John Engelman, come on down.

[JohnEngelman]

I reject it because your conclusions are based on your own racist bullshit. Whether you need something else to feel better about it is your own thing. I am not required to justify anything for you

I probably should put you on ignore. On rare occasions you post something worth responding to.

"You are a racist" is not a rational rebuttal to facts about intractable racial differences in average intelligence and behavior. It should not be an acceptable response.

 

[ll74]

I probably should put you on ignore. On rare occasions you post something worth responding to.

"You are a racist" is not a rational rebuttal to facts about intractable racial differences in average intelligence and behavior. It should not be an acceptable response.

How difficult is a complete rejection to comprehend?

Apparently, very

 

[JohnEngelman]

How difficult is a complete rejection to comprehend?

Apparently, very

I feel honored by your rejection. By rejecting what I say you reject what you privately know to be true.

 

[ll74]

I feel honored by your rejection. By rejecting what I say you reject what you privately know to be true.

As Ive said multiple times before...whatever makes you feel good. And no, nothing you say has any truth to it, regardless of what "data" you find on your sites. But tell yourself whatever you need to to feel good.

 

[LdyHoneybee]

You've made yourself quite clear with regard to the black community in the US and the world in general. You've cited research to bolster your assertions. All in all you've made a strong case for YOUR point of view. Further the counters to your assertions have been weak at best. A great many of the better counter arguments have been based on culture and those arguments are not without merit.

Before I get into the cultural issue let's deal with the IQ problem. Virtually every instance of research you cited in based on, or derivative from, Herrnstein's and Murray's seminal work on the subject. And their data sets were a decade old in most instances. That does not make their data stale for the time of publication, but it's most certainly stale today. I don't believe that the data points have moved significantly, but they have moved. However, for the sake of discussion let's assume that what they published is true in all particulars. I assume you know how normal population distributions work and what standard deviations are. If not, consult with your local math department.

Most successful small business people and skilled tradesmen (blue collar) folks fall into the 90 to 110 IQ range. This range would place the upper side of the mean and the lower side of the 1st standard deviation, this would be squarely within the reach of the black community. As we move up the standard deviation window we get into even higher potential levels of achievement. The point here is that the mean does NOT define the whole. If we are to look at the white and Asian population one standard deviation down the ladder we find that they are squarely in the black populations mean. The exception here is the Hasidic Jews in which case we have to go two standard deviations down. So even if we take Herrnsein's and Murray's word at face value at the minimum 40%+ of the black population are quite capable of leading productive lives.

Next I'm going to geography and genetics. Sub-Saharan Africa is a shit hole in virtually all respects. There are no reliably navigable rivers into the interior. Human lives are short (Tsetse Fly and Malaria). There are no beasts of burden (Tsetse Fly). And there was no real agriculture (crappy soil). Life was tribal, local, short, brutal and focused on day to day survival. There was no opportunity for the evolution of anything approaching the civilizations that arose in Europe, Asia, or the Americas. Geography and climate was, and still is, not working for the greater part of sub-Saharan Africa. The skills, and intelligence, required for a stable and robust civilization were never allowed to develop. Advanced civilization requires selective breeding. In some cultures this is achieved by 'arranged marriages' in others by social class distinctions. Regardless of the method this 'selective breeding' did occur. And to an extent it still is occurring. Sub-Saharan Africa, being without an advanced civilization, never benefited from that process. From an evolutionary standpoint they are at least 1000 years behind.

Now to the cultural aspects. Before I dive into this I recommend that you read "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" by Thomas Sowell. Now for a tale of two island chains. The US Virgin Islands and the British Virgin Islands. The US Virgin Islands are a crime ridden nightmare, no one of sound mind would ever visit those islands. Yet within sight of the US Virgin Island are the British Virgin Islands which are not plagued by crime. Both are black majorities of slave stock. Why the difference? Some years ago I was seated beside a US Virgin Island Senator. We had a long discussion regarding what was going on. He was educating me and I listened. It seems that starting in the late 70's early 80's "educators" from the US began to "educate" the population that they were oppressed victims and not responsible for their lot in life. Apparently the British didn't make the same mistake. Overall blacks from the West Indies, and Africa, do better than our home grown blacks. I refuse to believe that we got the "stupid" ones.

