Total Posts:165|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Harm of Ethnic Diversity

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 3:56:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
People have a tendency to favor their own ethnicity over others. This is known as ethnic nepotism. Because people favor people that are more genetically similiar to themselves, they tend to prefer their own ethnicity.

It is a fact of nature that humans prefer to live in ethnically homogeneous societies. It is also a fact that ethnic diversity leads to more conflict and less social trust.

Robert Putnam, a Harvard Professor, did a mass study of diverse communities. As a progressive, he was hoping to find that diversity leads to better social outcomes. However, he instead found that diversity leads to social WITHDRAWAL and less trust.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

This is what his data finds. In contrast to his own findings, Putnam claims that:

"In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits."

Why does he claim this even when his own data shows that diverse communites are far worse off?

Because, he does not offer any evidence to support this claim. All his evidence supports this finding in his own study:

"immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital."

The reason, however, that Putnam claims that, without any data, diversity is good in the long run is that in acadamia and the general public, divesrsity is a unquestionable good.

We have been taught that more diversity is always better and any other view is "racist".

However, it is nearly universal that diversity is a bad thing. We know ethnic diversity leads to more conflicts:

http://jpr.sagepub.com...

So, why do we continue to push diversity when it is well known that it does harm?

Also, this is the page about ethnic nepotism, with many studies on diversity linked on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
President of DDO
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 4:50:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 3:56:54 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
People have a tendency to favor their own ethnicity over others. This is known as ethnic nepotism. Because people favor people that are more genetically similiar to themselves, they tend to prefer their own ethnicity.

It is a fact of nature that humans prefer to live in ethnically homogeneous societies. It is also a fact that ethnic diversity leads to more conflict and less social trust.

Robert Putnam, a Harvard Professor, did a mass study of diverse communities. As a progressive, he was hoping to find that diversity leads to better social outcomes. However, he instead found that diversity leads to social WITHDRAWAL and less trust.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...


This is what his data finds. In contrast to his own findings, Putnam claims that:

"In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits."

Why does he claim this even when his own data shows that diverse communites are far worse off?

Because, he does not offer any evidence to support this claim. All his evidence supports this finding in his own study:

"immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital."


The reason, however, that Putnam claims that, without any data, diversity is good in the long run is that in acadamia and the general public, divesrsity is a unquestionable good.

We have been taught that more diversity is always better and any other view is "racist".

However, it is nearly universal that diversity is a bad thing. We know ethnic diversity leads to more conflicts:

http://jpr.sagepub.com...


So, why do we continue to push diversity when it is well known that it does harm?



Also, this is the page about ethnic nepotism, with many studies on diversity linked on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

--I can see where diversity leads to conflict in the short term. I'm not convinced that diversity is bad though. I think that the long term benefits such as increased racial tolerance and genetic mixing would outweigh any short term harm. Also, the negative effects would tend to fade with time while the positive would get stronger.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 4:52:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yeah, for racists like you, maybe.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 4:54:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 4:50:54 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/27/2011 3:56:54 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
People have a tendency to favor their own ethnicity over others. This is known as ethnic nepotism. Because people favor people that are more genetically similiar to themselves, they tend to prefer their own ethnicity.

It is a fact of nature that humans prefer to live in ethnically homogeneous societies. It is also a fact that ethnic diversity leads to more conflict and less social trust.

Robert Putnam, a Harvard Professor, did a mass study of diverse communities. As a progressive, he was hoping to find that diversity leads to better social outcomes. However, he instead found that diversity leads to social WITHDRAWAL and less trust.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...


This is what his data finds. In contrast to his own findings, Putnam claims that:

"In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits."

Why does he claim this even when his own data shows that diverse communites are far worse off?

Because, he does not offer any evidence to support this claim. All his evidence supports this finding in his own study:

"immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital."


The reason, however, that Putnam claims that, without any data, diversity is good in the long run is that in acadamia and the general public, divesrsity is a unquestionable good.

