Sciencemadness Discussion Board - The high hand of low moral conduct

The high hand of low moral conduct

franklyn - 14-11-2012 at 09:54

This event reminds me of something recently posted here quoted below ,
thankfully now where it belongs in detritus.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/woman-dies-in-iris...

" Willingful, legal abortion in Western society is a termination of an embryo, not
a fetus. There's a teeny weeny difference - the existence of central nervous
system and the ability of sensing the pain, even if it's barely recognizable in
early fetuses. The law acknowledges even the tiniest possibility of suffering,
but dismisses any irrational thoughts you probably hold dear.
Every now and then you show us the circus freak called " your mind setup "
but we all know SM has become a melting pot of fundamentalist freaks , so
you must be quite comfortable here."

.

Rosco Bodine - 15-11-2012 at 02:20

It is true irony that if you search for the most advanced scientific topics ever discussed at any length in the entire history of this forum those topics will be found categorized by the following:

Topics discarded due to a lack of meaningful or useful content

watson.fawkes - 15-11-2012 at 05:06

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine

Topics discarded due to a lack of meaningful or useful content

I'll fix this for you.

Quote:

Topics discarded due to a lack of content relevant to amateur science.

chemrox - 15-11-2012 at 11:12

Quote:

Every now and then you show us the circus freak called " your mind setup "
but we all know SM has become a melting pot of fundamentalist freaks , so
you must be quite comfortable here."

You lost me here Franklyn- what was it you were saying?
I notice some stupidity here from time to time.. it is disappointing when superstitions crop up in the forum.. we had a few Romney supporters (rich guys??) and some people that labored under Stone Age doctrines. Did you think rationality always prevailed here? Have you ever seen someone with his first asterisk who wants to cook and starts his participation by asking for illegal substance recipes? I suggest we not be so PC that we don't call stupidity out when we (read) see it. I further suggest it be considered a service to the forum to make those calls. I'm not sure we should have subforum dedicated to social, societal issues. Probably quite a few would disagree. Should we take a poll? Have I talked about anything related to your post and will you shoot me U2?
CRX
ps: Bless you my son! hahahahahaha Sheeeeit!

Rosco Bodine - 15-11-2012 at 11:48

Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine

Topics discarded due to a lack of meaningful or useful content

I'll fix this for you.

Quote:

Topics discarded due to a lack of content relevant to amateur science.

The problem there is you can't fix what isn't broken in terms of either content or relevancy. Such a premise of "fixing" done by the "rightminded repairman" is too often an entirely arbitrary action used for plain censorship of whatever topic or reasoning or data is deemed to be "ideologically incorrect" or more precisely to be politically incorrect ...no matter how scientific ....in an amateur context or otherwise. Intellectual dishonesty can not be painted up with glorious bias and propaganda which some suppose will transform that dishonesty and bias into something nobler.

Clearly in this forum there is an "ideological lens" which is a filter through which "relevance" to amateur science is viewed and that filter is as variable and capricious as is needed to be at any time to serve the expediency of either those who are trolling or censoring in service of the "politically correct" ideology which is held by the troll or the censor.

When you examine the premise of the term "amateur" science or "mad" science ....how narrow exactly and how much precision is there about defining what resides properly in the "limited" realm of "conformity" with being "amateur" science and/or "mad" science ? What shall be the requirement for establishing what is bona fide as
being "amateur" science or being "mad" science so as to be in happy conformity with the most ideologically pure and exacting "rules" or "definition" ? Where exactly are the "boundary markers" for where the ideologically conforming "organic farm" ends and the "wasteland" of the "inorganically heretical" (intellectual honesty) begins ?

hissingnoise - 15-11-2012 at 12:47

Such a lot of words ─ to make so little sense . . .

Rosco Bodine - 15-11-2012 at 12:58

LOL ...I think franklyn and me are probably kindred spirits for whom this is something like an inside joke .....it's like ...what did they say ?

Hey franklyn

.... I think it all went right over their heads ....
aim low boys..... they're riding shetland ponies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GCr1eTbxbw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep7W89I_V_g

[Edited on 15-11-2012 by Rosco Bodine]

hissingnoise - 15-11-2012 at 13:09

Over our heads?
Better and less messy than in our hair . . .

