Desegregation: Harmful or Helpful?

I'd kill them

a) if I could get away with it

b) for violating my home

c) for being scum that needs to be cleansed from the gene pool

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Most crime is never solved or punished. However, when someone reports a mugging or rape, they can identify the race of the criminal.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, your thesis is that blacks comprise a higher percentage only of those criminals who get caught? Why should the racial makeup of convicted criminals be so markedly different from those that "got away"? Are blacks incompetent criminals? Or, let me guess,the evil white police let all the white criminals go?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have been away for few days, so not read all carefully, but admit that I moved to make sure my kids were in good school and I would not walk late at night thru some predominately-black areas, however, these are self imposed restrictions, and I would have more freedom if they were not prudent and necessary.

The real issue is why are some school and neighborhoods bad and what can be done to improve them.

But, first let me (again) point out that it would be desirable to do so, not because "It the right or moral thing to do." But because of self interest. Poor neighborhoods tend to promote crime for the people born into them. There is plenty of data (for example from adoption etc) that show if a baby has not suffered development problem (mother on drugs, alcohol, mal-nourished etc) that the average innate IQ among the races differ little, if at all. If there is a difference, "whites" are second best (below Orientals), but about 49% of the most gifted in any group have at least the innate IQ potential of the bottom half of any other group the difference between groups is so small (perhaps non existent.)

Thus, it is practical personnel solution to move to a good school district if you can afford it, but this solution repeated many times is the cause of the poor neighborhoods that in turn generate most of the violent crime and populate the jails, at a per capita cost greater than Harvard's tuition.

This poor quality education is costly in crime and prison expenses, but the losses of undeveloped brainpower (at least half of the best brains) is perhaps more costly now that the developed world is moved by brainpower, not mussel power. The US is wasting more than half of it natural gifts of brainpower and the Orient is not. It is little wonder that that the future belongs to the region that is not trying to compete with half its brainpower.

For a generation or two, the US will probably be able to compete by coasting on its past excellence compared to others. For example, 450,000 Chinese have come to the US (or US+ Europe? Ref. not too clear on this.) in last two decades to study at the best universities, but already 150,000 have decide to return home, now that China is making huge investments in higher education - Creating "50 Harvard or better" well equipped new educational centers, and buying the most experienced professors from all over the US and Europe.

Not for "moral reasons" or "justice" or etc. but for survival of your grand children in an prosperous society, you should be concerned with the low quality school that you can, if wealthy, escape from by moving. What is needed is federal support for ALL schools, ALL to have good libraries, etc. It will take a long time to reverse the elite school, locally funded in rich neighborhoods, but as brain power jobs get exported, eventually there will not be good funding of schools in any neighborhoods, as there will not longer be "rich neighborhoods" when almost all jobs left in US are at McDonalds or cutting someone’s hair - I.e. the Oriental lands making big investment will out compete the US in jobs that require many well developed brains.

PS did you see the photo of the Japanese robot ridding a bicycle? US is struggling to make one walk.

 

The Japanese do love their robots.

 

Because there are more white people in this country, therefore more white police officers, and also because white people tend to target only black crime, believing that if someone looks more like them, they'll be less likely to commit a crime against them. It's not true at all, but people believe that.

If a black person commits a crime, theres a 99% chance they will get caught because the entire criminal system is focused on catching them, all the police deparments, all the judges, jury, everyone is on the look out for the black criminal, I mean just take the war on drugs as a perfect example. Most drug dealers are white, most prisoners are black and hispanic, so obviously white drug dealers selling meth are being allowed to do it, in fact, white dealers are also being allowed to deliver crack, weed, guns, and anything else to black dealers who then go on to sell it to the feds or undercover officer. This does not change the fact that there are no black owned drug labs, meth, crack or otherwise, and the marijuana growers are usually white not black, so once again, black and hispanics go to jail for the act of selling drugs, but the distributers who are mostly white, almost never get jailtime.

