelligent blacks."
He calls me a leftist and that is just bizarre! He claims that blacks must be lest intelligent because, on average, they have a higher failure rate. Again, he ignores the role of ideas in humans. If one group of whites took up the ideas of Jim Jones and committed kool-aid, that dosn't mean that something in the genes was responsible. It means that they took up some ideas that harmed their ability to cope with reality. Hunter doesn't want to see that. It gets in the way of his desire to support a racist creed.
About defined subgroups: If you focus on a subgroup of higher average intelligence or whatever of blacks, then blacks in that group on average will have higher intelligence or whatever, duh.
If you want to focus on a subgroup try sub-Saharan, average IQ 70. Or Australian aborigines, 65. But those subgroups would not serve Steve’s purpose.
About IQ: There is such a thing as intelligence. I agree that IQ is not a direct measure of intelligence. But however you measure intelligence (it’s difficult to pin down), IQ is very correlated with it.
I wouldn’t call Steve a flat out Leftist. In the delimited subject at hand he plays into their hands. Again, if you maintain that on average blacks are as intelligent and other positive adjectives as whites, people will blame average black inferiority in other areas (income, violent crime etc.) on whites. This is how Leftists argue.
Speaking of dissent reminds me of Edward Powell’s excellent website. Only two articles so far but they are substantial: Objective Dissent — dissent as in dissenting from the people at the (misnamed) Ayn Rand Institute. Amy Peikoff, you might recall, had Ed on her BlogTalkRadio show a while back when for a brief period she allowed discussion from immigration patriots.
If I were tested on my ability to find water in the desert, hunt game, etc., I'd get a pretty low score. If I were tested on my ability to raise crops or tend herds (both of which have historically been done in sub-Saharan Africa), I probably wouldn't do much better. This does not mean I'm stupider than the people who do well at such things. It means that different people are good at different things. This is partly due to circumstances and partly due to variations in ability.
To the extent that anyone, black or otherwise, does a bad job of making choices, it's that person's fault. To the extent that blacks have disadvantages because of the effects of a history of slavery, Jim Crow, and individual anti-black racism, it is the fault of the perpetrators of those misdeeds, who were and are mostly white. It would be blatant racism to blame this on all whites. To the extent that government interference has slowed down the process of overcoming these disadvantages, it is the fault of anyone who supported such government interference, black, white, or other. (Support of government interference can be an honest mistake, a moral fault, or a mixture.)
Leftists will argue that the Great Depression proves the need for government interference. This does not mean the Great Depression was really OK, and it does not mean the Great Depression was the result of stupidity or moral failings on the part of people who lost jobs and businesses. It means we need to do a better job of analyzing it than the leftists do.
When something is true, it is supported by other known truths and leads to other truths, some of those previously unknown, or discovered much later. The Pythagorean Theoren is a perfect example. We have tables of Pythgorean Triples (3-4-5, 5-12-13,...) in cuneiform, created thousands of years before the first logical proof. From that golden age of Greek geometry, extending into our time, actually, come hundreds of proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem. Moreover, it is supported by an entire branch of algebra called quaternions, unknown to anyone until about 150 years ago. An example of a falsehood is spontaneous generation of animals. First of all, empirical experiments will demonstrate that it fails. In addition, there are metaphysical arguments against it. Moreover, the theory does not lead to any new truths, i.e., there is no way to contruct a spontaneous generator. That is to say, if we accept that mosquitos are sponteanously generated in standing water what would it take to build a spontaneous generator for horses?
In this topic thread falsehoods are abundant.
KZ: "Those adults, and their kids, who are objectively examined, and then found to commit crime, go on welfare, vote for tyranny, degrade the culture, speak English poorly, and fundamentally dislike America -- mostly to an exceptionally high degree -- should all be thrown the hell out. "
This is six measures:
go on welfare
vote for tyranny
degrade the culture
speak English poorly
fundamentally dislike America
(A) Does a person have to meet all six, or three of six, or one of six? No objective answer can exist because the so-called "standard" is non-objective. I don't know about Kyrel's English, but when I was a kid, I learned to ask to speak to John in Ukrainian because John's parents did not speak English well. Maybe they should have been deported. Of course, my grandparents had the same problem. But, then, so did our hillbilly neighbors. And their hillbilly kids tended to do poorly in school, whereas the immigrant kids did much better. So, by Kyrel's standards, we should deport all White Anglo-Saxon Protestants from West Virginia. Of course, that is nonsense. Maybe Kyrel has never heard of Homer Hickam -- whose ignorant colonial reject ancestors could not even spell their own family name correctly: Highham.
(B) It is easy to argue that people who voted for Donald Trump voted for tyranny. It is famous (or infamous) that Ayn Rand used her federally-guaranteed old age benefits on theory that she paid for them in advance. But, by Keynesian economics, we all do, especially the poor. The poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. As for who "fundamentally dislikes America" I find it ironic that so-called patriots, self-styled patriots claim that American had been on the wrong path for over 100 years (or longer). Obvioulsy, they dislike America and should get out, go to Switzerland or the Caymen Islands or wherever they think they can find truer forms of real capitalism. Maybe we should deport them now.
I am not advocating anything in (A) or (B), but only showing the horrendous logical and empirical problems in Zanonavitch's assertions.
KZ: "Please consider: Pit bulls today have different behaviors than golden retrievers, despite both being of the same species."