ScienceSquirrel - 15-11-2012 at 13:59

All moderators act independently and we can over rule each other if we think the case merits it and a thread needs to be unlocked or retrieved from detritus.
There is no ruling view. I am a fairly liberal European. Other moderators live elsewhere and have different views.
My attitude to Science Madness is that it should be first and foremost a science forum. Anyone is welcome to join the community and all views on science have equal validity as far as the moderators are concerned, it is up to the community to debate.
We have people on here between beginners with a thirst for knowledge to professional scientists with doctorates and you are all welcome to contribute as far as far as I am concerned.
Posts should have some relevance to science in Legal and Societal Issues, it does explicitly state that, 'Regulatory and social issues affecting scientific hobbyists' are to be discussed.
Under this mandate I think it is fair to allow discussion of the availability of chemicals and apparatus, environmental and power generation issues, etc.
For instance. to my mind the availablilty of firearms to US citizens and others elsewhere does not seem to have much relevance to science.
Feel free to criticise or support my policy as a moderator.
I will listen to your views and try to act in the best interests of the majority of members while defending the minority of members.

franklyn - 15-11-2012 at 18:17

@ chemrox

" You lost me here Franklyn - what was it you were saying ? "

I don't interpret what Willy Wonka says , Here's that attribution _
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=6372&a...
It's not an unrealized proto-human but actual real women pulled taught
in between the " Pro Choice " & " Right to Life " contest that are victimized.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/woman-dies-in-iris...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/967...

As I discussed this with ScienceSquirrel by U2U , to some eugenics is inflammatory
but one could not credibly suggest a thoughtful discussion equates to the
Wannsee conference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wansee_Conference

Personally I feel as watson.fawkes that one should be allowed to abort one's
offspring until they are of legal age or until they choose to attend a military
boarding school.

" Did you think rationality always prevailed here ? "

If you can articulate meaningfully you 're half way there.
I'm reminded of Industrial Society and Its Future by Theodore Kaczynski
http://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski
and Why The Future Doesn't Need Us by Bill Joy
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_the_future_doesn't_need_us

" starts his participation by asking for illegal substance recipes ? "

That flies under the radar for me since I'm clueless of that kind chemistry.
But I am aware that such topics are not met well here.

.

ScienceSquirrel - 18-11-2012 at 16:29

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn

@ chemrox

" You lost me here Franklyn - what was it you were saying ? "

I don't interpret what Willy Wonka says , Here's that attribution _
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=6372&a...
It's not an unrealized proto-human but actual real women pulled taught
in between the " Pro Choice " & " Right to Life " contest that are victimized.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/woman-dies-in-iris...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/967...

As I discussed this with ScienceSquirrel by U2U , to some eugenics is inflammatory
but one could not credibly suggest a thoughtful discussion equates to the
Wannsee conference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wansee_Conference

Personally I feel as watson.fawkes that one should be allowed to abort one's
offspring until they are of legal age or until they choose to attend a military
boarding school.

" Did you think rationality always prevailed here ? "

If you can articulate meaningfully you 're half way there.
I'm reminded of Industrial Society and Its Future by Theodore Kaczynski
http://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski
and Why The Future Doesn't Need Us by Bill Joy
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_the_future_doesn't_need_us

" starts his participation by asking for illegal substance recipes ? "

That flies under the radar for me since I'm clueless of that kind chemistry.
But I am aware that such topics are not met well here.

.

If you have any emails or U2U messages in which I have discussed eugenics or the Wannsee Conference with you then please post them on this board.
I am not a supporter of eugenics and I view Nazism as one of the worst things to befall the twentieth century along with Stalin's crimes.
I look forward to your reply.

[Edited on 19-11-2012 by ScienceSquirrel]

watson.fawkes - 18-11-2012 at 18:22

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn

Personally I feel as watson.fawkes that one should be allowed to abort one's offspring until they are of legal age or until they choose to attend a military boarding school.

I was unaware that I felt this way. Perhaps you might explain how you came to make such a scurrilous claim about me.

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn

As I discussed this with ScienceSquirrel by U2U , to some eugenics is inflammatory but one could not credibly suggest a thoughtful discussion equates to the Wannsee conference.

Here's what a thoughtful discussion about genocide looks like:
    A: So is genocide really bad, or really-really bad?
    B: What are you talking about, it's bloody awful!
Any discussion between thoughtful advocates of eugenics is a discussion between thoughtful advocates of evil. The difference between such a discussion and the Wannsee conference is not one of category, but only of the political power of the advocates.

arsphenamine - 18-11-2012 at 18:47

The Eugenicists seek to eradicate a perceived inferior phenotype instead of engendering its best possible development.