We have been taught that more diversity is always better and any other view is "racist".

However, it is nearly universal that diversity is a bad thing. We know ethnic diversity leads to more conflicts:

http://jpr.sagepub.com...


So, why do we continue to push diversity when it is well known that it does harm?



Also, this is the page about ethnic nepotism, with many studies on diversity linked on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

--I can see where diversity leads to conflict in the short term. I'm not convinced that diversity is bad though. I think that the long term benefits such as increased racial tolerance and genetic mixing would outweigh any short term harm. Also, the negative effects would tend to fade with time while the positive would get stronger.

Also think it would tend to reduce tendencies of society to go to war If you stop thinking of other race as subhumans and start realizing that they are like everyone else.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 5:11:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 4:54:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/27/2011 4:50:54 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/27/2011 3:56:54 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
People have a tendency to favor their own ethnicity over others. This is known as ethnic nepotism. Because people favor people that are more genetically similiar to themselves, they tend to prefer their own ethnicity.

It is a fact of nature that humans prefer to live in ethnically homogeneous societies. It is also a fact that ethnic diversity leads to more conflict and less social trust.

Robert Putnam, a Harvard Professor, did a mass study of diverse communities. As a progressive, he was hoping to find that diversity leads to better social outcomes. However, he instead found that diversity leads to social WITHDRAWAL and less trust.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...


This is what his data finds. In contrast to his own findings, Putnam claims that:

"In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits."

Why does he claim this even when his own data shows that diverse communites are far worse off?

Because, he does not offer any evidence to support this claim. All his evidence supports this finding in his own study:

"immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital."


The reason, however, that Putnam claims that, without any data, diversity is good in the long run is that in acadamia and the general public, divesrsity is a unquestionable good.

We have been taught that more diversity is always better and any other view is "racist".

However, it is nearly universal that diversity is a bad thing. We know ethnic diversity leads to more conflicts:

http://jpr.sagepub.com...


So, why do we continue to push diversity when it is well known that it does harm?



Also, this is the page about ethnic nepotism, with many studies on diversity linked on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

--I can see where diversity leads to conflict in the short term. I'm not convinced that diversity is bad though. I think that the long term benefits such as increased racial tolerance and genetic mixing would outweigh any short term harm. Also, the negative effects would tend to fade with time while the positive would get stronger.

Also think it would tend to reduce tendencies of society to go to war If you stop thinking of other race as subhumans and start realizing that they are like everyone else.

You do know that races ARE different...
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 5:40:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 5:25:19 PM, badger wrote:
i'd ban this dude before anyone else.

How about we ban anyone who disagrees with me?
President of DDO
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 5:50:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 5:40:05 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/27/2011 5:25:19 PM, badger wrote:
i'd ban this dude before anyone else.

How about we ban anyone who disagrees with me?

people who disagree with you don't propose retarded, hurtful things... more love and togetherness. they don't deserve to be banned for that. applauded maybe...
signature
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 5:52:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 5:11:42 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

You do know that races ARE different...

Races are not species nor are they subspecies. I don't think you quite understand the level of difference required to assert two beings on the taxonomic scale to be different as species or subspecies, its more than a few differences in facial features, skin tone, and geographic location.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 5:56:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 5:52:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/27/2011 5:11:42 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

You do know that races ARE different...

Races are not species nor are they subspecies. I don't think you quite understand the level of difference required to assert two beings on the taxonomic scale to be different as species or subspecies, its more than a few differences in facial features, skin tone, and geographic location.

there's no point trying to reason with someone so dishonest.
signature
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 5:59:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 5:52:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/27/2011 5:11:42 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

You do know that races ARE different...

Races are not species nor are they subspecies. I don't think you quite understand the level of difference required to assert two beings on the taxonomic scale to be different as species or subspecies, its more than a few differences in facial features, skin tone, and geographic location.

Races are like dogbreeds...

