At 13 Baltimore City high schools, zero students tested proficient on 2023 state math exam

[DonS 3,292]

1 hour ago, Cdub100 said:

If you're in a bad school like I was, take AP classes like I did. You don't have the same riffraff in class and won't get left behind.

That's all well and good, until the schools start dropping AP classes due to it being unfair to the lazy kids.  Equity in action, baby!!!! 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

7 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

We live in different worlds, I don’t know anybody that doesn’t care about their kids. In fact, they are the most important thing in their life.

I think you just don’t get out much. I live in a pretty nice new development neighborhood. Not upper class but definitely upper middle class. Lots of secret alcoholics and people who just want to ##### around. Got some folks too who managed to obtain money but never got any class. Pretty typical I’d imagine.

But anyways, that’s beside the point. Obviously the main issue is with less wealthy families 

[RLLD 4,143]

41 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Okay, so you are just flat-out racist. I mean I was trying to define an out and lead you there, but you don’t want to take it, because the idea of inherent racial superiority is so near and dear to you  

Noope, but I know that is the immediate move. And I get it.  Your insistence to refuse to deal with the proiblem less you hurt feelings is cowardice, and you bring the point home by calling anyone who attempts to delve into the problem....racist.... 

You happily doom people to a downward spiral, and allow yourself to feel good about it....like a sociopath.

[RLLD 4,143]

38 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

It’s racist because you are focusing on RACE.

Get it?

You could say the exact same thing but remove all reference to race. It would still be just as legitimate but you can’t do it. Why? Because your identity is wrapped up in the concept of being part of the superior race.

Frankly, it’s sad

Not at all.....there are plenty of people who highlight race. Notably....black people....all the time....are THEY racist...of course not.  So you embody the problem.  Someone speaks out, and unless they pretend AA's are the victim....they are racist. Your type ruin discourse and honest solutions, just to make yourself feel better.

And you have no shame....just allow these folks to suffer.... to serve your own selfish need for social credit......pretty pathetic

[IGotWorms 4,057]

32 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Clearly we're racist because we view his words as racist.

Nailed it 

[Baker Boy 1,688]

7 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I think you just don’t get out much. I live in a pretty nice new development neighborhood. Not upper class but definitely upper middle class. Lots of secret alcoholics and people who just want to ##### around. Got some folks too who managed to obtain money but never got any class. Pretty typical I’d imagine.

But anyways, that’s beside the point. Obviously the main issue is with less wealthy families 

Like I said, we live in a very different worlds, his appears to me that you are somewhere on the west coast.

[Engorgeous George 2,131]

All students need to have it drilled into them that they get out of life what they put into it.  Teach them that if they invest early and often financially through investing and saving, even pennies a day what that amounts to by their golden years.  Teach them that the effort they invest in their education has the same returns, no investment means life on the streets or in prison, some investment means a lower income life, reasonable investment means maybe middle class life, and hard god damn work means success. Teach them the same as to health, smoking, fatty food, booze equals poor health and poor looks meaning poor dating prospects while dilligence leads to fitness which leads ton better prospects

 

One gets out of life what one puts into it.  Students need to envision where their life will go, where they want it to go and have a plan for getting there.  They need to review their goal at the start of each year and review their plan for getting their and be asked whether they are on track.  That plan review should occur whith counselors who are not enablers of excuses, put who are problem solvers, motivators, critical sounding boards offering truth but also motivation and hope.

[iam90sbaby 2,489]

30 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Both are actually right.  It is systemic racism caused by liberal policies.

What about all the democratic policies in New Hampshire, Vermont? Care to explain that? Safest states in the country and it's as left as it gets. What's the difference? Come on the answer is right in front of you, you can do it.

[seafoam1 2,802]

Liberal racist fear mongering is going through the roof on this site. 

I guess it's just the sheep repeating their authoritarian masters. 

