(March 5, 2016 at 4:16 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(March 5, 2016 at 3:45 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Actually, by expanding  his comments from Mexicans to immigrants from all Latin American countries, he goes beyond being against a single nationality -- which is a bigotry in itself -- to racism, which is a specialized form of bigotry.

Simply because you refuse to see it doesn't mean it isn't there. It just means you're blind to it.

Regardless, whether it is racism or broader bigotry, it's disgusting and not a quality I personally want to see in a head of state.

Exactly. That sort of simplemindedness, combined with his thoughtless demagoguery, renders him unfit for the office.

(March 5, 2016 at 4:30 pm)scoobysnack Wrote:

(March 5, 2016 at 3:45 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Actually, by expanding  his comments from Mexicans to immigrants from all Latin American countries, he goes beyond being against a single nationality -- which is a bigotry in itself -- to racism, which is a specialized form of bigotry.

Simply because you refuse to see it doesn't mean it isn't there. It just means you're blind to it.

If he said latinos are bad people and criminals or that black people are the scum of the earth, that would be racist. I've heard some say that because he says all lives matter instead of black lives matter, he's racist against black people. It's completely backwards. And this is all people talk about, since identity is what matters most to the left. 

That has nothing to do with my point, and refutes a claim I haven't made.

I'm left to believe that you have no cogent response to my point and have therefore chosen to muddy the waters with an irrelevancy.

Quote: can't sneak into Canada or Mexico and expect what we allow immigrants to do that come across our borders.

Would you quote with a link where I said anything about illegal immigration in this thread?

(March 5, 2016 at 4:30 pm)scoobysnack Wrote: If he said latinos are bad people and criminals or that black people are the scum of the earth, that would be racist. I've heard some say that because he says all lives matter instead of black lives matter, he's racist against black people. It's completely backwards. And this is all people talk about, since identity is what matters most to the left. 

He's a bigot. Actually, many people try to ride the semantic train when it comes to justifying their own bigotry. Boohoo, but group X, Y, Z isn't a race, so I can't be racist. True, but racism is only a part of bigotry. You're still a bigot if you look down on a group of people, just because they belong to a certain group.

It's always the lowlife approach, since it's built on prejudices and nothing else.

(March 5, 2016 at 1:08 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(March 5, 2016 at 9:06 am)paulpablo Wrote: I don't know what the Stanford Binet tests are, I just used a google search to find the results.  They seemed like they might be accurate to me because I thought the results are pretty much reflected in other signs of IQ. 

Stanford-Binet is the test with which IQ is determined.

Me, I think you're using IQ and intelligence interchangeably when they are not the same thing at all.

(March 5, 2016 at 9:06 am)paulpablo Wrote: Like Asian countries are at the top, Asians earn more than most in America, tend to do better in school, Asian countries have a history of innovation when it comes to language and inventions and so on, high life expectancy, low crime rate.
  In comparison to say, the lower countries on the chart like Ethiopia with huge levels of poverty, high crime rate, corruption, high illiteracy, not much recent innovation in terms of technology.
A lot of these differences can obviously be put down to purely economic differences but I'd be willing to bet that the differences in economy can be put down to how a country performs in ways that can be expressed through intelligence, like technology, arts, finance, law, language and so on.
I'm not saying the results are all perfect or that they are due to genetics either.

I think your analysis is deeply flawed because it makes no mention of things like natural resources, location on trade routes, history of the locale where the nation is and many other factors that have absolutely nothing to do with the native intelligence of the people living there.

It's not an analysis, it's just an observation.  You have one part of the world where the inhabitants achieves high on IQ tests, a history of innovation, highly dominant in the technology market and the people from these places occupy high IQ jobs and achieve high comparatively to others in school tests, along with a long lifespan, good economy, relatively good crime rate.  
And as for natural resources, Chinese companies are mining in Africa, which leads me to believe there must be at least some natural resources that are lacking in China that are't lacking in Africa.  There are some theories that say a lack of resources is actually a cause of some groups of people developing higher intelligence, without environments rich in immediate resources people have to develop forward planning, agriculture, tools and so on. 
And then you have countries around central Africa that are basically the opposite, high crime rate, bad economy, not much innovation in recent history, no significant technological discoveries or significant technological market, they score low on the IQ tests, altogether that to me would point to the fact that maybe the inhabitants have lower IQ.

(March 5, 2016 at 6:01 pm)paulpablo Wrote: And then you have countries around central Africa that are basically the opposite, high crime rate, bad economy, not much innovation in recent history, no significant technological discoveries or significant technological market, they score low on the IQ tests, altogether that to me would point to the fact that maybe the inhabitants have lower IQ.

Sure, you're not talking about Portugal? At least that's what the rightwingers wanted us to believe around 2010, back when Portugal was in need of funds. You can add slackers to the mix, since it was one of the talking points. The same rightwingers you're supporting now. Even the same faces. They just found some new countries and groups to bash in the meantime. Since that's all they can do. Bash, to score some brownie points with the most primitive elements of any given population.

As I already said. Perfect example of lesson not learned.

(March 5, 2016 at 6:01 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(March 5, 2016 at 1:08 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Stanford-Binet is the test with which IQ is determined.