Dogbreeds arent all taht different, but they are certainly more than a social construct
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 6:01:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 5:50:28 PM, badger wrote:
At 11/27/2011 5:40:05 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/27/2011 5:25:19 PM, badger wrote:
i'd ban this dude before anyone else.

How about we ban anyone who disagrees with me?

people who disagree with you don't propose retarded, hurtful things... more love and togetherness. they don't deserve to be banned for that. applauded maybe...

Ya... If it weren't for people like me and all that damned science, then we could all just hold hands around a fire and sing kumbaya...

Why must science get in the way of all that love and togetherness...
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 6:02:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 5:59:57 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/27/2011 5:52:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/27/2011 5:11:42 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

You do know that races ARE different...

Races are not species nor are they subspecies. I don't think you quite understand the level of difference required to assert two beings on the taxonomic scale to be different as species or subspecies, its more than a few differences in facial features, skin tone, and geographic location.

Races are like dogbreeds...

Dogbreeds arent all taht different, but they are certainly more than a social construct

Breeds = subspecies,.....Races =/= Subspecies. I JUST got through explaining this to you....
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 6:07:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 6:02:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/27/2011 5:59:57 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/27/2011 5:52:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/27/2011 5:11:42 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

You do know that races ARE different...

Races are not species nor are they subspecies. I don't think you quite understand the level of difference required to assert two beings on the taxonomic scale to be different as species or subspecies, its more than a few differences in facial features, skin tone, and geographic location.

Races are like dogbreeds...

Dogbreeds arent all taht different, but they are certainly more than a social construct

Breeds = subspecies,.....Races =/= Subspecies. I JUST got through explaining this to you....

Wrong...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is what a dog breed is:

"Dog breeds are not scientifically defined biological classifications, but rather are groupings defined by clubs of hobbyists called breed clubs. A dog breed is represented by a sufficient number of individuals to stably transfer its specific characteristics over generations. Dogs of same breed have similar characteristics of appearance and behavior, primarily because they come from a select set of ancestors who had the same characteristics.[3] Dogs of a specific breed breed true, producing young closely similar to the parents. An individual dog is identified as a member of a breed through proof of ancestry, using genetic analysis or written records of ancestry. Without such proof, identification of a specific breed is not reliable.[4] Such records, called stud books, may be maintained by individuals, clubs, or other organizations."

Not a biological classification!!!

This must mean that dogbreeds don't really exist and are just social constructs!!!
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 6:13:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 6:07:51 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/27/2011 6:02:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/27/2011 5:59:57 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/27/2011 5:52:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/27/2011 5:11:42 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

You do know that races ARE different...

Races are not species nor are they subspecies. I don't think you quite understand the level of difference required to assert two beings on the taxonomic scale to be different as species or subspecies, its more than a few differences in facial features, skin tone, and geographic location.

Races are like dogbreeds...

Dogbreeds arent all taht different, but they are certainly more than a social construct

Breeds = subspecies,.....Races =/= Subspecies. I JUST got through explaining this to you....

Wrong...

http://en.wikipedia.org...


Here is what a dog breed is:

"Dog breeds are not scientifically defined biological classifications, but rather are groupings defined by clubs of hobbyists called breed clubs. A dog breed is represented by a sufficient number of individuals to stably transfer its specific characteristics over generations. Dogs of same breed have similar characteristics of appearance and behavior, primarily because they come from a select set of ancestors who had the same characteristics.[3] Dogs of a specific breed breed true, producing young closely similar to the parents. An individual dog is identified as a member of a breed through proof of ancestry, using genetic analysis or written records of ancestry. Without such proof, identification of a specific breed is not reliable.[4] Such records, called stud books, may be maintained by individuals, clubs, or other organizations."


Not a biological classification!!!

This must mean that dogbreeds don't really exist and are just social constructs!!!

Okay then, but to the actual issue, you cannot relate intelligence to race. That's like relating intelligence to hair color....
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 6:18:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 6:13:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/27/2011 6:07:51 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/27/2011 6:02:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/27/2011 5:59:57 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/27/2011 5:52:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/27/2011 5:11:42 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

You do know that races ARE different...