Then you have corporate criminals who almost never get prison time and when they do, they get less than a year. It's more that society does not focus on white criminals, because society is so racially divided that it is too biased to focus equally on all criminals and instead decides to choose a racial gorup of criminals ot focus on. So yes, white people commit most of the crimes because white is 80% of the population, thats all.

You can say that there are black criminals but black people make up less than 12% of the population, theres more hispanics, so it's impossible for 12% of the population to commit 50% of the crimes but it's easily possible for 12% of the population to get caught 90% of the time when 80% of the country is on a constant lookout and watch on that 12%. It's a matter of attention.

Crime is crime, criminals are criminals, so statistics don't matter, crime is commited by people, if you get rid of racial statistics and racial profiling you'll be able to focus on actually going after criminals, and lets be honest, drug dealing is the main crime blacks and hispanics are arrested for, that and robbery. Drug dealing is not a violent crime, but you have to understand, that tax evasion, and fraud are crimes that white people commit most often and we are not giving people 20 years in prison for fraud but we are giving people 20 years in prison for drug dealing and for robbery. This is why prisons are filled with minorities.

In Japan, it's the same for whites, white males are accused of rapes they never commited. White males are bullied, attacked and thrown in jail at the word of a Japanese person, because Japan is racist too, and the same racism that blacks feel in America, is felt by whites in Japan, it's the same exact situation and it's generally like this for any minority in any population. So if you commit a crime in Japan, or even if you don't, you'll get thrown in jail if you get charged and treated as guilty, and you'll also have to expect to pay more for rent than a Japanese person, and pay more for food, in fact everything costs more if you aren't Japanese, and there are some places where you just should not go.

You can never trust Japanese statistics on American crime anymore than you can trust American statistics on Black American crime.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4671687.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Japan
http://www.debito.org/ihtasahi121502text.html
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=14169
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~tanaka/m/rape
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~tanaka/m/


Look at this site here, and you can see what asians are discussing on their forum, in general, there is racism everywhere and anywhere there is homogeneity
http://www.thefighting44s.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=7457

 

Have to say something here so I can post damn responses.

Addition:

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Oth...c-Blacks-General&Msc/100FactsAboutBlacks.html

FACT #39: Many people argue that high Black incarceration rates show that police center enforcement at Black crimes and ignore white-collar crimes. However, Blacks commit a disproportionate number of white-collar offenses as well. In 1990, Blacks were nearly 3 times as likely to be arrested for forgery, counterfeiting, and embezzlement as Whites. (32) (6)

 

In post 204 I said:
"If there is a difference, "whites" are second best (below Orientals), but about 49% of the most gifted in any group have at least the INNATE IQ potential of the bottom half of any other group the difference between groups is so small (perhaps non existent.)"

Did you not see the word now made caps and bold? I mentioned the studies that show when the healthy (not already brain damaged) black baby is adopted by some white or oriental family that on average the resulting teenage (a dozen or so years later) has an IQ indistinguishable for others in his social/economic group.

You may be correct that only 16% of the US's black babies who grow up in the black dominated communities with their typically poor schools end up with measured IQs equal or above the average IQ of teenage (or adult) whites.

This is strong support for my point. As the black and white babies had the same innate potential IQ your numbers mean that of the 50% black babies who could have adult IQs greater than half of the whites only 16% do.* I.e. you have provided support for my point in that 50-16 = 32% of the better brains in the society were lost. Thus, compared to Oriental systems, which the US is now competing against, only 2/3 of US brainpower assets are being used. In a world where brain power is the most important asset, it is clear where the future power center will be.

There may be some justice in this - the US will get what it deserves, but I prefer to avoid anything that smells of a “moral argument” and stick to the “self interest” argument that clearly shows it is in everyone's self interest to educate well all the superior brains available, not only 2/3 of them.

You have unintentionally strengthened my case. Thank you.
--------------------------------------------
*Probably at least 11% of the black babies are fortunate enough to be raised in families that can afford to live in neighborhoods where the schools are good, etc. so your 16% is really only 5% of black babies who probably have exceptionally high innate IQs manage to overcome the many disadvantage of their poor neighborhoods and schools and end up near average IQ. It is impossible to estimate the loss (cost) to the US due to the under development of these brains with very superior potential.