On politics. The democrat party has built a coalition of "tribes." Their entire focus is to appeal to various minority groups in order to build a majority. Identity politics (tribalism) is a loser and does nothing to move a nation forward. I bring this up because in spite of you proclaiming to be a democrat, you are doing your best to alienate one of the parties key voting groups. An activity that seems quite paradoxical to me. I don't doubt your sincerity in what you post, merely wondering whether you've thought it through to a cohesive whole and where you're going with it and what you plan to do about it?

In the South, that is called a Blue Dog.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Blacks hate anyone that succeeds while they wallow in failure. Even the odd black that makes a success by his own labour has to be attacked and destroyed for being an example that white racism doesn't block blacks from rising. It is only themselves that are the cause of their misfortune and their racism against other blacks just proves it

White nationalists who identify with the alt right are not as bad as the blacks you describe, but they are bad in the same way. They resent Jews and Orientals because the Jews and Orientals tend to be more intelligent than they are, and consequently, more successful and prosperous as a result. They think being a white Gentile man is more important than having a high IQ. They flame me on alt right websites when I tell them the truth.

 

[JohnEngelman]

In the South, that is called a Blue Dog.

In many respects I have changed over the years from being a left-liberal Democrat to a Southern Democrat of the old school. I am ardently pro New Deal, and pro President Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt had the sense to keep civil rights off of the New Deal agenda. The New Deal was popular among Southern whites. Millions of the same people who voted enthusiastically for Roosevelt during the 1930's and early 1940's, voted with equal enthusiasm for George Wallace three decades. Because the leaders of the Democratic Party did not learn from that, the New Deal coalition that existed from the elections of 1932 to 1964 ceased to exist. The Republican Party came to dominate the United States.

 

[rockcasbah]

The notions of equality and personal freedom rely upon the primacy of the individual.

By slicing and dicing any identifiable group on the basis of the Bell Curve, you automatically discard equality and personal freedom.

You can decide that a 30 percentile share of violent black men represents 100%, for example.

Or that the wealthy 1% of Americans represents all Americans.

Anyone who uses statistics to do that, or suggest that all oriental women are more feminine than all european women (for example) is a fool.

 

[QueequegsHead]

~~ shudder ~~

I'd first send the white man home...

[In response to the much earlier post about sending the blacks home.]

 

[JohnEngelman]

The notions of equality and personal freedom rely upon the primacy of the individual.

By slicing and dicing any identifiable group on the basis of the Bell Curve, you automatically discard equality and personal freedom.

You can decide that a 30 percentile share of violent black men represents 100%, for example.

Or that the wealthy 1% of Americans represents all Americans.

Anyone who uses statistics to do that, or suggest that all oriental women are more feminine than all european women (for example) is a fool.

Anyone who ignores average racial differences that can be documented is a fool.

Many whites value freedom of association. They do not want to have anything to do with blacks, and resent the government for forcing them to interact with blacks.

I have never suggested that the richest 1% of Americans represent all Americans. I want the top 1% to pay higher taxes. The Democrat Party is unable to raise their taxes because most whites distrust the Democrats on the issues of crime, race, and immigration. Before the Democrats became associated with the interests of blacks the Democrat Party dominated the country. The top tax rate was much higher. The Democrats were able to respond to national problems without the obstruction of the GOP.

 

[QueequegsHead]

The 1% write the rules. They'll never pay what you consider their fair share.

The only way to get them to pay more in taxes proportionate to the rest of the population is the FairTax.org.

This is because it is a "blind[folded]" tax, you know, like Lady Justice?
The more they spend, the more they'll pay...

 

[JohnEngelman]

The 1% write the rules. They'll never pay what you consider their fair share.

The only way to get them to pay more in taxes proportionate to the rest of the population is the FairTax.org.

This is because it is a "blind[folded]" tax, you know, like Lady Justice?
The more they spend, the more they'll pay...