Races are not species nor are they subspecies. I don't think you quite understand the level of difference required to assert two beings on the taxonomic scale to be different as species or subspecies, its more than a few differences in facial features, skin tone, and geographic location.

Races are like dogbreeds...

Dogbreeds arent all taht different, but they are certainly more than a social construct

Breeds = subspecies,.....Races =/= Subspecies. I JUST got through explaining this to you....

Wrong...

http://en.wikipedia.org...


Here is what a dog breed is:

"Dog breeds are not scientifically defined biological classifications, but rather are groupings defined by clubs of hobbyists called breed clubs. A dog breed is represented by a sufficient number of individuals to stably transfer its specific characteristics over generations. Dogs of same breed have similar characteristics of appearance and behavior, primarily because they come from a select set of ancestors who had the same characteristics.[3] Dogs of a specific breed breed true, producing young closely similar to the parents. An individual dog is identified as a member of a breed through proof of ancestry, using genetic analysis or written records of ancestry. Without such proof, identification of a specific breed is not reliable.[4] Such records, called stud books, may be maintained by individuals, clubs, or other organizations."


Not a biological classification!!!

This must mean that dogbreeds don't really exist and are just social constructs!!!

Okay then, but to the actual issue, you cannot relate intelligence to race. That's like relating intelligence to hair color....

I'm not relating intelligence to race... This is what most of the people I have argued about this with don't understand

Lets take 2 groups, group A and group B... Group A has an average IQ of 100... Group B has an average IQ of 85

Now, Group B does not have a lower average IQ BECAUSE they are in Group B...

They have a lower average IQ because.... they are filled with individuals that happen to be, on average, less intelligent than the individuals that comprise group A

Now, lets say that group A represente the US white population and group B represents the US black population.... This is essentially my entire argument about this
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 6:21:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 6:18:26 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

I'm not relating intelligence to race... This is what most of the people I have argued about this with don't understand

Lets take 2 groups, group A and group B... Group A has an average IQ of 100... Group B has an average IQ of 85

Now, Group B does not have a lower average IQ BECAUSE they are in Group B...

They have a lower average IQ because.... they are filled with individuals that happen to be, on average, less intelligent than the individuals that comprise group A

Now, lets say that group A represente the US white population and group B represents the US black population.... This is essentially my entire argument about this

Oh so you think a group can be "on average less intelligent" without cause? Thats absurd. Tell me why group B is less intelligent on average. There must be a reason.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 6:24:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 6:21:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/27/2011 6:18:26 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

I'm not relating intelligence to race... This is what most of the people I have argued about this with don't understand

Lets take 2 groups, group A and group B... Group A has an average IQ of 100... Group B has an average IQ of 85

Now, Group B does not have a lower average IQ BECAUSE they are in Group B...

They have a lower average IQ because.... they are filled with individuals that happen to be, on average, less intelligent than the individuals that comprise group A

Now, lets say that group A represente the US white population and group B represents the US black population.... This is essentially my entire argument about this

Oh so you think a group can be "on average less intelligent" without cause? Thats absurd. Tell me why group B is less intelligent on average. There must be a reason.

In this case, where group B represents the African American Population, we know that for the last 90,000 years or so, blacks evolved in a different environment than did whites...

The environment blacks evolved in was warmer and less harsh... so intelligencce was a less important from an evolutionary standpoint than it was in Europe... Granted, blacks evolved to be smarter over this period... but they evolved to be smarter less quickly than did whites... and asians
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 6:28:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 6:24:01 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

The environment blacks evolved in was warmer and less harsh... so intelligencce was a less important from an evolutionary standpoint than it was in Europe... Granted, blacks evolved to be smarter over this period... but they evolved to be smarter less quickly than did whites... and asians

What rubbish. By the principles of natural selection a more intelligent human would indubitably survive over an unintelligent one. How would this principle change in the African climate? Tell me what it is in that geography that necessitates stupidity and impedes the progression of the intellect.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 6:32:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 6:28:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/27/2011 6:24:01 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

The environment blacks evolved in was warmer and less harsh... so intelligencce was a less important from an evolutionary standpoint than it was in Europe... Granted, blacks evolved to be smarter over this period... but they evolved to be smarter less quickly than did whites... and asians

What rubbish. By the principles of natural selection a more intelligent human would indubitably survive over an unintelligent one. How would this principle change in the African climate? Tell me what it is in that geography that necessitates stupidity and impedes the progression of the intellect.

