bobf said:
Wrong but it seems to be the only attack you can use against it.Evo said:
Wrong again. It has constantly been confirmed with newer publications such as "Race, Evolution, and Behavior"
Why would one have to find a newer source, when your source touches the "do not do this because it would be faulty" approach already stated by previous publications? Unless you can show that it did not do this, it is you that needs to give up.
chroot said:
Yes, Asians could drink from these fountains, they were not considered black. You forget BV, I was there, I was witness to this.BlackVision said:
Evo said:
No matter who conducts the study. Whether it is by a White, Jewish, Asian. It ALWAYS follows this order in IQ level. Jews, Asians, Whites, Blacks. ALWAYS. It doesn't matter if a Jewish person does the study, or a White person, or an Asian person, the studies have always been consistent in that order.United States said:
Ah so the term "Whites Only" applied to Asians. Hmmmmm.Evo said:
I don't know why you continue to ask me questions upon questions, even when I've already explained that I have no formal education on this topic. I don't know if you think this is somehow "debunking" me, but I don't feel it is.bobf said:
No, it never said "whites only", you made an error in assuming something that wasn't said. Again, don't try to discuss something that you know nothing about.BlackVision said:
chroot said:
Evo said:
LMAO! One must seriously shake his head in disbelief when debating with you.Evo said:
Look at it simply: the first person or people to come up with the concept of agriculture radically changed his/her civilization, and gave that civilization a huge advantage over others. The first person to come up with an internal combustion engine did so, as well. Look around you -- there are hundreds of different techniques, materials, processes, and concepts all around you that someone had to invent or stumble across -- everything from number systems to financial systems to government structures to metal-working techniques to building techniques to industrial machines, each building on earlier successes.bobf said:
jammieg said:
That would be what a person with common sense would say. An attribute Evo seems to lack.bobf said:
chroot said:
That's essentially what I'm trying to say -- what began as a very small advantage ten thousand years ago, achieved via sheer chance, would bloom into a tremendous advantage today.jammieg said:
chroot said:
Certainly civilization-changing concepts and inventions are due to exceptionally bright people. That doesn't mean that person's entire culture is more intelligent than the others on average, however. The majority of inventions that changed history can be attributed to either an individual, or a very small number of people.bobf said:
What impact would the intelligence level of that group have in their technological development?chroot said:
There are plenty of facts to prove it, I can flood you with it. It is verifiable history, tv documentation of it. The water fountains were labeled for coloreds. "Colored" people had to ride in the back of the bus. It is all a matter of history. It is a sad history. "Colored" was the word used before "black". Asians were not considered colored, nor were hispanics.bobf said:
Do I really need to define "chance" for you? I feel you're just playing games with me, and I don't appreciate it. If you have nothing to add, you should leave this discussion. If all you're going to do is ask me leading questions and criticize my admittedly ill-researched posturing, I'm not really interested in talking about this with you.bobf said:
chroot said:
While it is true that advancements are made by the elite rather than the average, a higher median level for intelligence by a random group, would also likely mean there would be more elites.chroot said:
No, because it's unlikely that one individual in every such civilization would come up with civilization-changing ideas like agriculture, money, the place system, the loom, etc. at the same time. The first culture to gain a slight advantage over the others, even by pure chance, would have rapidly advanced over the others. The people who caused such advancement were particularly gifted, and particularly gifted people certainly occur in every culture.BlackVision said:
Because you have no conception of what was "known" then. You do not know recent history. You are ignorant of what was commonly known then.BlackVision said:
I repeat were Asians, as well as Hispanics, allowed to drink from water foundations that said "Whites Only" I already gave my evidence that "Whites Only" signs existed completely refuting your statement that they didn't exist. But once again were Asians allowed to drink from these fountains?Evo said:
chroot said:
Evo said:
Yes, they were. But they did not say "whites only", did you not read what I posted?BlackVision said:
Of course, it would be asinine to say it didn't. Technological advancement requires intelligent individuals. What I don't feel is important is some notion of the intelligence of an entire group or race of people -- since most important inventions, again, were invented by particularly gifted individuals or small groups of people, and particularly gifted people exist in every group.bobf said:
No, that's entirely my point.
You don't need to invoke some generalization about Europeans being smarter than Africans to explain their present-day lead in technology. It can be explained neatly, I think, by exponential technological growth seeded by largely chance events that happened a very long time ago.