By that logic, since riesling is considered the king of white grapes, all others should be deracinated. Anyone who would indulge such reasoning has never had an Alsatian gewurztraminer, but I digress.

chemrox - 18-11-2012 at 21:54

@Franklyn OIC yes there are some neanderthals here. Why devote emotional energy and bandwidth to such? The average IQ in the US is <100. While I don't expect to see that reflected in science forums we should consider the eclectic makeup of the forum. And I don't argue with religionists. What would be the point? They are lost in superstition. If you want to make a difference join NARAL.

franklyn - 19-11-2012 at 06:10

@ ScienceSquirrel

It's not surprising to me at all , that you don't read your mail.
Your reply to this post demonstrates you don't even understand
what you read.

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn

As I discussed this with ScienceSquirrel by U2U , to some eugenics is inflammatory

but one could not credibly suggest a thoughtful discussion equates to the
Wannsee conference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wansee_Conference

The rest of that sentence was my reply to chemrox

- But you knew that didn't you , for why would you wait 5 days to ask for clarification.
Even this trash I don't delete , never can tell when it may be needed.

______________________________________________

@ watson.fawkes

Your humorless demeanor won't allow you to receive banter
the same as you dish out your baiting remarks.
I'm sure everyone else got a smile out of it ,
which was my point for that anyway.

You see , you can reason , if you put your mind to it.
Topics not to be discussed and then only under penalty of torture ,
add your nominations to the list , Index Librorum Prohibitorum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum

You may wish to petition wikipedia to have this entry deleted _
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics , also don't forget the dictionary.

It is always beneficial , overall to freely discuss what one may consider
to be a disgusting topic and thereby learn the attitude and belief of
all opinions expressed rather than to have to guess and by definition
harbor unfounded prejudice. You may then self righteously proceed
to effect persecution as you deem fit. Caution , whatever goes around
comes back around. If you don't want to hear my views then don't
ask for them , is that a difficult concept for you.

_______________________________________________

@ arsphenamine

Surely you realize that you are the product of eugenics , everyone is.
Thoughtfully considered reproduction rather than haphazard evolvement
seems to me to be the better approach. Note that interbreeding has
produced negative results. Methods historically applied have given the
dog for example marvelous diversity. Animal husbandry provides live
stock of superior desired traits. The same approach is helping to extend
the geneitc diversity of endangered species. Ethicists attempt to address
issues which ordinary people are confronted with all the time. A mother
who must consider whether her down syndrome daughter should be
sterilized for her own protection.

________________________________________________

@ chemrox

Neanderthal ? Be cognizant ad hominen accusations say more about your
demeanor than that of the one you're critical of. It's not their fault they come
from bad sperm. Innumerable great personalities were low born. Of concern
is that many appear to be borderline personalities with a messianic complex.
This is treatable with medication and therapy , and I try to do for them what
I can under the circumstances.

.

[Edited on 19-11-2012 by franklyn]

ScienceSquirrel - 19-11-2012 at 08:02

This is a science forum dedicated mainly to the discussion of the natural sciences; mainly chemistry but some physics and biology as well, plus there things like energetic materials that could be termed special topics.
The discussion of politics and economics is not banned but it has to be done in a courteous and civilised way.
Long, unpleasant rants results in complaints and modding.
If you have strong political views and a strident way of expressing them, maybe a politics forum would be a better place to express them?

Rosco Bodine - 19-11-2012 at 13:20

@ScienceSquirrel You invited my criticism. Okay you got it.

You appear to have a socialist and statist ideological lens which causes you to view and arbitrarily censor topics on the basis of ideological compliance with your approving view of statist authority and censorship. You evidently deny bona fide scientific relevance of a topic I posted about a correct sociological perspective on self defense, and deny that by extension the widespread arms anti-proliferation motivated scientific supplies and raw materials prohibitions, licensing and restrictions, and increased costs from all the red tape, is due to oppressive statism and is sociopathological. Censorship which is ideological based may get the nod and a wink from some likeminded people who buy your ambiguous and "flexible" statement of reasonableness which includes both overly broad and excessively narrow criteria by which you judge "relevance to science" even when such censorship is dubious WRT such justification. Adult topics attempted to be discussed in this forum are too often greeted by small minded adolescent or punkish replies being dismissive and asking for censorship based upon a false claim of a topic having no relevance to science, because the depth of their minds is about like that of a birdbath. No topic or more specifically no dissenting position of their own which cannot withstand debate should be discussed according to themselves, not because of actual irrelevance to science but because frank discussion would lead to discovery of the irrelevance of their view to reality.