I looked at the website for FairTax.org. They were not clear about it, but they seem to advocate replacing the income tax with a national sales tax. That would be regressive. I want the tax system to be more progressive than it is. So do most Americans.

 

[JohnEngelman]

The 1% write the rules. They'll never pay what you consider their fair share.

The only way to get them to pay more in taxes proportionate to the rest of the population is the FairTax.org.

This is because it is a "blind[folded]" tax, you know, like Lady Justice?
The more they spend, the more they'll pay...

The 1% did not write the rules during the Roosevelt administration. The top tax rate rose to 94%. Even with tax loopholes, the rich paid a much higher percentage of their incomes in taxes than they do now. They also had to contend with a much larger and more powerful labor movement that was protected by the government.

 

[QueequegsHead]

That's because most Americans, and possibly present company included, are economically illiterate.

In a Progressive income tax system only the Middle Class pays the tax.
The poor are absolved of the income tax and the rich write the rules that allow them to pass the cost of business, e.g., TAXES (being one component of their costs) back on to the Middle Class in the increased cost of goods and services (which the Middle Class is unable to pass on to the poor). I have repeatedly seen this childish economic notion that when you raise taxes on the "rich" they just take it out of profits. Too any people are completely ignorant to the simple economic concept of a profit margin in which price reflects all inputs.

 

[QueequegsHead]

The 1% did not write the rules during the Roosevelt administration. The top tax rate rose to 94%. Even with tax loopholes, the rich paid a much higher percentage of their incomes in taxes than they do now. They also had to contend with a much larger and more powerful labor movement that was protected by the government.

Nobody, but nobody paid anywhere near that (and you forget about cost passing, which I just outlined).

How did they manage to keep increasing their wealth then?

The labor union was a grand movement in which labor got paid more and then they paid more for goods and services because the wealthy eat caviar and not profits...

 

[Chobham]

I looked at the website for FairTax.org. They were not clear about it, but they seem to advocate replacing the income tax with a national sales tax. That would be regressive. I want the tax system to be more progressive than it is. So do most Americans.

You didn't read deep enough.

 

[QueequegsHead]

You can lead a horse to water...

Most likely, as a human trait and not a personal attack, our filters take what we read (see/observe) and subtly translate it into a more palatable brain salad.

 

[QueequegsHead]

You didn't read deep enough.

Also that's what [T]RDS always parrots to the point that I was coming here daily with virtual crackers.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Nobody, but nobody paid anywhere near that (and you forget about cost passing, which I just outlined).

How did they manage to keep increasing their wealth then?

The labor union was a grand movement in which labor got paid more and then they paid more for goods and services because the wealthy eat caviar and not profits...

During the Roosevelt administration, and for a long time afterward the rich paid higher taxes on lower incomes. Working class people benefited.

 

[JohnEngelman]

You didn't read deep enough.

OK Big Guy, what does FairTax advocate?

 

[QueequegsHead]

During the Roosevelt administration, and for a long time afterward the rich paid higher taxes on lower incomes. Working class people benefited.

I already gave the rebuttal and you have been reduced to repeating yourself.

Maybe a bigger font next time; as if shouting would win the point where repetition could not...

 

[QueequegsHead]

OK Big Guy, what does FairTax advocate?

Everyone paying their fair share.
The reinstatement of privacy rights economically.
The paying of taxes on a voluntary basis and not at the point of a gun.

 

[Chobham]

Taxation is NOT trivial nor particularly suited for "one liner" analysis. There are two books out there that cover the subject in detail. The first explains what the "Fair Tax" is and how it works. The second book answers the critics point by point.

The current US tax code is out of control. No one understands it fully and it contains more than it's share of contradictory regulations. Last time I heard if you called the IRS help line you only stood a 50% chance of getting the correct answer.

Current IRS code and regulation size (Maybe),

The "Fair Tax" is like maybe 20 pages.

 

[QueequegsHead]

The Neal Boortz book

 

[Chobham]

The Neal Boortz book

Both of them.