So Liberals...

[Taro T]

You ask two very good questions. 

 

1. Is there such a thing as generic intelligence?  Every language in the world has a word which means "smart" or "intelligent" or something similar.  How do you go about quantifying this thing?  Mensa has developed expertise in determining which tests are generic aptitude tests, because such expertise is required for their admissions process.  The group is apolitical, so I'd trust them more than I'd trust someone with an ideological agenda they want to prove. 

 

What about someone who scores poorly on the general aptitude test, yet has a special knack for, say, carpentry?  Wouldn't this person's genes be at least as useful to the next generation as those of someone who did a little better on the test, yet lacks this special gift?  Perhaps so.  But attempting to measure such specific things is impractical.  Assuming the gift of carpentry isn't correlated with intelligence, the measures I propose would neither increase nor decrease the proportion of people who have that carpentry knack. 

 

But, some might say, certain gifts seem negatively correlated with intelligence.  Many believe exceptionally smart people often lack social skills or street smarts.  While this may well be true, a brilliant scientist or engineer is exceptionally useful even if he lacks social skills or street smarts.  In any case, equally brilliant engineers with social skills will do a better job of attracting mates and having children than engineers who lack social awareness.

 

2. You ask me how I'd explain my eugenics plan to groups who tend to do poorly on standardized aptitude tests.  In, say, an all-black nation, the measures I've described would increase the intelligence level without affecting the country's racial composition.  The same is true with an all-Hispanic nation or an all-white nation.  The problem, as you point out, is that in a mixed-race nation, groups that tend to do worse on aptitude tests may not like a government program that would decrease their share of the overall population.

 

On the other hand, white people aren't allowed to voice similar complaints.  Pat Buchanan, for example, made the comment that the U.S. needed to reform its immigration policy if it intended to remain a white nation.  His opponents were quick to label him an extremist and a Nazi.  In the U.S., government policies which tend to increase the proportion of whites (as my eugenics program would) can be objected to on racial grounds.  Policies which tend to decrease the proportion of whites (such as the way we handle immigration) cannot be objected to on racial grounds.  Having different standards for different races is unjust.  Either the government should avoid all policies which change this nation's racial composition, or it should adopt policies without regards to how these policies would affect racial composition.  If the first is the case, people of all races should join Buchanan in his racially-based objections to U.S. immigration policy.  If the latter is the case, the eugenics programs I suggest shouldn't be objected to on racial grounds.

743916[/snapback]

A few comments / questions.

 

1. I wouldn't go praising Mensa's screening process too highly when morons like Mike D'ohopp made it through the process. ("No, no, I'm smart! I have a piece of paper that tells you I'm smart!")

 

2. What is your basis for assuming that measuring aptitude for carpentry (or any other useful skill) is "impractical"? And what does your aside about social skills have to do with your "theory"?

 

3. Why would your policies, necessarily, "increase the proportion of whites"?

[meazza]

A few comments / questions.

 

 

3. Why would your policies, necessarily, "increase the proportion of whites"?

743989[/snapback]

 

I don't have anything to back this up but I heard that generally, whites score better on these aptitude tests.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

2. What is your basis for assuming that measuring aptitude for carpentry (or any other useful skill) is "impractical"?

743989[/snapback]

 

Because carpentry is a learned skill, ergo it's very very inconvenient to mention it in connection with eugenics.

 

That's only part of the beauty of his tautology: that he readily discards anything that doesn't help his central thesis prove itself. Of course, that's usually how tautologies work anyway...

[Taro T]

Because carpentry is a learned skill, ergo it's very very inconvenient to mention it in connection with eugenics. 

 

That's only part of the beauty of his tautology: that he readily discards anything that doesn't help his central thesis prove itself.  Of course, that's usually how tautologies work anyway...

744023[/snapback]

It definitely has become one of the more interesting theories I've read over here.

 

I am still interested in reading Mr. Arm's responses. I wouldn't say this thread rivals clowns balancing on boards yet, but it is getting there.

[Orton's Arm]

A few comments / questions.

 

1. I wouldn't go praising Mensa's screening process too highly when morons like Mike D'ohopp made it through the process.  ("No, no, I'm smart!  I have a piece of paper that tells you I'm smart!")

 

2. What is your basis for assuming that measuring aptitude for carpentry (or any other useful skill) is "impractical"?  And what does your aside about social skills have to do with your "theory"?

 

3. Why would your policies, necessarily, "increase the proportion of whites"?

743989[/snapback]

1. I'm not familiar with Mike D'ohopp, but the Mensa people I have met have all seemed quite intelligent. Without knowing anything at all about Mike D'ohopp, I'm guessing that he's loud and opinionated, and that his opinions are usually different from yours. His may be a case of a smart person saying foolish things, or it may be that there's sense behind his beliefs that gets lost because of his style.