You assert this is principally a science forum which is stating the obvious. You seem to lack understanding that science is a "force multiplier" and as such you should understand why the state and statist sycophants would actively seek to interfere with science and censor commentary about the true reasons for that state interference which is "regulation" blatantly mischaracterized as being necessary for the greater good of "society" when the truth is much simpler that such state interference is intended to give the state a monopoly of power over a defenseless population of subjects. This is not a "political view" but is an observable sociological truth and a historical fact which includes the present. To be in denial of this truth or to say it has no relevance to science is plainly wrong. Trying to make a “gun control debate” of a topic which was not meant to be such a debate was subverting the premise of the topic which was sociological. Then going further and trying to make misdirection that the premise of the topic was political once again was entirely missing the point. Certainly because arms and arms proliferation was the basic example for the concept and premise for deductive reasoning about a topic which was a scientific and a sociological argument being well stated as such, would provide a very tempting “straw man” to statist sycophants who would immediately try to subvert the topic into another "gun control" debate, which is precisely what did happen. I did try to provide a humorous graphic that the topic had much greater depth which would be a bottomless pit into which statist sycophants would stampede like a devoted herd, because that was fully anticipated to occur. I am not really a psy-ops expert. But I think this expectation was very well proven.

It provides graphic illustration of persons who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, a restless herd of sheeple, all headed for utopia that is a pit. I don't know how that may factor into politics but there is definitely a psychological component to that herd mentality or hive mentality. And it is disturbing that it makes people stupid. I said I was not emotionally involved in the topic. The topic had a dual purpose and the secondary aspect is that the topic itself was a sort of science experiment.

Matters scientific which may have a "dual use" tend to be subject to "regulation" ......don't they ? Maybe there is something to that ...ya think.

Vargouille - 19-11-2012 at 14:01

If I may interject, I think that the tipping point is whether or not the original topic had sufficient relations to the hard sciences that seem to form the basis of this forum. As it was put forth, I do not believe that the topic had that. It was a quasi-interesting subject, to be sure, but it was more from the soft sciences. It could have been kept going, had the discussion gone onto a more scientific bent. It did not, and there were few, if any, attempts to reign it in once it had gone well into the realm of politics. A tenuous and generalized link to the legislation of science does not, in my mind, justify its being placed in the "Legal and Societal Issues", which appears to have become a de facto forum of those issues as they apply to the scientific side of the hobbyists.

The topic had begun its descent into a flame war, and ad hominem was already being bandied about with surprising ease. I cannot completely support the decision to put the topic to Detritus, but I understand it. Putting it in Whimsy, the forum I think the most suitable, wouldn't have done much to stop that descent, and cutting it off at the point where the descent began would not have stopped it from going into that descent once again. Thus, it was put in Detritus, and I, for one, do not grieve its passing. It is not my place to place demands on you, Rosco Bodine, but I can give you advice: Calling the administration "statists" (a label that describes all those who are not anarchists, as some old friends of mine have informed me) does little, except to marginalize yourself.

watson.fawkes - 19-11-2012 at 14:50

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn

Your humorless demeanor won't allow you to receive banter the same as you dish out your baiting remarks.

I don't respect you enough to engage with you in banter. Apparently you hadn't noticed. I would have thought that to be quite obvious by now.

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn

Topics not to be discussed and then only under penalty of torture, add your nominations to the list , Index Librorum Prohibitorum

My first reaction to things I despise is not violence. I can only surmise that you impute this to me because you cannot imagine people unlike yourself in this regard.

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn

If you don't want to hear my views then don't ask for them , is that a difficult concept for you.

I am rather sure I will hear these views of yours whether or not I ask for them.

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn

A mother who must consider whether her down syndrome daughter should be sterilized for her own protection.

"Her" protection? You are advocating legitimacy for the violent act of forced sterilization.
<hr>In all these remarks, I see no relevance to amateur science. The only arguments, weak as they are, seem to be an appeal against censorship. In summary, "I can't talk about whatever I want, therefore I'm being censored." It has been the cry of angry high school students for decades. The main difference here is that most high school students don't have the patience to cloud an issue with countless straw men.