[Baker Boy 1,688]

14 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

What about all the democratic policies in New Hampshire, Vermont? Care to explain that? Safest states in the country and it's as left as it gets. What's the difference? Come on the answer is right in front of you, you can do it.

New Hampshire is considered to be a swing or battleground state. New Hampshire’s CPVI is even; however, the state is starting to lean blue.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,934]

3 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

I reject the premise of this thread and also many of the opinions that border on racism. 

I do not know what the best solution to this issue is, not being an educator in Baltimore. They are the first ones I would ask. 

But this I DO know: it’s our responsibility, yours and mine, to try to fix this. We cannot abandon these kids. 

This fraud.  Not long ago he was claiming there wasn’t enough funding, muh republicans. When that’s shown to be hogwash, he switches to “its all our responsibility”. What a bunch of empty words. WTF does he think “we” can do about it?  Just more empty rhetoric from a clueless sponge. “We”.  Lol. I guess the people there need to vote even harder for democrats. 90 pct isn’t cutting it. I gladly wait to hear what Tims contribution will be. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,483]

3 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

What about all the democratic policies in New Hampshire, Vermont? Care to explain that? Safest states in the country and it's as left as it gets. What's the difference? Come on the answer is right in front of you, you can do it.

I think that proves my point, right?  Neither Vermont nor New Hampshire have racial demographics higher than the national average, where as Baltimore (and cities alike), can be as much as 5x the national average (the city of Baltimore is 65% black).  Neither Vermont nor New Hampshire have major cities with extreme racial disparities against the national average.  Baltimore has more than 10x the black people (375k), than Vermont and New Hampshire (30k), combined.  When you have policies that negatively impact a group of people, and that group represents two-thirds of your population, the results are pretty clear.

[TBayXXXVII 2,483]

4 hours ago, thegeneral said:

I mean anything is fixable in theory but we got a lot of problems. Also a lot of great stuff here but there are some serious issues building that I don’t see getting fixed. 

 

4 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Agreed.  They won't get fixed because that would be racist and we can't discuss how to fix them.

Tim proved my point...

 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,934]

Liberals were more up in arms about affirmative action at Harvard than this. 

[MDC 7,129]

I came here expecting a serious discussion about how our educational system could be fixed. I’m shocked that this thread devolved into partisan finger pointing … shocked!  

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

Okay, so you are just flat-out racist. I mean I was trying to define an out and lead you there, but you don’t want to take it, because the idea of inherent racial superiority is so near and dear to you  

I would like to defend @RLLD here. 
 

I don’t believe he is a racist or has written anything racist. His views on this issue are somewhat similar to Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s from the late 60s, who wrote that there are cultural aspects to American blacks that hurt their chances of success, including education. RLLD is not arguing that these are a product of racial makeup or genetics, but a product of culture. I want to make it clear that I disagree with RLLD about the extent of this as a cause, and vehemently disagree with him about what conclusions he draws. But it’s not a racist argument. 
 

There are people here who have made racist arguments in this thread, however. 

[Cdub100 3,838]

1 hour ago, GutterBoy said:

Yeah it seems like we have 3 groups.

Group A: It's the liberals and their policies that have misled the blacks. (RLLD, others)

Group B: Blacks are just dumb, lazy and provide no value to society. (you, Cdumb, others)

Group C is the rest of us.

Can't even have a conversation about it can we? Nope, the human race is completely equal. Despite the multiple differences we all have. There is no difference in our IQs. Everyone is the same.

[RLLD 4,143]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

I would like to defend @RLLD here. 
 

I don’t believe he is a racist or has written anything racist. His views on this issue are somewhat similar to Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s from the late 60s, who wrote that there are cultural aspects to American blacks that hurt their chances of success, including education. RLLD is not arguing that these are a product of racial makeup or genetics, but a product of culture. I want to make it clear that I disagree with RLLD about the extent of this as a cause, and vehemently disagree with him about what conclusions he draws. But it’s not a racist argument. 
 