Me, I think you're using IQ and intelligence interchangeably when they are not the same thing at all.



I think your analysis is deeply flawed because it makes no mention of things like natural resources, location on trade routes, history of the locale where the nation is and many other factors that have absolutely nothing to do with the native intelligence of the people living there.

It's not an analysis, it's just an observation.  You have one part of the world where the inhabitants achieves high on IQ tests, a history of innovation, highly dominant in the technology market and the people from these places occupy high IQ jobs and achieve high comparatively to others in school tests, along with a long lifespan, good economy, relatively good crime rate.  
And as for natural resources, Chinese companies are mining in Africa, which leads me to believe there must be at least some natural resources that are lacking in China that are't lacking in Africa.  There are some theories that say a lack of resources is actually a cause of some groups of people developing higher intelligence, without environments rich in immediate resources people have to develop forward planning, agriculture, tools and so on. 
And then you have countries around central Africa that are basically the opposite, high crime rate, bad economy, not much innovation in recent history, no significant technological discoveries or significant technological market, they score low on the IQ tests, altogether that to me would point to the fact that maybe the inhabitants have lower IQ.

It is indeed an analysis, incomplete thought it is, and one with which I heartily disagree. As for the Chinese exploiting African resources, that requires money as well as intelligence. Have you factored that in? It also requires in most cases a well-developed heavy-industry sector. Have you taken that into account?

I stand by my point. Simply reiterating your, uh, opinion is no way to support it.

(March 5, 2016 at 8:35 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(March 5, 2016 at 6:01 pm)paulpablo Wrote: It's not an analysis, it's just an observation.  You have one part of the world where the inhabitants achieves high on IQ tests, a history of innovation, highly dominant in the technology market and the people from these places occupy high IQ jobs and achieve high comparatively to others in school tests, along with a long lifespan, good economy, relatively good crime rate.  
And as for natural resources, Chinese companies are mining in Africa, which leads me to believe there must be at least some natural resources that are lacking in China that are't lacking in Africa.  There are some theories that say a lack of resources is actually a cause of some groups of people developing higher intelligence, without environments rich in immediate resources people have to develop forward planning, agriculture, tools and so on. 
And then you have countries around central Africa that are basically the opposite, high crime rate, bad economy, not much innovation in recent history, no significant technological discoveries or significant technological market, they score low on the IQ tests, altogether that to me would point to the fact that maybe the inhabitants have lower IQ.

It is indeed an analysis, incomplete thought it is, and one with which I heartily disagree. As for the Chinese exploiting African resources, that requires money as well as intelligence. Have you factored that in? It also requires in most cases a well-developed heavy-industry sector. Have you taken that into account?

I stand by my point. Simply reiterating your, uh, opinion is no way to support it.

In relation to the resources question, that's the point I was making. Tool manipulation, the ability to gain resources, forward planning, team work, industry, delayed gratification that comes with forward planning. They point to higher intelligence.
Selling the land you have for instant gratification and resources without forward planning, with no thought about industry, can be signs of low intelligence.

(March 5, 2016 at 11:28 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(March 5, 2016 at 8:35 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: It is indeed an analysis, incomplete thought it is, and one with which I heartily disagree. As for the Chinese exploiting African resources, that requires money as well as intelligence. Have you factored that in? It also requires in most cases a well-developed heavy-industry sector. Have you taken that into account?

I stand by my point. Simply reiterating your, uh, opinion is no way to support it.

In relation to the resources question, that's the point I was making. Tool manipulation, the ability to gain resources, forward planning, team work, industry, delayed gratification that comes with forward planning. They point to higher intelligence.
Selling the land you have for instant gratification and resources without forward planning, with no thought about industry, can be signs of low intelligence.

Or desperation. Or being chased off the land by a religious rebellion or autocrat.

There are several possibilities. The fact that you stick to your own, and beg the question in your reply, says much about the (lack of) depth of thinking you've given this topic.

(March 5, 2016 at 5:34 pm)abaris Wrote:

(March 5, 2016 at 4:30 pm)scoobysnack Wrote: If he said latinos are bad people and criminals or that black people are the scum of the earth, that would be racist. I've heard some say that because he says all lives matter instead of black lives matter, he's racist against black people. It's completely backwards. And this is all people talk about, since identity is what matters most to the left. 

He's a bigot. Actually, many people try to ride the semantic train when it comes to justifying their own bigotry. Boohoo, but group X, Y, Z isn't a race, so I can't be racist. True, but racism is only a part of bigotry. You're still a bigot if you look down on a group of people, just because they belong to a certain group.

It's always the lowlife approach, since it's built on prejudices and nothing else.

I would say everyone to an extent is bigoted in one form or another.

Full Definition of bigot
:  a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :  one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

Everything is relative.

(March 2, 2016 at 10:35 am)KUSA Wrote:

(March 2, 2016 at 10:30 am)abaris Wrote: But it says something on Trump, if a man like Duke endorses him.

And what does it say? Shit, even Louis Farrakhan likes him.

Oh wow two psychopath, sociipath racists like the hairpiece. That really changes my mind, he truly is the right man to lead the US to glory.