This forum has been created for a designated range of topics. It is not a general purpose forum. The focus on science is one of the things I value about Sciencemadness. If the focus were completely general, I would not participate. The community here has grown up around this expectation. Those people who consistently seek to draw attention away from this focus do harm to the members here and, in doing so, act as enemies of the community.

Insisting that you stay relevant to science is merely a form of self-defense, a principle I am sure you appreciate, even if you don't understand it when you're on the other end of the stick.

Rosco Bodine - 19-11-2012 at 14:53

Frank Zappa got it right when he said denial is more than just a river in Egypt.

497 - 19-11-2012 at 15:35

In my opinion the thread had drifted further from politics over time. I'm fully willing to admit I didn't start it out very well, but it seemed to me that it was improving with age (in fits and starts). I could see how someone showing up and reading certain posts out of context could think it was just political... I'm fairly certain politics was not the motivation for most of the more recent posts by people who had original content to contribute. Of course there will inevitably be the arrogent/childish showing up and throwing around insults and other irritating things, but I always thought that was their problem, not one inherent to controversial topics. It should be between the mods and them.

If you look, you will find that many/most of the threads in that section don't relate explicitly to hard sciences. Last I checked it was "issues affecting scientific hobbyists." How the global economic/power dynamic could not affect them is what I wonder. Sure, it might not have immediate obvious effects tomorrow, but if you put the effort in to analyzing that system, you'd be hard pressed to find a way to avoid being affected by it in fundamental ways. Then take in to account the amount of content on this forum related energetics and pharmacology (like it or not) it would seem even more pertinent since those things are often affected earliest when groups seek to exert more control on others.

Then there's the other side of the coin, how can the scientific hobbiest affect their environment (or simply use their rare skill to benefit their family/community during chaotic or unstable periods)? I tried a few times to steer it toward this relatively unexplored area but failed. This is where there is the most potential progress to be made in my opinion..

Rosco don't blame the socialists, the thread was sticky for a long time thanks to woelen who lives in a socialist country, and I would guess is relatively socialist. Additionally I'm not convinced sciencesquirrel did it for the reasons you think. Got to give a little leeway for variability of human perceptions every once in a while you know? Some of your other points are spot on though.

Can everybody stop taking things so damn personally? I know most of you are capable of it. Flaming is going to help justify the very thing you're arguing against!

I would have to agree with Varguille, moving to whimsy would have been much more reasonable if things needed to be changed. Or at least a warning...

I hope this round of sleep deprived rambling made sense.

[Edited on 19-11-2012 by 497]

Vargouille - 19-11-2012 at 17:34

I'll grant you that there have been threads within "Legal and Societal Issues" that are not directly related to the hard sciences, but from a cursory examination of the threads on the first seven pages, most of them appear to be either directly involving a hard science, or involving something that occurred to someone who practices a hard science. Those (surviving) threads that are much less related to the hard sciences are, I find, rather benign. There is the thread about "Net-Zero" homes, which could tangentially be related to science of some sort, and the topics on a school shooting in Brazil, which ended in a sort of forum collaboration in raging against an act commonly accepted as injustice.

I have looked at much of the Detritus board, and some of the locked threads remaining in the L&SI subforum, and the difference between the locked threads in L&SI and Detritus is that the former have some genuine relationship to science, not going off onto a tangent near immediately. The Can Science and Religion Coexist Peacefully? thread in L&SI is a good example of this, although it was closed once things began to get out of hand (although it seemed to be beginning to reform itself, although there surely was nothing stopping those interested in continuing the topic from doing so). The more I ponder it, however, the less I support the actions of the moderators, bit by bit. Despite that, when I think that moderators are in place to oversee and step in when rules, both written and unwritten, are broken—and the anathema to purely political discussion is an unwritten rule, it seems—I feel that they show leniency in allowing the thread to continue for so long, and more so for simply placing it in detritus rather than deleting it altogether. If they were so characterized by rote censorship, I do not think they would have allowed either.

In short, the moderators are imperfect people pursuing solutions for the problems that arise, and as such, the solutions will be imperfect. If the solutions become increasingly more imperfect, I may have cause for complaint, but for now, I will abstain.

