Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Black people are dumbFollow

#302 Oct 18 2007 at 8:34 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,261 posts
Grandfather Barkingturtle wrote:
Oh, sorry.

I totally skipped the middle three pages of this thread.


In that case, you missed the whole sexism de-rail.
#303 Oct 18 2007 at 8:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Daboder da Basher wrote:
Grandfather Barkingturtle wrote:
Oh, sorry.

I totally skipped the middle three pages of this thread.
In that case, you missed nothing.
Agreed.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#304 Oct 18 2007 at 10:59 PM Rating: Decent
Samira wrote:
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Samira wrote:
Neanderthals knew how to be natural men. Are we worse off than Neanderthals, or better?

Go live in a cave for a few years and post back and let us know.


Yes, yes, we now have air conditioning and According to Jim and all that.

But are we really better off? Why are we all posting on these forums while we're supposed to be working?


Because I don't have to spend 16 hours a day picking nits and finding enough acorns and what not to survive on, you yutz.



Sounds like your ancestors were squirrels.
#305 Oct 19 2007 at 12:13 AM Rating: Default
I semi-agree with him, though not on the "intelligence" matter.

I'm fairly certain that different "races" if you will - may be "wired" differently.

I've only met ONE black man - in my entire life - that DID NOT like rap. Now, I can't say I live in an area that is racially diverse...there was only one black guy in my graduating class in highschool. Also, he was retarded - literally, though him being retarded and being black are two seperate issues.(hope my word choices don't offend anybody, I just call them like I see them)There were a total of maybe 10 black people living within the small town I grew up in(and interacted with regularly, I'm sure there were more) I've met many black people on the internet and during times of travel.

To anyone who's willing to respond - I have a couple questions?

1. Is it politically correct to refer to people as "black"?

2. Is the word retarded ok?

My opinions on those two questions are as follows:

In response to number one, I do not like referring to people as "African American". It seems silly to me that we need to sub-categorize a group of Americans based on something as trivial as skin color. Do Black British people get called Afro-something? I'm also not fond of using the word "colored" either - as I myself am a rather orangish-brown color.


In response to number 2, what is so wrong with the word retarded? Back when I was in elementary school we got in trouble for saying retarded and told that "mentally impaired" was "the better word for it".

Now hold on...retarded by it's roots just means "slow"... "mentally impaired" means your brain is ******* I'd rather be called retarded.

There was also that "mentally challenged" thing - again...it implies your mind's own existance causes challenge, no? I'd much rather be called retarded...
Another gripe is the term "special needs" - WHAT THE FUCK?!

A blind man has special needs - but we don't refer to him as a "special needs person"

A deaf person will, most usually - have special needs...we don't call them "special needs"

A person in a wheelchair has special needs - which opens a whole nother can of worms(do we call them handi-capped? "differently-abled"? seriously? what?!)

So why do we feel the need to make up special words to describe those who are afflicted with mental retardation?

/end thoughts

As a white man, with a supposed IQ of 127 - I would suppose that my thoughts or feelings on these issues hold little to no weight - which is why I am hoping for others to answer my questions.

*not really interested in hearing what people with mentally retarded family members or children have to say - feel free to contribute - just know that I probably won't read what you post(though I'm sure others may) as I am of the belief that people who have to live with mentally retarded individuals on a daily basis would have the greatest amount of bias.
#306 Oct 19 2007 at 12:42 AM Rating: Good
His Excellency Soracloud wrote:
If he has scientific findings to back it, you can't call it racist can you?




My sentiments exactly, people once again are taking research and turning it into some "super scheme" to overthrow society Smiley: oyvey. They did it with Evolutionary Theory, and Planetary Plate Tectonic Theory back in the day so why not this one?


Here we have a highly credited geneticist, many consider him a great pioneer in the field. As a scientist, part of your duties is not to take things and believe them to be true because it gives everyone a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling inside. Because of this, scientists and science in general has come under the gun before, this isn't the first.


