#1 2007-10-18 11:20:27
If a senile former nobel prize winner believes in Eugenics, it must be a fact.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071017/ap_ … X6C0RxieAA
Offline
#2 2007-10-18 11:35:19
"people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."
Funny. Our best and brightest in Mr. Sofie's employee roster is black. Not only is he an exceptional truck driver, he's way better educated than any of the others. Maybe that's because elitist assholes like this guy refuse to hire him in the field he went to school for, forcing him to take a well-paid but menial job.
Offline
#3 2007-10-18 11:49:16
I found that odd, too. When I taught in urban schools, the black teachers were usually MUCH more articulate, polite, disciplined, and organized than their white/hispanic/whatever colleagues. Granted, the pool of people used as comparisons was of (I thought) low quality compared to what I've encountered in other professions, but the black teachers I observed seemed to have chosen their profession rather than flunked into it. They took it very seriously, and they did it well. Maybe education is just another service industry.
Last edited by DoucheEllington (2007-10-18 11:53:17)
Offline
#4 2007-10-18 11:52:31
What I find interesting about this story is that nobody wants to seriously discuss the subject. Instead they want to hang the scientist.
Here's another story about his statements: http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/ … 067222.ece
Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."
Last edited by Phreddy (2007-10-18 11:53:30)
Offline
#5 2007-10-18 11:54:12
"...judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character..."
Idiocy comes in all colors of the puking rainbow
Offline
#6 2007-10-18 12:04:35
Offline
#7 2007-10-18 12:05:29
Offline
#8 2007-10-18 12:06:36
Offline
#9 2007-10-18 12:07:44
Offline
#10 2007-10-18 12:10:07
Offline
#11 2007-10-18 12:10:48
oops.... wrong thread!
Offline
#12 2007-10-18 12:11:04
or not.
Offline
#13 2007-10-18 12:12:16
Offline
#14 2007-10-18 12:19:17
![http://www.shamshield.com/blackguy1yb5[1].jpg](http://www.shamshield.com/blackguy1yb5[1].jpg)
Offline
#15 2007-10-18 12:57:15
Phreddy wrote:
What I find interesting about this story is that nobody wants to seriously discuss the subject. Instead they want to hang the scientist.
Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws.
Bad Science! You know never to express uncomfortable questions in public, ... I don't CARE about your facts, that's no excuse to behave so outrageously. Now to go bed, no research grant for you tonight.
I know nothing about the function of melanin as a hormone, but I'm betting the litigious hate-crime vultures know less than Dr. Watson. Of course, comments like everyone was equal, but added: "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true." do make me suspect dementia.
Offline
#16 2007-10-18 13:03:00
Phreddy wrote:
What I find interesting about this story is that nobody wants to seriously discuss the subject. Instead they want to hang the scientist.
The subject was discussed extensively when "The Bell Curve" came out. It's probably time to have that discussion again. Going "hate crime" on a senile old codger seems like a waste of time.
Offline
#17 2007-10-18 13:04:43
"he reportedly suggested women should have the right to abort their unborn children if tests could determine they would grow into homosexuals"
Doesn't he mean black homosexuals?
Offline
#18 2007-10-18 13:14:45
DoucheEllington wrote:
When I taught in urban schools, the black teachers were usually MUCH more articulate...
DING! DING! DING! You used the "A" word!
Offline
#19 2007-10-18 13:16:22
headkicker_girl wrote:
Phreddy wrote:
What I find interesting about this story is that nobody wants to seriously discuss the subject. Instead they want to hang the scientist.
The subject was discussed extensively when "The Bell Curve" came out. It's probably time to have that discussion again. Going "hate crime" on a senile old codger seems like a waste of time.
Now that book caused quite a stir and in the end leads us right back to "Nature v Nurture"
Offline
#20 2007-10-18 13:35:56
Emmeran wrote:
Now that book caused quite a stir and in the end leads us right back to "Nature v Nurture"
I think the bigger question is whether IQ tests have any relevance. My ex husband's IQ is at least 30 points lower than mine. He grew up watching TV and never voluntarily read a book.