How can you not understand how intelligence can rise for one group and rise FASTER for another group...

The fact that Europeans got smarter faster than Africans DOES NOT mean that Africans did not get smarter at all

You didnt understand this the last time we went over this kindergarten concept.... i am not going through this again
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 6:37:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 6:32:34 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/27/2011 6:28:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/27/2011 6:24:01 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

The environment blacks evolved in was warmer and less harsh... so intelligencce was a less important from an evolutionary standpoint than it was in Europe... Granted, blacks evolved to be smarter over this period... but they evolved to be smarter less quickly than did whites... and asians

What rubbish. By the principles of natural selection a more intelligent human would indubitably survive over an unintelligent one. How would this principle change in the African climate? Tell me what it is in that geography that necessitates stupidity and impedes the progression of the intellect.


How can you not understand how intelligence can rise for one group and rise FASTER for another group...

The fact that Europeans got smarter faster than Africans DOES NOT mean that Africans did not get smarter at all

You didnt understand this the last time we went over this kindergarten concept.... i am not going through this again

Answer the fvckin question, and stop dodging.

WHAT in the African environment impeded the progression of the intellect, or WHAT in the European environment accelerated the progression of the intellect.

If you give me one more vacuous retort that does not point blank address this question, I'll take it that you have no answer, and you have subscribed to a belief without actually having reason for it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 6:38:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 6:37:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/27/2011 6:32:34 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/27/2011 6:28:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/27/2011 6:24:01 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

The environment blacks evolved in was warmer and less harsh... so intelligencce was a less important from an evolutionary standpoint than it was in Europe... Granted, blacks evolved to be smarter over this period... but they evolved to be smarter less quickly than did whites... and asians

What rubbish. By the principles of natural selection a more intelligent human would indubitably survive over an unintelligent one. How would this principle change in the African climate? Tell me what it is in that geography that necessitates stupidity and impedes the progression of the intellect.


How can you not understand how intelligence can rise for one group and rise FASTER for another group...

The fact that Europeans got smarter faster than Africans DOES NOT mean that Africans did not get smarter at all

You didnt understand this the last time we went over this kindergarten concept.... i am not going through this again

Answer the fvckin question, and stop dodging.

WHAT in the African environment impeded the progression of the intellect, or WHAT in the European environment accelerated the progression of the intellect.

If you give me one more vacuous retort that does not point blank address this question, I'll take it that you have no answer, and you have subscribed to a belief without actually having reason for it.

No, I have answered the question point blank not once... but TWICE...

It was the colder and harsher environment in Europe that led Europeans to get smarter faster than Africans... that is a point blank answer...
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 7:27:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 6:28:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/27/2011 6:24:01 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

The environment blacks evolved in was warmer and less harsh... so intelligencce was a less important from an evolutionary standpoint than it was in Europe... Granted, blacks evolved to be smarter over this period... but they evolved to be smarter less quickly than did whites... and asians

What rubbish. By the principles of natural selection a more intelligent human would indubitably survive over an unintelligent one. How would this principle change in the African climate? Tell me what it is in that geography that necessitates stupidity and impedes the progression of the intellect.

Then why aren't chickens as intelligent as humans? By the process of natural selection, the chickens should have gained the same intelligence as humans :p.