 

And thats proof that the IQ test is complete BS. If Orientals have a higher IQ than whites, but whites control the world, well the IQ test is meaningless because it ignores domination intelligence.

 

The emphasis on environment is highly overrated. This has been proven as much as possible in the real world through trans-racial adoption studies.

It is total bullshit that adopted blacks (or anyone else for that matter) will have the IQ of their adoptive parents (unless the adoptive parents have the same IQ as their biological parents) or an IQ based on their socio-economic background. Adoptees will have IQs similar to their biological parents.

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Oth...ureOnIntelligence-BlackKidsRaisedByWhites.htm

In childhood, adopted children tend to correlate somewhat with the parents who are raising them. This is because children are very importantly under the care, guidance, and coercion of their parents. At average age seven or ten, whether a child plays the piano or shoots hoops on a street corner, depends largely on the interests and involvement of the parents. Does the child know and enjoy camping, fishing and the great outdoors, or music, concerts and the symphony, or beer, booze and dope? It depends very much on what the parents are into and to what the parents expose the child. So, in childhood, adopted children tend to somewhat resemble each other and to resemble the people who are raising them. However, around adolescence/puberty some major changes take place. Biologically some genes active in children turn off and other genes active in adults turn on. One of the consequences is physical and mental maturation: Sex organs grow and sex fantasies grow apace. Another consequence is the "dispersal stage" common to most mammals and manifested among humans as adolescent "rebellion", mild or severe. Most young people begin to more- and-more control their own interests and choose their own activities and their own friends. At 10, who you play with is largely determined by what the parents allow; at 16 most youths much more choose and select their own friends from among a wider field of possibilities, often to the consternation of their parents. Play the piano? At 10 it is parent's choice, by 18 you quit if you wish. The upshot of all this becoming-adult is that individually different people seek out their own individually compatible lifespaces. The surprising outcome is that as adults, individuals that were raised together but are not genetically related (adopted siblings) correlate zero on many measures of intellectual and personality functioning. Similarly, the adopted children, when adult, do not resemble (the correlations are zero order) the parents that raised them. There is little or no evidence for cumulative effects of family environment. Rather, family resemblances, and differences, are importantly influenced by genes. Heresy.

Adult Results: Blacks will be Blacks

In this minefield of theoretical readjustments Professor Shockley's experiment sits, waiting to detonate. A ten-year follow-up was done, the children evaluated at an average age of seventeen (Weinberg, Scarr & Waldman, 1992). The results and their interpretation have created a bit of a tempest, so far largely confined to the academic teapot as reported in the scholarly journal "Intelligence". Initially the authors maintained an interpretation of the evidence as supporting environmental influences on the malleability of black's IQ: "These results (demonstrate) the strong effects of the rearing environment on IQ." (p. 131), "the results of the longitudinal follow-up continue to support the view that the social environment maintains a dominant role in determining the average IQ level of black and interracial children" (p. 133). To some it looked like spinning through Alice's mirror, or theoretically jumping through the Politically Correct environmentalist hoop twice. But, after all, genetic interpretations of human race differences in IQ will not get you elected president of the American Psychological Society; they will get you defamed and shunned, at least. After challenge, especially by Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster and Michael Levin of City College of New York (Levin, 1994; Lynn, 1994), the authors wrote that "it is not possible to reach definitive conclusions .... Our findings do not speak directly to genetic and environmental etiologies of racial differences in IQ," (Waldman, Weinberg & Scarr, 1994, pp 41, 42). On the contrary, the results not only speak, they literally shout, but very Incorrect Politically.

 

WTF is domination IQ? Furthermore, while Oriental average is higher, it is distributed differently meaning there are fewer dummies but less geniuses. Also, there are other traits that lead to dominaition other than IQ and whites score higher on them than Orientals.

