Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I asked you to show me where in that article it was written that Hispanics are engaging in overbreeding...again, not having a lot of babies but having babies with mainly their close relatives. I can't ignore something that you refuse to point out, lol.
You're not going to find those statistics anywhere except in very small population centers like Iceland. The best you can hope for is to look at the population and the number of children being born for a given region. You've got a circular argument going here based on a faulty assertion.
I looked at the Census data that you presented showing that Hispanics have households that are nearly twice the size of whites and blacks.
However, looking at the breakdown by age shows that they have twice the number of children living in the house AND twice the number of adults.
This likely means that extended families are living together...and I cannot see any way that one can extrapolate from the data presented that Hispanics are overbreeding.
If the number of adults living in these households were the same as those in white and black households, but the number of children were double, then you may have an argument.
Let's assume for a moment that despite SOOOO many obvious physical differences between races that race has nothing to do with anything...
Then why DO we see differences in things like standardized testing, prison population, etc?
using your logic, and rightwing logic, we could look at state level SAT scores, and conclude that rural red states are dumber than blue coastal states. Because most rural red state score below average on SATs....even those with mostly white populations - west virginia and oklahoma.
So do you think people are inherently more stupid in most rural red states? I mean, standardizd testing "proves" it, if we accept rightwing logic.
of course you don't. The environment people live in, and biases in testing materials and procedures affect test scores.
yet you have stated before that people in red states are stupid. She didn't use rightwing logic.
You know, I keep reading this over and over, that "some" people are repressing information that proves that some races are less intelligent than others. Who are these people? I want to see some quotes, xhead...otherwise you are just being a troll.
I just want to see the data. I don't think it exists...and if it does exist, it would be highly prone to misinterpretations and statistical manipulation.
But I'd like to see it to discuss it.
ahem. If you're not going to read the thread, why bother? Seriously? Are you just here to waste our time?
jesus christ dude! I just asked you to post the link to the data source. If you can't do that...then i have to assume you created your own graph using excel!
i already did! Why do i have to post the link again just for you?????
One of my best friends is from West Virgina.Ravi, have YOU ever been to WV? Have you ever been to England?
I get so sick of silver spoon rich shits saying bigoted crap about people they would never stoop to meet.
The No. 1 geneticist in the world said it, about a year ago. He said black races were less intelligent because inbreeding on the continent of Africa and generations of poverty had shrunk their brains.
I didn't state my position, she did. Your position is ignorant. What determines whether a state is blue or red? In 1984, were Minnesotans smarter than the rest of the country? do you have data supporting that?using your logic, and rightwing logic, we could look at state level SAT scores, and conclude that rural red states are dumber than blue coastal states. Because most rural red state score below average on SATs....even those with mostly white populations - west virginia and oklahoma.
So do you think people are inherently more stupid in most rural red states? I mean, standardizd testing "proves" it, if we accept rightwing logic.
of course you don't. The environment people live in, and biases in testing materials and procedures affect test scores.
yet you have stated before that people in red states are stupid. She didn't use rightwing logic.
People in rightwing states are stupider because their schools suck.
Not because of their southern heritage and identity.
If you rightwingers want to claim standardized test scores prove blacks are dumber, then you're going to have to stick by your logic and admit red staters are dumber. Even white red staters.
If not, then you're being hypocrites, and your entire argument relies on racism and ignorance.
My position is consistent....people who have crappy schools and underfunded educational systems get lower test scores. Inners city blacks, or poor rural whites. Doesn't matter. Its environment to a large degree.
that's my postion.
Your position, if your honest and consistent, and not being deceptive and fraudulent, is that test scores prove blacks, AND rural southern whites are inherently dumber.
I can't believe you would stick by that arguent, but you've painted yourself into that corner by obsessing about test results.
The No. 1 geneticist in the world said it, about a year ago. He said black races were less intelligent because inbreeding on the continent of Africa and generations of poverty had shrunk their brains.
was that before or after he led the group in a rousing rendition of der horst wessel lied?
The No. 1 geneticist in the world said it, about a year ago. He said black races were less intelligent because inbreeding on the continent of Africa and generations of poverty had shrunk their brains.
