Looks like RFK Jr. supports affirmative action.
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (75)
sorted by:
But your first goalpost was not really successful at that. Most alphabets are copied from others, which is why isolation matters.
When? In 300 AD? Surely not.
Nope, I am fully aware of racial differences in IQ as well as other things. I just don't think that your arguments were particularly strong. You started out with an incorrect impression of literacy, and then moved to some other things that you thought were stronger points. The idea that every place was literate 5000 years ago is quite laughable, but you seem to be open-minded enough to admit that.
Like I said, the advancement of peoples in isolation is not a valid measuring stick, no more for Africa than the people of the Canary Islands.
I'm not questioning that conclusion. Just what you then conclude on that basis. There are environmental factors as well, as well as geographical factors, that may account for part or all of Africa's lack of development. You also cannot take development at any given moment in history and make conclusions on that basis. In 1000 BC, you'd have concluded that clearly, the tawny and Mongolian peoples are superior to everyone else, as all white people were at the level of savagery.
Well isn't this interesting. I said they had writing 5000 years ago, and you changed that to "literacy". Wonder why you would do that? You're moving the goal posts because the writing you were shown wasn't 'advanced' enough.
Again I didn't say alphabets. Cuneiform is writing, so is Chinese and neither have alphabets.
Sub-Saharan Africa isn't particularly physically isolated compared to say the Americas.
Again moving the goal posts. I didn't say particular peoples were "superior" to others at certain times, I said that they all had certain features by at least 5000 years ago - except sub-Saharan Africa (and Australia).
All you've done is move goal posts, which is what I called out beforehand since it's entirely predictable. People like you can be well aware of the body of evidence and the inescapable conclusion, yet refuse to draw it. "It's geography, no it's environmental, or... something else."
It's possible that Egypt was given a star gate and that's how they became civilized. Possible means nothing without likelihood, and I'm sure you've not even thought about how probable some other explanation is - it's about the same as the star gate.
Writing is literacy.
Right, and no one claimed you said anything. Only that nearly all alphabets, which are systems of writing, are copied from others. Not sure why you're so defensive all of a sudden.
The Americas are a good deal larger though, with a greater variety of climates. And even there, you see that 'civilizations' are concentrated in particular areas - the tribes in what is now the US did not have agriculture before the arrival of whites, so no civilization.
Wait, you're actually returning to your initial claim that northern Europe had writing 5000 years ago? My entire point is that if you made judgments 3000 years ago, let alone 5000 years ago, your conclusion regarding white people would not be favorable at all.
BLACKS BAD.
All the early civilizations formed around highly fertile river valleys: Egypt has the Nile, Mesopotamia the two rivers, and the Indus Valley speaks for itself. Please note where these areas are and the average IQs that studies show for them.
I think it's very likely that geography and environment played a large role. I could explain it for you if you're at all interested, but I think you're just interested in 'proving' negative claims about one group. That seems to be the only explanation that you'll accept. You don't want other factors to play any role at all. On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing to accept that average IQ plays a role, but I don't want to ignore all other factors for my pet explanation that just suits me really well.
No, it's not. See reference earlier in the thread.
Another falsehood.
It would change nothing. At any point in time back as far as archeology has found evidence all the other areas were far more advanced. It was certainly true 3000 years ago as exemplified by that sword for instance.
Ignoring evidence is absolutely what you're doing. Pretending civilizations all started in a few places instead of all over, ignoring evidence of writing, building, agriculture, qualitative evidence you can see with your own eyes, and so on. Drawing false equivalencies like from small islands only seen from ships to explain whole continents.
It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, you've presented no counter evidence that it's not a duck. But you're very certain it's not a duck - or more accurately that it's only partially a duck??
Yeah I'm sure you do feel like you could explain it. And yet somehow you won't, will you?
I asked you for evidence that contradicts my contention of all other peoples being "far advanced" and you came up with nothing. I've supported my argument with references and examples, you've not done so while making some demonstrably false claims. And yet somehow you feel like you're operating from evidence and rationality. Well I'll be waiting for that illuminating explanation that makes so much sense to you.