That is not true. It depends on how the animal was raised. And even so, animials learn new behaviors. It was believed after World War II that all of the K-9 corps dogs would have to be destroyed because they were taught to attack and kill. But the truth was discovered to be different than that. Today, police departments have K-9 Cops and it is pretty much up the animal to the extent of its cognitive limitations whether it lives out a quiet retirement or not. Again, this is merely another example of how Zanonavitch's fallacious arguments contradict reality.
Among the many fallacies in Mark Hunter's posts is that of the unnamed collective. Race does not exist. No genetic markers can be found to identify the so-called "race" of an individual. "Race" is an ascribed characteristic.
The person on the far left said that she was Black, but no one agreed. The person in the middle is as Asian as it gets. However, the person on the far right is probably just as Asian. Race has no meaning. So, Mark Hunter's claims are groundless. He confuses socio-economic groups with "races" of his own invention. As for crime, we have had that discussion here, also. As a card-carrying criminologist, I assure you all that statistically, there are ways to diminish crime in your neighborhood, but so-called "rich white" neighborhoods have just as much crime (of all kinds) as so-called "poor black" neighborhoods. The difference is in the police response. Wealth brings advantages. Speaking to the point of so-called "stranger crime" the fact is that in communities where everyone is a stranger, there is less crime -- or so the crime reports seem to show. In terms of the cab driver (having been one myself three times in my working life), the crime reports actually do not recognize that as "stranger assault" because of the actual contractual relationship between the driver and passenger. For a far-out example:
1 lawyer killed, another wounded at Bixby Knolls law office; reportedly fired partner takes own life
(It is high time that we realized that even though some individual lawyers are moral, lawyers as a collective are immoral--or so Mark Hunter would have us believe.)
MH: About IQ: There is such a thing as intelligence. I agree that IQ is not a direct measure of intelligence. But however you measure intelligence (it’s difficult to pin down), IQ is very correlated with it.
Admitting that IQ tests do not measure intelligence, which he admits is hard to define, Mark Hunter then asserts that IQ tests are "very correlated" with intelligence. "Very correlated" is a meaningless phrase. It sounds objective and measurable, but it is not either of those.
MH: If you want to focus on a subgroup try sub-Saharan, average IQ 70. Or Australian aborigines, 65. But those subgroups would not serve Steve’s purpose.
When I attended the College of Charleston, the psychology professor got a reaction from the class by pointing out that colored people in the North score higher on IQ tests than do white people from the South. His point, of course, was that IQ tests are culturally-based and culturally biased. I will note this, however, from a previous discussion on RoR about "The Success of the WEIRD People" (Western Educated Industrialized Rational Democratic) regardless of how "primitive" (so-called) their cultural background, those third world people who were monetized (even once removed) could conceptualize that a larger coin could be worth less than a smaller coin. That speaks to the so-called "Flynn Effect."
Korben Dallas: We get name-calling and an Objectivist bromide, a typical Randroid. “A is A” really puts a man in his place, LOL.
Doug Morris: I agree with everything he wrote but it seems to me he is talking around the hard part of the subject.
As Korben points out, A is A and people do have identities. I can’t will myself into being a frog. And no matter how much I were to try I wouldn’t be able to dance like Fred Astaire. I could improve myself but I simply do not have the capacity to become a professional of his caliber.
Few African pygmies (average IQ several standard deviations below 100) will win the Nobel Prize in science.
That’s an extreme example. The main point is that people of lower IQ make undesirable immigrants. The survivors of Justine Damond know this, see here and here. The cop who murdered her thought an unarmed blonde in a bathrobe was a threat to his person. Sure, blame affirmative action, but that doesn’t make this piece of Somali trash any the more desirable as an immigrant.
The IQ business is just frosting. There will be psychic friction between blacks, whites, asians, and amerindians no matter what their IQs.
Israel is in many respects a rotten country but one thing they get right is their immigration policy.
Michael E. Marotta: After a fractured history of the Pythagorean Theorem and a digression into the spontaneous generation of animals MEM makes a few points.
“Race does not exist.” For proof we are given mulattos and quadroons or whatever. But of course race does exist, I’m not going to argue the obvious. (Even MEM agrees. If race didn’t exist then what I’m writing wouldn’t apply to anything and a true race denialist wouldn’t worry over me.)
Of what MEM calls six “measures” that Kyrel mentioned, any of them ought to be sufficient reason to denaturalize and deport.
MEM writes “It is easy to argue that people who voted for Donald Trump voted for tyranny.” LOL. Actually it would be extraordinarily difficult to argue that, especially given his opponent Hillary.
People who know dogs know that different breeds differ in behavior. We conclude that MEM does not know dogs, LOL.
About IQ and intelligence I should have written “highly correlated” instead of “very correlated” but the meaning was clear enough. My statement was vague, it has to be because, as I said, intelligence is hard to pin down. But really now, smart people do well on IQ tests and stupid people don’t.
I’ve lived in both the North and South and I don’t believe MEM’s Charleston professor. There is a trick somewhere, such as taking a subgroup of the group of northern blacks and a subgroup of the group of southern whites.
In any case, even if what he says were true it wouldn’t undermine anything I’ve said about the IQ of Africans. I guess MEM believes that if he brought over any African pygmy baby and sent him to Montessori nursery and elementary school, and Phillips Academy, and Harvard then he might win a Nobel Prize in Physics. Permit me to doubt it, LOL.