There are people here who have made racist arguments in this thread, however. 

I am willing to be wrong on this.  I am always eager to learn more and have productive counter arguments.  Unlike some, when you disagree with me I will not call you a racist 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

1 minute ago, Cdub100 said:

Can't even have a conversation about it can we? Nope, the human race is completely equal. Despite the multiple differences we all have. There is no difference in our IQs. Everyone is the same.

Sure we can, go for it.  Let's talk about how blacks are genetically inferior to whites.  The forum is yours.  I would love to hear you argue this.

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

2 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Can't even have a conversation about it can we? Nope, the human race is completely equal. Despite the multiple differences we all have. There is no difference in our IQs. Everyone is the same.

Straw argument. 
Of course there are smart people and there are dumb people. There are cultures that promote education and cultures that don’t and as a general rule more smart people come from the cultures that do. But cultures advance and digress and are subject to change, and we shouldn’t judge individuals by the culture they come from either. 

The racist part is when you attempt to categorize smarts by race, or by cultural features that you regard as permanent. 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

7 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I would like to defend @RLLD here. 
 

I don’t believe he is a racist or has written anything racist. His views on this issue are somewhat similar to Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s from the late 60s, who wrote that there are cultural aspects to American blacks that hurt their chances of success, including education. RLLD is not arguing that these are a product of racial makeup or genetics, but a product of culture. I want to make it clear that I disagree with RLLD about the extent of this as a cause, and vehemently disagree with him about what conclusions he draws. But it’s not a racist argument. 
 

There are people here who have made racist arguments in this thread, however. 

It’s nice you’re willing to engage him in good faith.

I do not think you’ll be rewarded for it, but I hope I’m wrong

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

Of course, personally when I’m trying to define dumb people, I start with anyone planning on voting for Donald Trump in 2024. That’s not true or everyone but as a general rule it works for me. 

[Cdub100 3,838]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Straw argument. 
Of course there are smart people and there are dumb people. There are cultures that promote education and cultures that don’t and as a general rule more smart people come from the cultures that do. But cultures advance and digress and are subject to change, and we shouldn’t judge individuals by the culture they come from either. 

The racist part is when you attempt to categorize smarts by race, or by cultural features that you regard as permanent. 

This isn't right or wrong. Or one is better than the other. Until we as a society accept our differences certain segments of our society will continue to struggle. Especially when it comes to education.

Diversity is our strength.

[seafoam1 2,802]

17 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Sure we can, go for it.  Let's talk about how blacks are genetically inferior to whites.  The forum is yours.  I would love to hear you argue this.

Culture has nothing to do with the definition of 'inferior' unless that is your opinion. 

Is their culture more geared towards being violent and criminal which leads into complex social problems? Yes. It's proven. 

[Cdub100 3,838]

14 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Sure we can, go for it.  Let's talk about how blacks are genetically inferior to whites.  The forum is yours.  I would love to hear you argue this.

Let's talk about some of the things that make blacks genetically superior to all races. There's a reason black people absolutely dominate when it comes to athletics. A lot of that has to do with their body structure. Fast twitch muscles and bone density. They are quick decision-makers which in general leads to explosive movements. That same body can be a detriment. It's why you don't see a lot of high-level black swimmers. Someone like you would say " We are all the SAME!!! It's because they don't have access to a swimming pool" However that same bone density and skeleton structure leads to poor swimming (at the highest levels) in general. 

The saying is, diversity is our strength. NOT our absolute sameness is our strength. 

[seafoam1 2,802]

Let them all fail. I mean, we have more millions of illegals that will do the jobs they don't want to do right? They can all just choose a career of begging or stealing. 

[RogerDodger 797]

37 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Straw argument. 
Of course there are smart people and there are dumb people. There are cultures that promote education and cultures that don’t and as a general rule more smart people come from the cultures that do. But cultures advance and digress and are subject to change, and we shouldn’t judge individuals by the culture they come from either. 

