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 (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

 

I am devoted to facts that can be documented and to logical reasoning. I have a quick eye for wishful thinking and logical fallacies.

I do not insult those who disagree with me. I do not care if I anger them by challenging their fantasies.

 

No, you are not devoted to facts that can be documented. You are dedicated to "facts" that support your preconceived notions.

 

@Distant Lover comment today: "I am the best racist on XNXX."

 

When you say Supremely Epic Ginormously stupid ish like "Blacks can't learn" you are not interested in facts.

If you were that interested in facts how is it that you claim Bill Gates IQ is 162, when in fact Bill Gates never took an IQ exam. He took the SAT's and scored an impressive 1590/1600 and passed Harvards entrance exam. This level of academic performance was given the "equivalence" to a 160 on an IQ exam, even though Gates left Harvard without completing his degree courses, without a degree, but with the moniker at least of college drop out.

 

I have never said "Blacks can't learn." I that would mean that no blacks can learn. I have pointed out that some blacks are extremely intelligent. I have also pointed out that because of average intelligence differences blacks are more likely to have difficulty learning than whites.

The U.S. military rejects anyone with an IQ below 85. 85 is the average IQ for American Negroes.

 

Most people allow their likes and dislikes to influence, if not to determine, their judgment of what is true and false. I do it too, but I make an effort not to. I think I am less likely to make serious mistakes in my life if I believe in unpleasant truths, than if I make decisions on the basis of agreeable fantasies. I believe that this is also true on a national level in terms of political and social policy.

 

It would be ok to discuss this issue, if this issue were truly relevant to any discussion..hence, systematic racism does not exist in the U.S. and hasn't for a few decades.

There aren't any white rich old guys that own slaves at the helm anymore.

Actually there weren't any back then either...many were indentured servants.

Systematic racism exists only to cater to a violent movement/organization that the Ho fully endorses, brought upon this Nation because a couple of pissed off black women that are self accredited victims, that thought Trayvon didn't get the justice that they thought he deserved.

Fuck that dumb shit.

 

Oh my...seems another victim has claimed his well earned victim status again.

 

Let me guess Rushton and Jensen?. Let me ask you a question, I assure you there is no malice implied or inferred, but have you ever had an original thought/idea of your own? Outside of academia it is considered gauche to put forward the ideas of others without crediting them in someway for being the person(s)
That came up with the concepts initially. Has it ever occurred to you that the people who you steal your ideas from could also be wrong?

- Tsuroth

-----------

The US military has minimum enlistment standards at about the IQ 85 level. There have been two experiments with lowering this to 80 but in both cases these men could not master soldiering well enough to justify their costs.[150]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient



Unlike others on XNXX I document my factual assertions.

 

Document then, how race is identified when IQ tests are administered.

 

I did document my assertions. I have already presented Charles Murray's refutation of the cliche, "Race is only a social construct." I will do so again, although I suspect that you have already read it. I tire of posting facts for those who do not want to be told the truth.

---------

"The Inequality Taboo," by Charles Murray, from Commentary, September 2005

The Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct in 1972, arguing that the genetic differences across races were so trivial that no scientist working exclusively with genetic data would sort people into hlacks, whites, or Asians. In his words, "racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance."

Lewontin's position, which quickly became a tenet of political correctness, carried with it a potential means of being falsified. If he was correct, then a statistical analysis of genetic markers would not produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels. In the last few years, that test has become feasible, and now we know that Lewontin was wrong.

Several analyses have confirmed the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or ethnicity. In the most recent, published this year, all but five of the 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their self identified ethnic group. When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genetic information, classifies 99.9 percent of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.

*not_secure_link*www.iapsych.com/wj3ewok/LinkedDocuments/Murray2005.pdf

---------

I have put this in my own words by saying that a person's race can usually be determined by appearance, and always by DNA analysis.

I assume that the test Charles Murray mentions used self identification.

 

Hold on.
What part of your post tells us how race is determined when one takes an IQ test.
Shooter has taken at least 4 of them.
He doesn't recall any cheek swabs or hair samples.
He does recall when he was in high school, the cover page asked about race.
One wit spoke up and said we should all mark "other", and "yes".

So come on, distant lover, how is race determined when IQ tests are administered?

 

And yeah, you can hold up that hack Murray to counter the race as a social construct, but SHooter prefers the science.
Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue - Scientific American

"What the study of complete genomes from different parts of the world has shown is that even between Africa and Europe, for example, there is not a single absolute genetic difference, meaning no single variant where all Africans have one variant and all Europeans another one, even when recent migration is disregarded," Pääbo told Live Science. "It is all a question of differences in how frequent different variants are on different continents and in different regions."​

Race is a Social Construct | Center for Health Progress

"In the early 1800s, Dr. Samuel Morton conducted research to demonstrate biological differences between races. His extraordinarily flawed and biased findings have since been used to justify hundreds of years of horrors like slavery and genocide. Since then, science has unequivocally demonstrated that race isn’t biologically real. The genetic diversity that exists across the entire human race is very, very small, and race isn’t even a good proxy for what diversity does exist. ​

Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue | Live Science

"In one example that demonstrated genetic differences were not fixed along racial lines, the full genomes of James Watson and Craig Venter, two famous American scientists of European ancestry, were compared to that of a Korean scientist, Seong-Jin Kim. It turned out that Watson (who, ironically, became ostracized in the scientific community after making racist remarks) and Venter shared fewer variations in their genetic sequences than they each shared with Kim.​

 

I'm sure Richard would be flattered that you are charioting his nonsense into the new millennium.
However, for one who claims to be a master of facts, why do you doubt the Science of Taxonomy, the science of classification?