 

2a. If you wanted to measure the knack for one skill in particular, you probably could do it. But even that's not always true. I've heard that they're trying to develop an aptitude test to see who would make the best computer programmers, thus far with little success. I know a company like Microsoft or Google would pay big bucks for a test like that, so the failure to find one indicates real difficulties. But even after you've developed a list of all the possible knacks people might have, and after you've developed aptitude tests for each possible knack, you still have to decide what weight to give each test. Should someone who scores in the 99th percentile on the sewing aptitude test be given more or fewer points than someone who scores in the 95th percentile on the computer programming test? Should someone who scored in the 80th percentile on five different knack tests be given more or less credit than someone who scored in the 99th percentile on one test?

 

2b. My aside about social skills was intended to deal with a possible objection to eugenics policies. Many feel that very brilliant people often tend to be less socially skilled than average. Despite this, I feel these brilliant people should be encouraged to have large families. The next generation will benefit from the efforts of these brilliant people's children, even if they turn out to be wallflowers at parties.

 

3. At least in the U.S., whites tend to do better on aptitude tests than blacks or Hispanics. But there are many exceptions: my sister is friends with a black woman who has an I.Q. above 160. That's Einstein territory. The policies I suggest would encourage women like my sister's friend to have as many children as possible. Maybe one of these children would grow up to help fill the leadership void that currently exists in the black community. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton are considerably below the level of Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.

[Orton's Arm]

Because carpentry is a learned skill, ergo it's very very inconvenient to mention it in connection with eugenics. 

 

That's only part of the beauty of his tautology: that he readily discards anything that doesn't help his central thesis prove itself.  Of course, that's usually how tautologies work anyway...

Hey, why not call my view a tautology ten more times? Then maybe people will forget the fact you've provided absolutely no evidence or reasoning whatsoever to support this claim.

 

I don't mind having intelligent conversations with reasonable people. But right now, you're acting as though your intelligence excuses you from the duty to be reasonable.

[KurtGodel77]

But I figured, nah, why bother, I already had to dispute this Nazi bull sh-- with KurtGodel77, if you want my opinions you can look them up from back then.  But apparently you're not smart enough to research past posts...which I suppose makes you genetically inferior to me. 

Looks like Monkeyface is at it again. I remember our discussion like it was yesterday. I wrote that people of difference races shouldn't marry, because the world is better off with many races than it would be with one big globalized race. You responded by calling me a Nazi.

 

Beyond your capacity for projecting intense hate at people, nobody would learn anything by going through your posts from that discussion. Well, I take that back. They would learn that Ilya Ehrenburg wasn't really the Soviet propaganda minister, that in German an umlat takes the place of the letter e, and that some Nazi official once said something about mutual racial respect. But beyond these things, you had nothing to write except hate.

 

Please believe me when I say my expectations for you are extremely low. Even so, I was shocked when you insinuated that someone was lazy for failing to research those fact-free, hate-filled posts of yours. Is it really worth two hours of someone's time to find out you're a Nazi-baiter? Is it worth ten seconds? Didn't think so.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Looks like Monkeyface is at it again.  I remember our discussion like it was yesterday.  I wrote that people of difference races shouldn't marry, because the world is better off with many races than it would be with one big globalized race.  You responded by calling me a Nazi. 

 

Actually, you called it "marital genocide", and your posts were virtually indistinguishable from Alfred Rosenberg's Nazi party writings on racial purity. I did post the comparison...many people agreed with me. Many still would.

 

Please believe me when I say my expectations for you are extremely low.  Even so, I was shocked when you insinuated that someone was lazy for failing to research those fact-free, hate-filled posts of yours.  Is it really worth two hours of someone's time to find out you're a Nazi-baiter?  Is it worth ten seconds?  Didn't think so.

744139[/snapback]

 

A Nazi-baiter? That would make you...hmmm...let's see...a Nazi.

[KurtGodel77]

Actually, you called it "marital genocide", and your posts were virtually indistinguishable from Alfred Rosenberg's Nazi party writings on racial purity.  I did post the comparison...many people agreed with me.  Many still would. 

A Nazi-baiter?  That would make you...hmmm...let's see...a Nazi. 

I didn't think I'd have to say this, but you've exceeded my expectations. I accused you of trying to win an argument through sheer hate. It would have been hypocritical and dishonest for you to deny the charge, so I respect your decision to let it stand uncontested.

 

It's true you provided a very mild sounding quote from a Nazi official. At least to you, the quote sounded similar to the things I was saying. But your bloodlust was such that you didn't provide the context of the quote. If memory serves, it was made in 1934. At that time, the Nazis had just come into power in Germany. Because Germany's military was weak, they naturally wanted to sound as mild and unthreatening to Western nations as possible. Moreover, they wanted to build national unity, including unity among Germans who strongly disagreed with the Nazis' more extreme views. In this context, it made sense for the Nazis to present their views in as mild and reasonable a tone as possible, and to make them seem similar to what people in the Western democracies believed. Anything a government official said had to be Nazi-like enough to appease the base, mild enough to appease the British and French, and moderate enough that an average German could accept it.