He's a doctor.
Offline
#21 2007-10-18 13:39:54
headkicker_girl wrote:
Emmeran wrote:
Now that book caused quite a stir and in the end leads us right back to "Nature v Nurture"
I think the bigger question is whether IQ tests have any relevance. My ex husband's IQ is at least 30 points lower than mine. He grew up watching TV and never voluntarily read a book.
He's a doctor.
HKG's ex...Who knew?
Offline
#22 2007-10-18 14:00:39
headkicker_girl wrote:
Emmeran wrote:
Now that book caused quite a stir and in the end leads us right back to "Nature v Nurture"
I think the bigger question is whether IQ tests have any relevance. My ex husband's IQ is at least 30 points lower than mine. He grew up watching TV and never voluntarily read a book.
He's a doctor.
a more accurate measure is effectiveness rather than IQ - some of the dumbest people I know are highly successful and quite wealthy. Our delightful president comes to mind.
Offline
#23 2007-10-18 17:18:45
Emmeran wrote:
a more accurate measure is effectiveness rather than IQ...
I might agree, but how would you standardize, or even measure, efficacy? Income? Social status? Successful relationships? Number of offspring?
Trump is a douche, Paris is a whore, Hef has literally grandfathered-in polygamy, and I think we're all already on the same page about the haphazard reproduction of stoopit white folk.
Offline
#24 2007-10-18 17:21:43
headkicker_girl wrote:
The subject was discussed extensively when "The Bell Curve" came out.
As I recall the Bell Curve predicted that the average Asian would be more intelligent than the average Caucasian. Does that piss me off? Yeah, but if it's true, I can't argue. Actually, I view this as useful information and the main reason Asians do so well in math and science. To deny science for political correctness is a slippery slope.
Offline
#25 2007-10-18 20:21:08
Apparently Watson is copping the senility plea.
"I am mortified about what has happened," Watson said. "More importantly, I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said.
Offline
#26 2007-10-18 20:40:01
Phreddy wrote:
As I recall the Bell Curve predicted that the average Asian would be more intelligent than the average Caucasian. Does that piss me off? Yeah, but if it's true, I can't argue. Actually, I view this as useful information and the main reason Asians do so well in math and science. To deny science for political correctness is a slippery slope.
It amazes me how seemingly intelligent people like yourself accept that there is some intrinsic merit to IQ testing without question. Asians do well because they study hard. The ones who don't study, don't do well. They don't come out of the womb scoring high on standardized tests. Learning how to take standardized tests is part of the curriculum in most Asian countries. Take a high scoring Asian and drop him off in the desert among the Bush people of South Africa and see how much good his high IQ does him.
The science behind IQ testing is questionable at best. Who accepts that the standard measure of intelligence is the ability to tell the next numbers in a series of numbers or solve word puzzles? That is utter nonsense. Having a high IQ has never correlated to success in life. Richard Feynman had an average IQ, but I'd challenge any genius to best him in a discussion on theoretic physics.
I could outscore George Bush on an IQ test without questions, but he has a sort of craftiness that I will never possess, not to mention connections that my bloodline didn't give me. I don't accept the "science" of IQ testing because I've seen no studies that indicate it has any useful application.
Offline
#27 2007-10-18 20:42:59
pALEPHx wrote:
Emmeran wrote:
a more accurate measure is effectiveness rather than IQ...
I might agree, but how would you standardize, or even measure, efficacy? Income? Social status? Successful relationships? Number of offspring?
on a racial bias one might argue cultural, economic and military world domination as a sound starting point - however historic immigration (forced and otherwise) have diluted any realistic claim to surperior DNA.
On a personal level - maybe there is such a thing a "too" successful - Hell I know there is.
Offline
#28 2007-10-18 20:53:53
headkicker_girl wrote:
It amazes me how seemingly intelligent people like yourself accept that there is some intrinsic merit to IQ testing without question. Asians do well because they study hard. The ones who don't study, don't do well. They don't come out of the womb scoring high on standardized tests. Learning how to take standardized tests is part of the curriculum in most Asian countries. Take a high scoring Asian and drop him off in the desert among the Bush people of South Africa and see how much good his high IQ does him.
