Donald Trump warns of the Muslim Problem

[Collector1337]

The Comparison of Mean IQ in Muslim and Non-Muslim Countries
By Templer, Donald I.

Abstract

The present research found that the Muslim country mean IQ of 81 is half a standard deviation below the mean IQ of non-Muslim nations and is not related to strength of Muslim culture as defined by the percentage of Muslims in the country. The mean IQ of 84 in Arab countries is not associated with per capita income and is incompatible with the intellectual achievements of the golden age of the Muslim Empire. Possible explanations for this decline include hybridization with sub-Saharan Africans, dysgenic decrease in the more educated Muslims employing birth control as suggested by Meisenberg, the Muslim religion not fostering critical thinking, and the intellectual contributions being both exaggerated and made by non-Muslims.

https://www.questia.com/library/journal ... non-muslim

[tuco]

Is this one of those journals people pay for so they get published there?

Hard to question the data if its not possible to check sources and such.

[Rum]

Congratulations on finding a racist masquerading as a scientist to reinforce your ignorant prejudices. The guy you are quoting spends a good deal of his time finding 'evidence' to point out the differences between the races. Odd how the white races always come top of his league. Though he has a grudging admiration for Asians I will grant you.

[JimC]

Congratulations on finding a racist masquerading as a scientist to reinforce your ignorant prejudices. The guy you are quoting spends a good deal of his time finding 'evidence' to point out the differences between the races. Odd how the white races always come top of his league. Though he has a grudging admiration for Asians I will grant you.

He must beware the curse of Fu Manchu!

[tuco]

This actually got me lol so thanks for that:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showth ... of-our-Day

I wonder what Mr Templer IQ is. Because if its lower than mine ..

[Collector1337]

You guys should read this also:

[Seth]

Give us an example of rational, valid racism based on the inferiority of a nominal race-group.

Discrimination against pedophiles.

[JimC]

Who the fuck cares what racist morons write?

Got that nice pointy-headed white cloak tucked away in a closet, Collector?

[tuco]

Well, if they published quality science, who cares if they are racists or not? If anything, they published controversial science at least.

edit: I've read the critique: The Mismeasure of Man, SJ Gould, which turned out to be similarly flawed.

[Seth]

You can't really. You can get away with a little bit of vigorous banter. But if it starts getting nasty, then you'll get called on it.

Not really. I reported about six posts and not a fucking thing was done about it.

That's because I didn't personally attack you, like you did to me and others probably about ten or fifteen times.

Of course you did.

Regarding Seth, he thinks most people other than right-libertarians and him are Marxists (or are under the sway of some giant Marxist conspiracy).

No, just the Marxists and their useful idiots.

Hence the "conspiracy" comment.

And you think that saying "he thinks" in connection with the word "conspiracy" means it's not a conspiracy? Of course Marxism is a conspiracy, and an enormous, long-standing one at that. It's a conspiracy because many people are conspiring together to make Marxism and its ideals the dominant socio-political control mechanism. As for your "other than right-libertarians" comment, that's just your (entirely false) opinion. The only people I label as Marxist conspirators are those who act like Marxist conspirators...or their useful idiots who might possibly be idiotic enough to fail to understand the depth, breadth, history and mortal threat that Marxism poses to individual liberty and civilization itself. So, if one quacks like a Marxist and waddles like a Marxist but refuses to acknowledge being a Marxist there is only one rational conclusion to be drawn about such a person: he must be a useful idiot for Marxism and nothing more. Believe me, there's plenty of such useful idiots infesting rational society.

In every debate, when you present a counter fact to whatever the topic is, he has this handy catch all due to his insane conspiracy theory that he can deploy to just totally ignore counter-evidence.

You have never presented a shred of counter evidence.

Still lying I see. You know damn well that I've presented IMF and OECD research and analysis and you've rejected it by ad homming the authors as Marxists. Any chance you could stop lying?

None of the above is evidence of anything other than confirmation bias. The first rule of Marxism is "never admit to Marxism" and both the IMP and OECD are masters at not doing so. Doesn't mean they aren't either Marxists or useful idiots of Marxism.

That is, ad hom the author(s) as a Marxist. It's fucking retarded.

So if you're not a Marxist, why do your arguments always align with Marxism one-hundred percent of the time? You know, the whole "redistribute the wealth" rhetoric and your mindless class hatred of anybody who has more than you do thing?

I'm talking about you ad homming the likes of IMF and OECD (and pretty much every author of anything that provides counter evidence to your blocks).

I'm talking about you and your Marxist-aligned rhetoric.

You see, anyone who denies that Marxism is still a major influence in socialist politics can only be either a Marxist liar or a useful idiot of Marxism because socialism's connection to Marxism is both perfectly obvious and entirely undeniable. Therefore rhetoric denying socialism's (any flavor thereof) connection to Marxism is nothing more that a Marxist Big Lie tactic of lying about it in hopes of making the lie into the presumed truth.

[Seth]

That's looking at it the wrong way. It's the RACISTS who are intolerant. By definition.

Well, not that I expect you to either understand what I'm getting at or articulate a rational response, but...so what?

Is there any fucking chance that you could follow even one argument on this site?!? Tuco was complaining about the intolerance of people who get stuck into racists. So that's "so what?".

And my response was perfectly appropriate, which you have just admitted you are incapable of understanding, because I wasn't responding to tuco, I was responding to the quote by you that I cited.

[tuco]

However, my fav is the ant-man, EO Wilson:

We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.

- On Human Nature

Indeed.

[Seth]

Is this one of those journals people pay for so they get published there?

Hard to question the data if its not possible to check sources and such.

Then check the sources.

[tuco]

I was trying for about 10 mins " (Lynn, 2008a). Mackintosh (2007)" with no luck so I gave up. Its not that important to me that I would feel the need to debunk/confirm it. I would assume those who consider it important do the work.

---
edit: my IQ is one number short of leet 137. That makes me what? 4% or less? So chances are ya'll are inferior to me. So what?

[Seth]

Congratulations on finding a racist masquerading as a scientist to reinforce your ignorant prejudices. The guy you are quoting spends a good deal of his time finding 'evidence' to point out the differences between the races. Odd how the white races always come top of his league. Though he has a grudging admiration for Asians I will grant you.

And your critically robust scientific evidence that his "evidence" is somehow false is????

You are simply engaging in a racist circumstantial ad hominem attack in which you claim that his conclusions are false because they do not correspond with your notions of what they ought to be.

But you have provided zero evidence that his conclusions are faulty.

Given his credentials and your credentials it seems rational to reject your claims as nothing more than fallacious opinionizing.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps "the white races" (or some other race, like Asians) might actually be intellectually superior by virtue of their race?

I've seen no evidence suggesting that such a thing is not genetically or biologically possible. Indeed, the evidence presented, which given your dearth of critically robust refutation can be taken at face value as accurate until proven otherwise, suggests that there likely are genetic differences in intelligence between races, just as there appeared to have been intellectual differences as a function of genetics between Neanderthal and Homo Sapien Sapien.

What is your evidence that genetically-based intelligence differences between different races is either impossible or does not exist?

Oh, and by the way, suggesting, investigating or even proving that there are such genetic differences in intelligence between races is not "racism," it's "science."