 

If you know a quarter as much about history as you claim, you know about the tightrope the Nazis walked on in those early years. But you presented the quote as though it was an unfettered and complete description of Nazi racial theory. What you did is like calling someone a communist for having advocated land, bread, and peace.

[GG]

In this context, it made sense for the Nazis to present their views in as mild and reasonable a tone as possible, and to make them seem similar to what people in the Western democracies believed.

744201[/snapback]

 

Is that like saying that an oven at 120 degrees is much more pleasant than one at 1000 degrees?

[Chilly]

Is that like saying that an oven at 120 degrees is much more pleasant than one at 1000 degrees?

744207[/snapback]

 

I bet pop tarts cook even faster if you leave them in the box.... vertically at 1000 degrees

[KurtGodel77]

Is that like saying that an oven at 120 degrees is much more pleasant than one at 1000 degrees?

It can get hotter than 120 in deserts in the Southwest, so yes.

 

Nazis believed in some extreme racial views. Communist views about race and genetics were in many ways even more extreme, but in the opposite direction. If the goal is to avoid having the same views as mass murderers, one's #1 priority should be to avoid believing as the communists did. They killed a lot more people than the Nazis did.

 

In any case, I stay away from the Nazi concept of Aryan superiority, as well as the communist idea that the world would be better off if all races were melded together. Somewhere between those two extremes is probably best. Someone who respects all races isn't going to engage in racially-based killings, nor will he long for the day when the races he respects and admires have ceased to exist.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

It can get hotter than 120 in deserts in the Southwest, so yes. 

 

Nazis believed in some extreme racial views.  Communist views about race and genetics were in many ways even more extreme, but in the opposite direction.  If the goal is to avoid having the same views as mass murderers, one's #1 priority should be to avoid believing as the communists did.  They killed a lot more people than the Nazis did.

 

In any case, I stay away from the Nazi concept of Aryan superiority, as well as the communist idea that the world would be better off if all races were melded together.  Somewhere between those two extremes is probably best.  Someone who respects all races isn't going to engage in racially-based killings, nor will he long for the day when the races he respects and admires have ceased to exist.

744263[/snapback]

 

Here's the original thread: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=17484&st=20 Contains both your comments and Rosenberg's quote. Let everyone else judge for themselves.

 

Let them also note that you "stay away from the Nazi concept of Aryan superiority", even as you bemoan the ultimate "marital genocide" of naturally blonde races. If you walk like a Nazi and talk like a Nazi...you're a Nazi, Kurt.

[Chilly]

It can get hotter than 120 in deserts in the Southwest, so yes. 

 

Nazis believed in some extreme racial views.  Communist views about race and genetics were in many ways even more extreme, but in the opposite direction.  If the goal is to avoid having the same views as mass murderers, one's #1 priority should be to avoid believing as the communists did.  They killed a lot more people than the Nazis did.

 

In any case, I stay away from the Nazi concept of Aryan superiority, as well as the communist idea that the world would be better off if all races were melded together.  Somewhere between those two extremes is probably best.  Someone who respects all races isn't going to engage in racially-based killings, nor will he long for the day when the races he respects and admires have ceased to exist.

744263[/snapback]

 

Maybe we should have a marriage office that approves or disapproves marriage licenses based upon racial standards (preventing mixed marriages from taking place).

 

Oh wait, that's already been done, its called Nazi Germany.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Maybe we should have a marriage office that approves or disapproves marriage licenses based upon racial standards (preventing mixed marriages from taking place).

 

Oh wait, that's already been done, its called Nazi Germany. 

744534[/snapback]

 

Oh, you're so full of hate...

[Chilly]

Oh, you're so full of hate... 

744623[/snapback]

 

I'm too brainwashed by academia and american society to be able to do anything other then label him as a Nazi.

 

Oh how I fear for my future.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I'm too brainwashed by academia and american society to be able to do anything other then label him as a Nazi. 

 

Oh how I fear for my future.   

744658[/snapback]

 

I went back eariler and re-read some of his posts, just to verify once again that he is, in fact, a Nazi.

 

Man, some of his post are a riot. The discussion about the MIT drama professor that proved the Big Bang lasted six days and not 15 billion years was a hoot.

[GG]

It can get hotter than 120 in deserts in the Southwest, so yes. 

 

 

744263[/snapback]

 

Don't forget your Zyklon sunscreen, kiddies.

[Chilly]

I went back eariler and re-read some of his posts, just to verify once again that he is, in fact, a Nazi.

 

Man, some of his post are a riot.  The discussion about the MIT drama professor that proved the Big Bang lasted six days and not 15 billion years was a hoot. 

744700[/snapback]

 

 

I must go read.

[KurtGodel77]

Let them also note that you "stay away from the Nazi concept of Aryan superiority", even as you bemoan the ultimate "marital genocide" of naturally blonde races.    If you walk like a Nazi and talk like a Nazi...you're a Nazi, Kurt.

If you think the world would be better off without blonde people in it, you either haven't seen pictures of Reese Witherspoon, or else you're gay.