The racist part is when you attempt to categorize smarts by race, or by cultural features that you regard as permanent. 

Black people can run and jump faster than white people because they have longer Achilles tendons (among other things) than white people.  They are overall better athletes.  They evolved slightly different because the were running from the cheetta a lot longer than white people.  That's fact.  Will you go find a really fast white guy to try and prove me wrong, maybe, but that's an example of genetic variation not any proof against what we know about the athleticism of black people.

Is it possible then to have genetics and evolution play a role in intelligence, given the fact that black people evolved out of the jungle later than white people?  Of course it is.  I haven't read any studies like I have for the Achilles tendons, but, it wouldn't be shocking to find genetic differences.  I'd bet on it.

[BufordT 427]

1 hour ago, Baker Boy said:

We live in different worlds, I don’t know anybody that doesn’t care about their kids. In fact, they are the most important thing in their life.

Sheltered are we?

[Baker Boy 1,688]

21 minutes ago, BufordT said:

Sheltered are we?

Not at all but I do live in a very red state/city.

[GutterBoy 2,898]

46 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Black people can run and jump faster than white people because they have longer Achilles tendons (among other things) than white people.  They are overall better athletes.  They evolved slightly different because the were running from the cheetta a lot longer than white people.  That's fact.  Will you go find a really fast white guy to try and prove me wrong, maybe, but that's an example of genetic variation not any proof against what we know about the athleticism of black people.

Is it possible then to have genetics and evolution play a role in intelligence, given the fact that black people evolved out of the jungle later than white people?  Of course it is.  I haven't read any studies like I have for the Achilles tendons, but, it wouldn't be shocking to find genetic differences.  I'd bet on it.

Can you share the Achilles tendon study?  Or the running from the cheetta?

[jerryskids 6,567]

4 hours ago, BuckSwope said:

That opinion is all on you then, I fully disagree.  At least you have the balls to say your opinion instead of hiding behind it like others do.   You and Jerry seem to both be playing the race card. 

 

Uh, I haven't posted in this thread yet.   

4 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Jerry has been into this for decades. Read the Bell Curve back in college and thought it was valid 

The JDS is strong here... I actually came to NOT discuss race, but since you went here, I present the following paper:

Research on group differences in intelligence: A defense of free inquiry

This paper completely captures the essence of what I have been saying; @RLLD as well I believe, but he can confirm.  You see, luckily there are scientists who don't derp their way through life like you do, considering the mere possibility of a genetic component to be raciss$#@!  But to be fair, some do.  It is a highly contentious topic with no clear answer.  I wish I could paste the entire thing but it is quite long; I still encourage anyone to read it who isn't afraid to get pulled out of their safe space.  

A few excerpts though:

Quote

ABSTRACT
In a very short time, it is likely that we will identify many of the genetic variants underlying individual differences in intelligence. We should be prepared for the possibility that these variants are not distributed identically among all geographic populations, and that this explains some of the phenotypic differences in measured intelligence among groups. However, some philosophers and scientists believe that we should refrain from conducting research that might demonstrate the (partly) genetic origin of group differences in IQ. Many scholars view academic interest in this topic as inherently morally suspect or even racist. The majority of philosophers and social scientists take it for granted that all population differences in intelligence are due to environmental factors. The present paper argues that the widespread practice of ignoring or rejecting research on intelligence differences can have unintended negative consequences. Social policies predicated on environmentalist theories of group differences may fail to achieve their aims. Large swaths of academic work in both the humanities and social sciences assume the truth of environmentalism and are vulnerable to being undermined. We have failed to work through the moral implications of group differences to prepare for the possibility that they will be shown to exist.