 

Do you AGAIN have a reading problem? I will AGAIN make bold the part you do not understand of what I said:

Billy T: "...studies that show when the healthy (not already brain damaged) black baby is adopted by some white or oriental family that on average the resulting teenage (a dozen or so years later) has an IQ indistinguishable FROM OTHERS in his social/economic group."

Note I said nothing about the environment.
And,
I said nothing about the adopted child achieving the IQ of his adopting parents.

Either you, like me, have some dyslexia or are in the lower half IQ group, as again you go on and on about some imagined statement of mine.

 

The statement isn't clear enough for me. "FROM OTHERS in his social/economic group". A teenage black will have the same socio-economic background of the parents they live with as most teenagers still live with their parents.

 

Well at least you now recognize that I was not as you previously assumed, and rebutted at length, making any comparison of the adopted child and his parents. I want you to realized that on the averagethe adopted child will have an IQ very much like the average of the non adopted children in his class at school. In other words: If the adopting parents get a healthy baby and raises it like they would a biologically related child, then there is so little difference, if any, in the innate potential (on average) between the innate IQ potentials of the races that the average IQs after years of schooling etc in that social economic group (good school or bad) will not be detectably different for the adopted child from the non adopted child independent of the race group the adopted baby belongs to.

Turning the tables around (but I do not think it has been studied) If a white baby were adopted in an black dominated neighborhood (and the race rejection problems could be avoided someway) then I would expect, on average, after years of going to a rat infested school with no books in the “library,” it would become a lower than average IQ teenager.

Certainly in any particular case the baby's innate IQ can be low or high but the average of a large group of white, blacks and oriental which on average are very close, if not identical. I think you have experience with fact that the average US black teenager's IQ is lower than that of the average white teenager's measured IQ. My point is that they started out essentially equal in innate potential but those that went to poor schools, had lousy role models, no books in home or library, etc. will have, on the average, under developed brain power; a lost to the society, which now needs to educate well all students or at least find early and educate well the ones who have great potential to contribute the brain power needed. US failure to do this is costing it dearly both in loss of creative talented brainpower and in crime, prison expenses etc.

I am not suggesting anything new. Have your read Plato’s Republic? He recognized that good brains were often found in the bodies of the lower classes and that letting the wealthy provide better education even or their low innate IQ child than given to one from the lower class with much higher potential was damaging to the Greek city-state. That is why he suggested all be educated together so that the naturally more talented ones could lead the city-state in the next generation. 2500 years later the same mistake is common. - An inherently dumb kid, with a wealthy father will get into some good college, but the father may need to give the school a building, while the inherently bright black kid probably drops out of the high school, which can not teach him anything to make some fast bucks selling dope etc - a prison bound future and US’s loss, both of his talents and his cost to tax-payers in prison.

SIMPLE SELF INTEREST in the modern brainpower driven economy demands a change.

 

I realize that but since intelligence is primarily hereditary, your solutions will be a waste of money. BTW, although I advocate racial separation, I'm all in favour of "liberals" having their own countries where they can put into practice their idiotic ideas and see them fail ad infinitum.

 

To Count Sudoku:

I will not waste much time replying as again, for the third time!, it is obvious that you can not read. In my last post, because you have failed basic reading comprehension twice before, I even make the critical qualifying parts bold. None the less you still concern your self with correlations between specific child and its parents not with the the averages I was speaking of and made bold in hope you would understand my point, which is:

The average innate IQ of all racial groups at birth is either identical or if there is a difference, it is so small as to insignificant. If there is a difference, the Oriental are more gifted than whites and they are more gifted than blacks.*

If you are not dyslexic and English is you native language, then most all must be above you, as you can not read.

I agree that in the US society the average adult black's IQ measures lower. This is what I am complaining about. - Good brains are being lost /under developed because they happen to be in the wrong color bodies.