If I recall the Bell Curve correctly the thesis was based on studies performed on in the US. Historic immigration trends in the US tend to skew those results as recent Asian immigration has trended towards "the cream of the crop", while early 20th century European immigration trended towards the lower middle class and historic black immigration were based on slave trade (and subject to selective breeding). I'd have to go back and check, but I believe this was touched on in the Bell Curve.
The point? Spend enough time in Asia or Europe and you'll meet the other part of their Bell Curve that didn't get on the boat for whatever reason; part of which might explain the extremes we see here in the States.
The reason? Have you seen "Idiocracy" lately? There's something to it.
Offline
#29 2007-10-18 22:53:45
headkicker_girl wrote:
My ex husband's IQ is at least 30 points lower than mine. He grew up watching TV and never voluntarily read a book.
He's a doctor.
This begs several questions. Did he become a doctor via Affirmative Action? Why would you spawn with someone vastly inferior to you? Thirty points is a huge gap. Unless your IQ is way way up in the stratosphere and finding an intellectual peer would be next to impossible, you really chose pretty far down the scale.
Last edited by fnord (2007-10-18 22:54:26)
Offline
#30 2007-10-18 23:20:10
fnord wrote:
This begs several questions. Did he become a doctor via Affirmative Action? Why would you spawn with someone vastly inferior to you? Thirty points is a huge gap. Unless your IQ is way way up in the stratosphere and finding an intellectual peer would be next to impossible, you really chose pretty far down the scale.
My ex husband is probably more white than you are. German, English and French, so no, he did not benefit from affirmative action based on either race or privilege. He just studied hard because being a doctor was really important to him.
My ex's IQ is in the high average range. My current husband is only about 10 points behind me, and we are a much better match intellectually. My kids both have high IQs as well.
Offline
#31 2007-10-19 00:27:21
The PC Beatings have begun.
London's Science Museum canceled a sold-out lecture Watson was to give there Friday.
And the renowned Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, where Watson served as chancellor, has suspended his administrative responsibilities.
Offline
#32 2007-10-19 00:45:44
headkicker_girl wrote:
My ex's IQ is in the high average range. My current husband is only about 10 points behind me, and we are a much better match intellectually. My kids both have high IQs as well.
I've never had my IQ tested, and I don't know that I'd place any faith in an arbitrary number to define an intellectual quotient. What determines intellect?
I'm plenty stupid, but I'm plenty smart.
I'm also kind of ugly but I'm hung like a pony. You may have repsonded to my Chicago craigslist ad at some time in the past
Offline
#33 2007-10-19 01:42:42
Taint, I think Opie left a message for ya in the fine print!
Offline
#34 2007-10-19 02:17:59
Ah, Dusty. Your sense of responsibility and concern for your fellow High Street residents continues to impress me. Ahem.
Offline
#35 2007-10-19 02:20:31
A pony, huh? If that's the case, there's only one fit comparison.
Anyone got a tape measure?
Offline
#36 2007-10-19 02:28:41
Taint wrote:
Ah, Dusty. Your sense of responsibility and concern for your fellow High Street residents continues to impress me. Ahem.
I just want to see everybody get what they earnestly want and deserve!
Offline
#37 2007-10-19 02:32:27
Emmeran wrote:
on a racial bias one might argue cultural, economic and military world domination as a sound starting point - however historic immigration (forced and otherwise) have diluted any realistic claim to surperior DNA.
On a personal level - maybe there is such a thing a "too" successful - Hell I know there is
I realized I forgot one crucial word from the earlier post, as I was making dinner. It's "objective." From a psychological standpoint, various populations must produce a similar distribution (that bell curve thingy), or else skewing indicates bias, error, faulty instruments, etc. Most children in the Western, industrialized nations are tested for their IQ by about age nine. At all times, temperament, family dynamics, and socioeconomic factors can alter the results, so it's usually been repeated every few years before then, to establish a better picture of the kid's potential. Whether said child has any chance of living up to that potential is another matter. And these tests have been changing in recent decades to reflect a less homogenous culture in the US. We still do more to hold women back, then various minorities get short shrift, depending on location, enculturation, income, access to services, etc.