Fact of the matter is, I don't believe he reported his findings to be some dickhead. He did research and presented his findings, you'd have to either be A) retarded or B) have no clue how science works to believe that no other scientist is going to try to refute his findings (especially a black scientist). despite the fact that if he didn't have reasonable evidence to his conclusions I seriously doubt he is just going to throw his reputation away like that.


Finally, did any one of you stop to find information that lead to his conclusion? Did you stop and realize that you are criticizing a man who knows much more about genetics than any single one of us hope to understand.

This is typical crap media does, they take one thing, and blow it out of proportion and now science is being Mr. Bad Guy to all blacks.Smiley: oyvey

He is doing research, he isn't trying to victim anyone.
#307 Oct 19 2007 at 12:59 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Himmelskralle wrote:
1. Is it politically correct to refer to people as "black"?

It is somewhat acceptable now and gaining acceptance. Whether it is the syllable count or people finally realizing "African-American" is an incredibly inaccurate term, I am unsure, but the descriptor "black" is fairly common in American media.

I do not happen to be black, but have spent far too much time with black friends to be oblivious to how they feel on the issue. Were an ebony acquaintance to attempt correcting me I would laugh.
#308 Oct 19 2007 at 1:26 AM Rating: Default
Anyone else see that South Park where Stan's dad was on wheel of fortune and answered wrongly to this question?

People who annoy you:

N_ggers.





The answer was naggers by the way.




So then afterwards he was known as that guy that said that word on TV. (personally i don't like saying that word, hurts me inside no matter who uses it)

Anyway, I find all these equality debates funny. As said in that episode:

This is how Stan understood racism(the same can probably be applied to sexism as well): The way he get's it, is that he doesn't get it.

This can be applied to all forms of racism and sexism. That's why these kinds of debates will never end.

No one KNOWS exactly what other people go through. Even that person that went through it doesn't understand the entire scope of it. We're all tiny little speks of existance in a huge farging galaxy in an infinite universe.

What needs to be understood is that we don't understand. Have a little compasion for EVERY side of the argument. We don't have long here anyway.


I also firmly believe racism and sexism is just a tool used by the man. Afterall, none of us here is the man. I doubt the man posts on forums, eats lunch at Jack in the Box and all that crap. When we start hating each other, it only becomes an easier situation for the man to control. Racism especially is a good example of this.


Edit: I'll be the first to admit i'm not very good at conveying my own thoughts. My hands are more of an extension of my thoughts than a precise instrument used for implimenting a message my brain wants to get across. Some minor tweaking here and there.

Edited, Oct 19th 2007 5:29am by ZelgadisXI
#309 Oct 19 2007 at 4:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Dread Lord Rimesume wrote:
His Excellency Soracloud wrote:
If he has scientific findings to back it, you can't call it racist can you?
My sentiments exactly, people once again are taking research and turning it into some "super scheme" to overthrow society.
I guess my point was that, short of proving it at the physical level via genetics or neurons per square cubic centimeter or something, I'm extremely hesistant to say any group of people are innately less intelligent than another. There's too many other, non-physical, factors to divorce from the equation.
Quote:
Fact of the matter is, I don't believe he reported his findings to be some dickhead. He did research and presented his findings, you'd have to either be A) retarded or B) have no clue how science works to believe that no other scientist is going to try to refute his findings (especially a black scientist).
Yes, his in depth research such as: "He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal [in intelligence] but 'people who have to deal with black employees find this not true'."

He doesn't have "findings" or "research". He was speaking to a newspaper and opining about the state of human affairs, not publishing in Nature. Now, I don't doubt that he has read studies over his lifetime but let's not pretend that he's being attacked for some body of work he's created proving this idea. He was just bullshitting with a newspaper in advanmce of a book tour for a book having nothing to do with the topic of black intelligence.