The argument against a racial component hinge upon the belief/existence of "racial realism," or that there is a substantive difference between the races.  One argument presented in favor of it:

Quote

Reich (Citation2018) addresses another common argument used to reject the possibility of substantial race differences: even if there is genetically based variation “affecting cognition or behavior,” these differences must be small because “so little time has passed since the separation of populations” (p. 258). He finds this argument untenable in the light of recent findings in genetics:

"The average time separation between pairs of human populations since they diverged from common ancestral populations, which is up to around fifty thousand years for some pairs of non-African populations, and up to two hundred thousand years or more for some pairs of sub-Saharan African populations, is far from negligible on the time scale of human evolution. If selection on height and infant head circumference can occur within a couple of thousand years, it seems a bad bet to argue that there cannot be similar average differences in cognitive or behavioral traits. Even if we do not yet know what the differences are, we should prepare our science and our society to be able to deal with the reality of differences instead of sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that differences cannot be discovered. (Reich, Citation2018, p. 258)"

Many of the arguments are not that it doesn't exist, but that there is no societal good to investigating it.  Noam Chomsky, he was pretty smart:

Quote

Many scientists claim to be absolutely committed to truth while at the same time advocating or tolerating varying degrees of suppression of controversial work. In his famous article “The Responsibility of Intellectuals,” Chomsky (Citation1967) makes the bald statement that “it is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies.” Elsewhere, however, he says that scientists should not pursue the truth about group differences in intelligence because this could have dangerous social consequences (Chomsky, Citation1976, pp. 294–295). He says that while people “surely … differ in their biologically determined qualities,” it is wrong to investigate an association between group membership and IQ because to do so is to indicate “that the answer to the question makes a difference; it does not, except to racists, sexists, and the like” (Chomsky, Citation1988, p. 164; quoted in Cofnas, Citation2016, p. 486). “To anyone not afflicted with these disorders, it is of zero interest whether the average value of IQ for some category of persons is such-and-such” (Chomsky, Citation1988, p. 164).

Also, Sam Harris accepts the science of the Bell Curve, but advises we keep our head in the sand.

Quote

The leading intelligence researcher Robert Sternberg (Citation2005) argues that good science is characterized by “taste in the selection of problems to solve” (p. 295), and that it is in bad taste to investigate the genetic basis of race differences. Sam Harris, a neuroscientist famous for aggressively promoting a “reason-and-evidence” based worldview, recently interviewed Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray, Citation1994) coauthor Charles Murray. Harris accepted all of Murray’s claims about hereditarianism, yet in the introduction to the interview he said:

"I do remain skeptical about the wisdom of looking for cross-cultural or interracial differences in things like intelligence. I’m not sure what it gets you apart from a lot of pain. So many of the topics I discussed in the podcast with Murray are not topics I would ordinarily think about, or recommend that you think about. (Harris, Citation2017, 8:53)"

The MSM and many scholars want to control/censor research and uncomfortable discussion on this topic, including a dearth of funding:

Quote

A degree of censorship is already in operation when it comes to findings supporting hereditarianism about group differences. Mainstream media coverage of the race-and-IQ controversy almost always falsely claims that there is a consensus among the relevant experts that hereditarianism has been refuted. In fact, anonymous surveys reveal that a substantial proportion of experts on intelligence believe that there is a genetic component to race differences (Rindermann, Becker, & Coyle, Citation2016, Citation2020, Figure 3; Snyderman & Rothman, Citation1987, Citation1988). Research supporting both hereditarian and environmentalist explanations of race differences is routinely published in major psychology journals, particularly in psychometrics journals like Intelligence and Personality and Individual Differences. However, work supporting hereditarianism can be much more difficult to publish and disseminate, and research testing the possible genetic basis of race differences is rarely funded. As James Flynn (after whom the “Flynn effect” is named) notes, “if universities have their way, the necessary research [on race and intelligence] will never be done. They fund the most mundane research projects, but never seem to have funds to test for genetic differences” (Flynn, Citation2012, p. 36). Flynn (Citation2018) says that “scholars at one of America’s most distinguished universities … admitted [to him] that they had never approved a research grant that might clarify whether black and white had equivalent genes for IQ” (p. 128). When he suggested some ways to test if there is a genetic component to the Black–White IQ gap, “they evaded the issue” (J. Flynn, personal communication, January 7, 2019). And because the state of the science is often misrepresented to the public (hence the common belief that there is no evidence at all for hereditarianism), findings are subject to de facto censorship. In some academic fields such as sociology and history, virtually all mainstream scholars refuse to consider the implications of group differences in intelligence for the problems they address. The questions before us are: should research on group differences be conducted?; should findings related to differences be publicly disseminated?; and finally, what role should philosophers – who often act as intermediaries between science and the humanities, and between science and society at large – play in supporting or opposing work on the genetics of group differences?