Intelligence and Race
Out of Africa
Most scientists who study such matters believe that those
humans of whom we are descendants all lived in Africa
(e.g., Tishkoff et al., 1996; Tishkoff & Kidd, 2004; Walter
et al., 2000). They first appeared roughly 200,000 years
ago. For whatever reasonsto find food, to satisfy wan-
derlust, to find better protection against predators, to find
more landsmall numbers of unrepresentative people
started to migrate out of Africa about 100,000 years ago
(Stringer, 1990).
The out-of-Africa hypothesis places the first immi-
grants from Africa in southwestern Asia. Over the course
of tens of thousands of years, that initial non-African
population expanded until now at least some of its descen-
dants can be found on all continents and in most regions of
those continents except for Antarctica, which, in general, is
too cold to be hospitable, at least for modern humans. As
people migrated, they adapted so as better to fit their
environments. Much of that adaptation was culturaldif-
ferent clothing, different foods, for examplebut some of it was genetic. However, it is difficult to prove that traits
seen to differ are truly the result of different selective
pressures, that is, genetic adaptations. A major reason for
the difficulty is that at the genetic level there are quantita-
tive differences in frequencies of genetic variants, not
qualitative genetic differences, among populations. When
multiple forms of a DNA sequence, either a coding se-
quence or a noncoding sequence, are present, the sequence
is referred to as polymorphic and the forms as alleles at the
polymorphism. Among populations of various kinds, allele
frequency differences at polymorphisms are the rule be-
cause of the chance effects known as random genetic drift.
In other words, as a result of both natural and social events,
only some genotypes are transmitted through generations;
the others are lost. The lack of predictability in who will
have children and who will not introduces powerful ran-
dom noise into allele frequencies between generations.
Thus, observing different allele frequencies does not, in
and of itself, imply that local selection has operated.
Mechanisms of Genetic Influence
Four mechanisms have influenced the genetic evolution of
populations (Templeton, 2002). We consider each in turn.
Intelligence, Race, and Genetics
I'm not sure what point you're making, but okay.
Intelligence, Race, and GeneticsRace as a Social Construction
Where does race fit into the genetic pattern? Actually, it fits
nowhere. Race is a socially constructed concept, not a
biological one. It derives from peoples desire to classify.
People seem to be natural classifiers. Perhaps this tendency
reflects, in part, what Gardner (1999a, 1999b) has referred
to as naturalistic intelligence. Or perhaps it merely re-
flects a need to discern order in or even to impose it on
nature. Any set of observations can be categorized in
multiple ways. People impose categorization and classifi-
cation schemes that make sense to them and that, in some
cases, favor their particular goals.
In other words, you have nothing to say.
I do my own research, thanks. I'm really not interested in what you regurgitate. I'm more of a thinking for myself sort of person, who uses facts to support my own theories.
But it takes all kinds.
I posted my thoughts earlier. 
Ravs, I think you might be a closet progressive.Why not both...and the arts, because creativity is also good for the brain. Why do you hate touchy feely?Certainly you can turn a nerd into someone that is more physically able. But more importantly you can turn a gifted athlete into a slug by not letting them use their abilities...and I think that is what most of us are saying about the majority of people. The intelligence of the general population is pretty much the same with the exception of a genius here and a retard there. By limiting the optimal development of intelligence we sometimes prevent people from using their brains to their full potential.
So what are you suggesting then? That we focus education more on the basics and less on the touchy feely things like tolerance?
Differences in education, which stem from differences in wealth, which stem from a multitude of other causes. The average Hispanic person may be poorer than the average white person, for example, because many Hispanic people are relatively recent immigrants from poor countries. The average black person may be poorer because of centuries of racism. Even after the slaves were emancipated and blacks were given more political rights, they were victims of racially motivated de facto segregation that forced those who lived in urban areas into poor ghettos. Living in an impoverished area tends to lead to a lower value for education, which, in turn, leads to low educational achievement and more poverty. It's a vicious cycle that can be incredibly difficult to escape.
Poverty breeds crime, poor educational performance, and more poverty.