Edited, Oct 19th 2007 7:32am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#310 Oct 19 2007 at 5:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
trembling wrote:
Samira wrote:
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Samira wrote:
Neanderthals knew how to be natural men. Are we worse off than Neanderthals, or better?

Go live in a cave for a few years and post back and let us know.


Yes, yes, we now have air conditioning and According to Jim and all that.

But are we really better off? Why are we all posting on these forums while we're supposed to be working?


Because I don't have to spend 16 hours a day picking nits and finding enough acorns and what not to survive on, you yutz.



Sounds like your ancestors were squirrels.


Don't judge me! Smiley: mad
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#311 Oct 19 2007 at 5:21 AM Rating: Decent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
gbaji wrote:
He's basically saying that if the science says one thing, we ought to be looking at that rather then just ignoring it because our social rules say we shouldn't believe the results.


No, he's basically saying "Africa is a mess, ergo Africans r teh dum."
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#312 Oct 19 2007 at 5:27 AM Rating: Decent
Himmelskralle no they don't get called afro-something they get called "Hey look george it's one o' them brown peoples".
#313 Oct 19 2007 at 5:38 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,261 posts
Himmelskralle, ****** Superhero wrote:

1. Is it politically correct to refer to people as "black"?


And why wouldn't it be? Blacks don't go around calling all white people "caucasins" do they? They use the term "white". And "colored", to me, seems like the most derogatory term, as if to say "They're just like a normal person, only colored", which just by using that one word makes them appear different than everyone else.

Himmelskralle, ****** Superhero wrote:

2. Is the word retarded ok?


Why not? It's correct. Unless you're speaking about someone who isn't retarded. I have an aunt who is mentally retarded, and that's what we've always called her. No derogatory intent.

Edited, Oct 19th 2007 8:39am by Daboder
#314 Oct 19 2007 at 5:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Incidentally, here is the Times article all the quotes are from. Again, he wasn't presenting this as some greater study or research finding. In fact, he was largely referring to anecdotal "data" such as "folks who work with blacks know they're not equal in intelligence" and "I can't find a colored girl to work in my lab".

While it's true that science should be observed for what it is, let's not mistake Watson's opinions during an interview for "science".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#315 Oct 19 2007 at 5:40 AM Rating: Good
Daboder da Basher wrote:
Himmelskralle, ****** Superhero wrote:

1. Is it politically correct to refer to people as "black"?


And why wouldn't it be? Blacks don't go around calling all white people "caucasins" do they? They use the term "white". And "colored", to me, seems like the most derogatory term, as if to say "They're just like a normal person, only colored", which just by using that one word makes them appear different than everyone else.

Himmelskralle, ****** Superhero wrote:

2. Is the word retarded ok?


Why not? It's correct. Unless you're speaking about someone who isn't retarded. I have an aunt who is mentally retarded, and that's what we've always called her. No derogatory intent.

Edited, Oct 19th 2007 8:39am by Daboder


Smiley: thumbsup
#316 Oct 19 2007 at 5:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Incidentally, here is the Times article all the quotes are from. Again, he wasn't presenting this as some greater study or research finding. In fact, he was largely referring to anecdotal "data" such as "folks who work with blacks know they're not equal in intelligence" and "I can't find a colored girl to work in my lab".

While it's true that science should be observed for what it is, let's not mistake Watson's opinions during an interview for "science".


That's the danger of when an expert in a field speaks out about something. People assume that what they talking about is based off of their studies. This case shows that its not always the case. Personally speaking, the Times should have just ignored his racist, baseless remarks but that wouldn't sell papers.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#317 Oct 19 2007 at 5:52 AM Rating: Decent
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
That's the danger of when an expert in a field speaks out about something. People assume that what they talking about is based off of their studies. This case shows that its not always the case. Personally speaking, the Times should have just ignored his racist, baseless remarks but that wouldn't sell papers.