Also, jimmy. The similarities between races is more pronounced then the differences. We have 99.9% of the same DNA. We basically have the same emotional sets, organs and psychological characteristics.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 7:34:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 7:27:42 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/27/2011 6:28:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/27/2011 6:24:01 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

The environment blacks evolved in was warmer and less harsh... so intelligencce was a less important from an evolutionary standpoint than it was in Europe... Granted, blacks evolved to be smarter over this period... but they evolved to be smarter less quickly than did whites... and asians

What rubbish. By the principles of natural selection a more intelligent human would indubitably survive over an unintelligent one. How would this principle change in the African climate? Tell me what it is in that geography that necessitates stupidity and impedes the progression of the intellect.

Then why aren't chickens as intelligent as humans? By the process of natural selection, the chickens should have gained the same intelligence as humans :p.

Same environment + different capacities to learn =/= same progression of intellect.

Also, jimmy. The similarities between races is more pronounced then the differences. We have 99.9% of the same DNA. We basically have the same emotional sets, organs and psychological characteristics.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 8:27:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 3:56:54 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
People have a tendency to favor their own ethnicity over others. This is known as ethnic nepotism. Because people favor people that are more genetically similiar to themselves, they tend to prefer their own ethnicity.

It is a fact of nature that humans prefer to live in ethnically homogeneous societies. It is also a fact that ethnic diversity leads to more conflict and less social trust.

Robert Putnam, a Harvard Professor, did a mass study of diverse communities. As a progressive, he was hoping to find that diversity leads to better social outcomes. However, he instead found that diversity leads to social WITHDRAWAL and less trust.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...


This is what his data finds. In contrast to his own findings, Putnam claims that:

"In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits."

Why does he claim this even when his own data shows that diverse communites are far worse off?

Because, he does not offer any evidence to support this claim. All his evidence supports this finding in his own study:

"immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital."


The reason, however, that Putnam claims that, without any data, diversity is good in the long run is that in acadamia and the general public, divesrsity is a unquestionable good.

We have been taught that more diversity is always better and any other view is "racist".

However, it is nearly universal that diversity is a bad thing. We know ethnic diversity leads to more conflicts:

http://jpr.sagepub.com...


So, why do we continue to push diversity when it is well known that it does harm?



Also, this is the page about ethnic nepotism, with many studies on diversity linked on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

How's that run for office going?
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 8:38:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 7:27:42 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/27/2011 6:28:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/27/2011 6:24:01 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

The environment blacks evolved in was warmer and less harsh... so intelligencce was a less important from an evolutionary standpoint than it was in Europe... Granted, blacks evolved to be smarter over this period... but they evolved to be smarter less quickly than did whites... and asians

What rubbish. By the principles of natural selection a more intelligent human would indubitably survive over an unintelligent one. How would this principle change in the African climate? Tell me what it is in that geography that necessitates stupidity and impedes the progression of the intellect.

Then why aren't chickens as intelligent as humans? By the process of natural selection, the chickens should have gained the same intelligence as humans :p.

Also, jimmy. The similarities between races is more pronounced then the differences. We have 99.9% of the same DNA. We basically have the same emotional sets, organs and psychological characteristics.

Gorillas have 95 to 99% genetic similiarity to humans... does that mean that humans and gorillas are fundamentally the same?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
President of DDO
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 9:46:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 8:53:12 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 11/27/2011 4:52:46 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Yeah, for racists like you, maybe.

Whats wrong about racist?

I didn't say that anything was wrong. I just said the word "racist".

Now, if you happen to think that there is something inherently wrong with that, heeeeeey.

You racist fvck.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 9:49:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 9:46:51 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 11/27/2011 8:53:12 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 11/27/2011 4:52:46 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Yeah, for racists like you, maybe.

Whats wrong about racist?

I didn't say that anything was wrong. I just said the word "racist".

Now, if you happen to think that there is something inherently wrong with that, heeeeeey.

You racist fvck.

Racist is a meaningless term... I used to get angry when people called me it... but, I don't give a shiit anymore because it is so useless...

If you're interested, I am a self described race realist or racialist on these issues... not a racist though
President of DDO