As far as Watson is concerned, some haven't been entirely convinced that he and Crick were the sole researchers to contribute to our initial understanding of DNA (one name continually omitted is that of a woman, Rosalind Franklin). Still, it proves you can understand a very complicated, primary structure of life, yet know so little about humanity, in general. Scientists don't get out much, y'see.
Offline
#38 2007-10-19 22:00:23
pALEPHx wrote:
I realized I forgot one crucial word from the earlier post, as I was making dinner. .
making dinner? Now you've said something interesting . . . what's the eats???
Offline
#39 2007-10-19 22:52:57
Emmeran wrote:
making dinner? Now you've said something interesting . . . what's the eats???
How dare you deprecate the value of my other insights. Just for that, I won't tell you that I made veal piccata. So there.
Offline
#40 2007-10-19 22:55:51
opsec wrote:
headkicker_girl wrote:
My ex's IQ is in the high average range. My current husband is only about 10 points behind me, and we are a much better match intellectually. My kids both have high IQs as well.
I've never had my IQ tested, and I don't know that I'd place any faith in an arbitrary number to define an intellectual quotient. What determines intellect?
I'm plenty stupid, but I'm plenty smart.
I'm also kind of ugly but I'm hung like a pony. You may have repsonded to my Chicago craigslist ad at some time in the past
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAH Thanks for making my eyes strain. That was the funniest thing I've read in awhile (the Craigslist comment).
Offline
#41 2007-10-20 00:00:48
If I had the old cruel spirit, I'd post to Chicago CL just to troll HK into posting it here... but since she's the only attorney I've got...
Offline
#42 2007-10-20 00:26:47
opsec wrote:
If I had the old cruel spirit, I'd post to Chicago CL just to troll HK into posting it here... but since she's the only attorney I've got...
I don't read them every day so i't'd be a real crap shoot.
Offline
#43 2007-10-20 07:04:00
It's a crapshoot every day, dah-link. I gossa gurlfren here who makes a habit of cruising the CListings of other cities just to find the most pathetic MSW ads, then she sends them to me, as if I really need to see those horrible, unclean apartments/bedsheets in the background. [shudder] The only one I really paid attention to was obviously in the same apartment complex we are, right down the the crappy cabinets and the outmoded Hotpoint stoves. Just knowing he was within 500m of me made me wanna shower. With the doors locked.
Offline
#44 2007-10-20 21:53:59
opsec wrote:
If I had the old cruel spirit, I'd post to Chicago CL just to troll HK into posting it here... but since she's the only attorney I've got...
Did you see my posting? I was feeling a little lonely earlier.
Offline
#45 2007-10-20 22:27:54
headkicker_girl wrote:
Did you see my posting? I was feeling a little lonely earlier.
It was flagged :( Craigslist is pretty democratically fascist.
Offline
#46 2007-10-20 22:37:36
BBW seeking an attractive drinking buddy TONIGHT!!! - w4m - 28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: pers-454956685@craigslist.org
Date: 2007-10-20, 7:39PM CDT
White, BBW seeking an attractive, TALL guy to have a few drinks with tonight. Open to all races, but have a weekness for black men. I was going to stay in, but now I'm bored!!! Send me a pic, and I'll reply ASAP.
Offline
#47 2007-10-20 23:07:53
They flagged that?! Damn I thought this area was uptight. I wonder if it was the BBW, the miscegenation or the misspelling.
Offline
#48 2007-10-20 23:22:57
opsec wrote:
They flagged that?! Damn I thought this area was uptight. I wonder if it was the BBW, the miscegenation or the misspelling.
Well you've seen my other ads, so it can't be the misspellings.
Offline
#50 2007-10-21 14:59:05
Dmtdust wrote:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm
Ok, so he's a fucking idiot.
Offline