AndersHoveland - 26-11-2012 at 03:13

If some members want to discuss the horrible tragedy that goes under the name of abortion

, we can take the conversation to another more appropriate place: http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/

IrC - 26-12-2012 at 14:22

Quote: Originally posted by chemrox

@Franklyn OIC yes there are some neanderthals here. Why devote emotional energy and bandwidth to such? The average IQ in the US is <100. While I don't expect to see that reflected in science forums we should consider the eclectic makeup of the forum. And I don't argue with religionists. What would be the point? They are lost in superstition. If you want to make a difference join NARAL.

I must admit I had to look this up to believe it.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/countries-with-the-highest-low...

So all those late night trips through the Taco Bell drive thru windows were real, not a dream.

Yet long have I thought the IQ tests used in these statistics are flawed. If you study the list what comes to mind is the nations with the higher scores have the better school curriculum's. Union dominated schools here in the US guarantee no bad teacher gets fired and no good teacher goes unpunished. In effect a real IQ test should grade the ability to think and reason, not be so geared towards what level of stored knowledge is present at the time of the test.

Never before have I encountered so many useless ignorant young people as I have this current generation. The lack of learning is so clearly evident here today it boggles the mind. In the 60's in my teens I already knew how to overhaul engines (and every other component or system in cars or trucks), weld, design and build electronic circuits, and yes I played with all the usual chemistry related mad science. Today I find myself helping people in their 20's who do not know how to check their own oil, wire a simple circuit, or in general any one of a number of subjects which came to me so easily before I reached the age of 15.

They are not being taught in today's schools even the simple things in life needed to work or handle problems as they arise. Last year I was noticing a pickup with a trailer in the lot out in front of my shop nearly all day. They seemed to be working on trailer lights yet after 6 hours were still there. So out of curiosity I went out to ask if I could help. Seems their trailer lights had failed and not one of the five could figure out how to find the broken circuit. This was a group of college kids heading out to a location they planned on having a camping trip/party on the lake during their spring break. They were pulled over for the lights a block down the road and were afraid to leave until they fixed the lights. Since it was only around 20 minutes before sunset they were starting to worry. Took me 5 minutes to find and correct the problem and during the time I was out there they asked me if I knew where to check the oil. They had the hood up and were looking to be sure of various fluid levels as they had driven 300 miles and had that much further to go, deciding to check these things out while they were stuck there killing time.

I showed them while asking 'how is it you guys are 20'ish and cannot do these simple things?' One of them actually said 'I know we're useless we have not learned any of this in school'. Makes sense to me as I read often where kids past the 8th grade in Chicago schools cannot read or write, or do simple math. When I was in 4th grade our school had us take reading comprehension tests IIRC called SRI reading tests. I was on the 12th grade in reading comprehension. While I was always in the upper 2 percent in everything the rest of the kids in my class were not far behind. None were below at least 2 to 3 years ahead of the 4th grade in grade level as far as reading skills go. Meaning by the 4th grade all the children had already been very well taught in many subjects. Since I do not believe brains are being genetically shrunken as time progresses I can only conclude the fault lies in the lack of learning caused by the lack of teaching.

As I said, I believe a true IQ test should be able to measure ones ability to think and reason, unrelated to any previous learning and having taken many I know this flaw does exist in the tests I have seen.

I do not believe children in the Czech Republic or even Zimbabwe are inherently less evolved than here nor do I believe German children are more evolved. I believe the numbers reflect the quality of educational systems in the various countries listed.

[Edited on 12-26-2012 by IrC]

Vogelzang - 28-12-2012 at 15:34

So what you racists are saying is that the countries with the most white people and Asians have the highest IQ.

IrC - 28-12-2012 at 20:33

Who are you calling racists. Justify your accusation. Or are you one of the bottom end IQ morons who are unable to engage in the least amount of reason and critical thinking? The link I posted is not my opinion, it is a list of raw statistical data compiled by comparing the average score on IQ tests in the nations listed. So stating the actual known facts makes one racist? Is it therefore non racist to lie and alter the data to fit your pathetic race based view of what should be? Are you one of the races from one of the lower scoring countries and you must strike out and use pathetic false accusations against others to hide the obvious lack of functioning grey matter in your brain? Justify your accusations do not merely make them with no evidence to back them up. This unending use of the race card and calling racism on anything which suits your twisted agenda is sickening. Now in the news the blubberous pig M Moore claims if you own a gun your racist. If you are against open borders your a racist. If you in general disagree on any one of a million non race involved subjects your a racist. I for one am sick of it.

[Edited on 12-29-2012 by IrC]