Yep, because truth in journalism has been an extinct concept for quite some time. Only those fresh out of a journalism major still believe in it, and only until they get their first big job.

And even smart people have their stupid moments. After all, a great scholar once wrote that 95% of the world is stupid 95% of the time.
#318 Oct 19 2007 at 6:08 AM Rating: Good
StubsOnAsura the Wise wrote:
Yep, because truth in journalism has been an extinct concept for quite some time. Only those fresh out of a journalism major still believe in it, and only until they get their first big job.


That's not true. Smiley: glare
#319 Oct 19 2007 at 6:11 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
That's not true. Smiley: glare


Stop denying it Bel, your hubby sold his soul to the devil. Atleast he had one though Smiley: glare

But seriously, its just Stubs and his love of generalization. God forbid that maybe the editor of the paper may have seen the notes and said add that in.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#320 Oct 19 2007 at 6:12 AM Rating: Decent
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
StubsOnAsura the Wise wrote:
Yep, because truth in journalism has been an extinct concept for quite some time. Only those fresh out of a journalism major still believe in it, and only until they get their first big job.


That's not true. Smiley: glare


Is too. Smiley: lol
#321 Oct 19 2007 at 6:12 AM Rating: Good
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Stop denying it Bel, your hubby sold his soul to the devil. Atleast he had one though Smiley: glare


That's ok, Ugly, you can borrow my soul. Smiley: smile

Not that it'll do you much good where heaven is concerned.
#322 Oct 19 2007 at 6:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Oh, and just to keep babbling, my other major complaint with his statements is that "blacks" or even "Africans" seems far too large a group to draw meaningful conclusions from. Africans exhibit the greatest range in several physical traits such as body height, skin coloration, etc. Although we've determined that specific sub-populations of people have adapted differently (body proportions in Eskimos, heart-size in Andean natives, diminutive stature in Pygmies, etc) those can't be extended to say that all South American natives have larger hearts or all Arctic dwelling people have measurably shorter limbs. Even old workhorses such as sickle-cell are divided into separate haplotypes dependant upon where they originated and exclude southern and eastern Africa.

In other words, saying that a group as large and varied as "Africans" share a common intelligence trait seems to be an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence. For which "you know this by working with them" doesn't remotely apply.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#323 Oct 19 2007 at 7:04 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,261 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Oh, and just to keep babbling, my other major complaint with his statements is that "blacks" or even "Africans" seems far too large a group to draw meaningful conclusions from. Africans exhibit the greatest range in several physical traits such as body height, skin coloration, etc. Although we've determined that specific sub-populations of people have adapted differently (body proportions in Eskimos, heart-size in Andean natives, diminutive stature in Pygmies, etc) those can't be extended to say that all South American natives have larger hearts or all Arctic dwelling people have measurably shorter limbs. Even old workhorses such as sickle-cell are divided into separate haplotypes dependant upon where they originated and exclude southern and eastern Africa.

In other words, saying that a group as large and varied as "Africans" share a common intelligence trait seems to be an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence. For which "you know this by working with them" doesn't remotely apply.


Good point. But that also supports the notion that "sub-populations" as you put it, could have a lower/higher intelligence level trait as well.
#324 Oct 19 2007 at 7:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Daboder da Basher wrote:
Good point. But that also supports the notion that "sub-populations" as you put it, could have a lower/higher intelligence level trait as well.
Sure. But Watson didn't say that the San Bushmen have a genetically lower intelligence. He said that "Africans" did. There's a world of difference.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#325 Oct 19 2007 at 7:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Daboder da Basher wrote:
Good point. But that also supports the notion that "sub-populations" as you put it, could have a lower/higher intelligence level trait as well.
Sure. But Watson didn't say that the San Bushmen have a genetically lower intelligence. He said that "Africans" did. There's a world of difference.


Or at least a continent.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#326 Oct 19 2007 at 7:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I was going to make that joke after the fact but didn't feel like editing Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 236 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (236)