As I have stated previously these are the SCIENTIFIC classifications in the zoological kingdom:

Domain
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

What you see here are the scientific terms used to specify the eight levels of taxonomy. When any real scientist discuss zoology, these are the terms that are used. If you do not see it here it is not a scientific reference it is a socially constructed reference that gained popularity thru repetition and time.

The fact is when you attempt to use this word as a way of classifying homo-sapians you are incorrect. It is a misnomer. You commit two logical fallacies here. The first is the fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance. The over/under production of melanin was largely due to how close your earliest ancestors lived to the equator. To ascribe a persons potential to be correlative to the gene type is nonsense and you know it.

The second fallacy you commit is the Band Wagon fallacy. Yes a million people can be wrong, S'why you really need to pay attention to the real facts.

 

The statement "Race is only a social construct" is a circular argument. In a circular argument one asserts what one needs to prove. Race is defined as a social construct. The definition is used to prove that race is a social construct. Such a definition confuses the meaning of race with that of species.

The assertion "Race is only a social construct" would only be useful if the different races were identical, or nearly so, in average intelligence and rates of crime and illegitimacy. I have documented on several occasions that this is not true.

Usually I trust the consensus of experts on a complex and controversial issue. Unfortunately, when we discuss the relationship between genes, intelligence, crime, and race the consensus is coerced. Consequently, what geneticists say publicly on this matter should be viewed skeptically.

When James Watson said he was skeptical about the future of sub Saharan Africa because of the low average IQ of Negroes there, he was forced to resign from being director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Because he won the Nobel Prize for discovering the chemical structure of DNA one would think that his judgment was accurate, or at least worth discussing. The fact that anti racists try - and unfortunately usually succeed - to suppress this discussion tells me that they privately agree with Dr. Watson, but fear the laws that will be passed if the truth is widely known and accepted.

Again I quote Charles Murray's essay "The Inequality Taboo:"

"Good social policy can be based on premises that have nothing to do with scientific truth. The premise that is supposed to under gird all of our social policy, the founders' assertion of an unalienable right to liberty, is not a falsifiable hypothesis. But specific policies based on premises that conflict with scientific truths about human beings tend not to work. Often they do harm...

"One such premise is that the distribution of innate abilities and propensities is the same across different groups. The statistical tests for uncovering job discrimination assume that men are not innately different from women, blacks from whites, older people from younger people, homosexuals from heterosexuals. Latinos from Anglos, in ways that can legitimately affect employment decisions...

"Consider an observation furtively voiced by many who interact with civil servants: that government is riddled with people who have been promoted to their level of incompetence because of pressure to have a staff with the correct sex and ethnicity in the correct proportions and positions. Are these just anecdotes? Or should we be worrying about the effects of affirmative action on the quality of government services? It would be helpful to know the answers, but we will not so long as the taboo against talking about group difference prevails."

*not_secure_link*www.iapsych.com/wj3ewok/LinkedDocuments/Murray2005.pdf

 

After species there is sub species. Human races are equivalent to sub species among the other animals.

The Band Wagon Fallacy would lead us to believe that average innate racial differences do not exist. It has become dangerous to publicly maintain anything else.

 

The warrior gene. People need to google it.
Shooter is tired of pointing out the fallacy.

 

FRIDAY, MARCH 4, 2011
The Racial Controversy of a Violent Gene

I am referring to a gene called monoamine oxidase A, or MAOA. This gene produces an enzyme that breaks down the neurotransmitters that activate many of the brain’s circuits. Back in the 1990’s, scientists discovered a mutation of MAOA that completely turns it off. The result is called Brunner syndrome, which only 14 related men have been known to have (plus animal models). What makes this extremely rare mutation so important is that it proves that MAOA really is a violent delinquency gene. A man with Brunner syndrome is what expert psychiatrists refer to as “a bad guy.” Five of these men were arsonists. Some of the men were rapists or attempted killers...

However, a pair of studies in 2008 found that the 2-repeat allele is associated with twice the rate of violence without child abuse coming into the equation. This allele is less powerful than Brunner syndrome but far more common.

Two small studies gave hints that the especially dangerous 2-repeat allele might be more common among African Americans. One study wrote that 6% of their non-white (but probably mostly African-American) male subjects had this allele. The other had 5 of 37 (14%) African-American men possessing “rare MAOA alleles.” Those percentages are remarkable given that studies of white men have suggested that 1% or fewer have this gene...

Consider the study Beaver et al from about one year ago. This was a study of African-American men and five violence genes that reached the shocking conclusion that a crude genetic index of these genes predicted adult violent delinquency better than a detailed measure of the quality of the men’s childhood relationship with their respective mothers...

After following research on the genetics of violence for years now, I am convinced that the various alleles of MAOA affect violent behavior in white men and black men. Thus, the differing frequencies of these alleles might contribute to the differing rates of violent crime.

POSTED BY NOOFFENSEBUT AT 6:35 AM *not_secure_link*img1.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif
EMAIL THISBLOGTHIS!SHARE TO TWITTERSHARE TO FACEBOOKSHARE TO PINTEREST
LABELS: BRUNNER SYNDROME, KEVIN BEAVER, MAOA, RACE

*not_secure_link*theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com/2011/03/racial-controversy-of-violent-gene.html

 

See?
5 of 37 "probably" African males .....
Heres how they do that. The "sort of" same gene sequence found in "darkies" is apparently also found in females (who are not violent, apparently) and we don't know how many othr races have the gene. Perhaps the Japanese had it until they were exposed to all that radiation? Its also interesting that all 14 related men in the original study had the gene and all were bad men.
Duh.

But this is the same kind of "facts" distant lover relies on. The bell curve thingy is a classic example of fitting facts to a conclusion, they slobber over this kind of "scientific" study. In fact the bell curve is (was) used in statistics classes to demonstrate how liars figure.