The US already is, and will more so in the future, suffer economically for this waste of innate talent as Asia overtakes the US. Modern economies are based on brain power and Asians, especially China and Japan**, are doing a better job of developing all they have, not rejecting part in the wrong color of bodies. - that makes no more sense than limiting blonds to poor-quality rat-infested schools, where all the innately more gifted will drop out and find some way to make a fast buck, probably ending up in prison at higher cost to society to guard them there than Harvard's tuition! (not to mention the destruction of value they caused before they were caught.)
-------------------------------------
*If there is any difference it probably arose as populations moved from mankind's African origins. The more intelligent survived better when confronted with new challenges they had never before seen, such as crossing a frozen river, were cautious in eating only a few new berries initially to see if they were poisonous, etc. The dumber ones drowned or were poisoned, etc. so they were selectively removed from the gene pool. - My theory, but it may explain a non-existent "fact." I.e. the Orientals who traveled farther than just to Europe may be the more "refined for higher IQ" than the stay at home blacks. In any case, the difference ON THE AVERAGE between groups is so small compared to the spread within the group that it is almost impossible to detect, certainly no reason to limit the educational opportunities extended to any group.

I hope this post did not strain your reading abilities too much. To help you I again call your attention to fact that all my post have been discussion of the averages - Please do not, for the forth time, assume I am comparing the IQ of an adopted child to the IQ of the adopting parents.

**India still has a long way to go - and the residual effect of the cast system still block progress. - India is starting to play with mandatory quotas and all the old arguments are now coming from the elite about how the schools will suffer etc.

 

The average innate intelligence differences of all races at birth are unmeasurable and furthermore irrelevent. You seem to imply that blacks could have the same intelligence as whites if only we would shell out money to give them a first class education and gave them first class parents. And I have told you that putting blacks into white middle and upper class homes and giving them first class education did not decrease the IQ gap. This was proven with trans-racial adoption studies. So WTF is your point?

 

In l950, American schools were among the best in the world. However, vocal elements within our society demanded that the public schools take on a social engineering role as well as an educational one. Violent disruptions of American education were ordered by the Supreme Court for the purpose of breaking down racial barriers. For 30 years, American schools have diverted enormous resources into forced integration, quotas, and bussing operations. (Few people realize how expensive bussing is. Annual cost may run into tens of billions of dollars. In l990 California alone was spending $500 million per year on integration. Many school districts spend a quarter or more of their budgets on transportation. In Milwaukee alone and in a single school year, 30,000 staff hours were diverted into calculating the race of students to attend the various schools.) The results? Today's students rank at the very bottom worldwide in science and math, some 40% of American adults are functionally illiterate, and standardized test scores have declined steadily for both Whites and Blacks. Today the average White still scores 200 points higher on the combined SAT than the average Black. Americans spend more on education than any other country in the world and have the worst results. Massive White flight to escape racial zoning has reduced the tax base of every major American city. In l983, after nearly two generations of racial experimentation to promote equality, the research arm of the Dept. of Education could not produce a single study that showed Black children were learning appreciably better after desegregation.

 

Not true. You can measure intelligence even of dogs, cats and horses etc. With baby only a few days olds (eyes must be functional) there are many measures, most related to staring time or difference detections - noticing differences etc. Much of the pioneering work in this field was done half a century ago by a lady psychologists working at Cornell, but I forget her name.* The most standard way to get a "response" from the few days old baby is to monitor its "pacifier sucking rate" - if you make a change in the visual field and the baby is intelligent it will "startle the baby" I.e. interrupt the rhythm of sucking.

The Gestalt psychologist had developed many rules about visual perception. One was called "good continuation" that had to do with the assumed connections between parts of a scene, which were partially masked. All of their rules were thought to be innate, and some appear to be - but she was able to determined at what age others are actually learned. You just do not know anything of the field and your ignorance and biases are making you assume things that are false.
-------------------------------------------
*I think she was also the one who inverted the "visual cliff" experiment. If that is correct and you search "visual cliff experiment" up probably can find more of her work measuring the minds of very young babies.

I am giving up on you - too much ignorance, bias and absence of reading skills for intelligent discussion.

 

Okay, I'll concede that we can measure the IQ of week old babies just for fun.
Are you still suggesting that blacks would have the same IQ as whites if only we gave them the exact same enviornment?