After discussing the pros and cons of conducting such investigations, the conclusion:

Quote

6. Conclusion: The responsibility of philosophers
The strategy – advocated by some influential scholars – of stigmatizing, suppressing, or downplaying evidence in favor of hereditarianism about group differences has been tried and has not worked. Research on this topic has been done and the results are widely available. Major psychology journals continue to publish work that deals openly with group differences (though researchers still debate about the relative contribution of genes and environment, and the question has not been settled definitively). Any measures that would be effective in preventing further work, such as those advocated by Kourany (Citation2016), would have to be so severe that they would only attract even more attention to the findings they aimed to suppress. Science will carry on, and these questions will be answered. We should prepare in advance for the possibility that the genes underlying intelligence differences will not be distributed identically among ethnic groups. Failure to do this will only create a vacuum for “cranks rather than scientists” to opine on the nature and consequences of group differences (Anomaly, Citation2017, p. 293). Reich (Citation2018) warns that if scientists “willfully abstain from laying out a rational framework for discussing human differences, [they] will leave a vacuum that will be filled by pseudoscience” (p. 258).

This paper has argued that the usual utilitarian reasons given for restricting intelligence research are not convincing and, in fact, there are strong reasons, both utilitarian and non-utilitarian, to favor free inquiry. For philosophers specifically, there is an additional consideration. For decades, the contribution of philosophers to this debate has consisted mostly in providing alternative explanations for evidence seeming to support hereditarianism about race differences (see Sesardic, Citation2000, Citation2005), and advocating various kinds of restriction and censorship (see Cofnas, Citation2016). This may be because hereditarianism is controversial, and philosophers are strongly disincentivized from pursuing lines of argument that lead to truly controversial conclusions. Testifying to how serious this problem is, Jeff McMahan, Francesca Minerva, and Peter Singer recently founded the Journal of Controversial Ideas, which will allow scholars to publish pseudonymously. Singer (Citation2017) commented that “it’s unfortunate that such a journal should ever be considered necessary to enable controversial ideas to be published, but perhaps we have got to the point where it is.” It is not clear what kind of controversial ideas Singer had in mind, and the journal has not yet released its first issue, but it is hard to find a more controversial idea than hereditarianism about race differences in intelligence.

There is a danger for the philosophical community in putting our credibility on the line over the claim that race differences are entirely environmental. If work on genetics and neuroscience within the next decade produces convincing evidence that differences in measured intelligence among groups have a significant genetic component, there will be no way to conceal this information. The hereditarian explanation will have to be accepted, and people will know that philosophers were on the wrong side of the issue both scientifically and morally: scientifically, because we are supposed to be careful, disinterested commentators on scientific controversies, not activists supporting only the politically popular side; morally, because we did not help lay the groundwork for responding in a moral way to these facts that we should have known might be coming.

As I've always said, I'm not saying that it is incontrovertible that race is a factor in intelligence.  But to say it isn't, and to just say "yer raciss!", is not very intelligent.

I fully expect you to barely read any of this and call me a racist.   

[jerryskids 6,567]

I don't know why everything is "strikethrough" after a point, but I can't seem to edit it.   

[BuckSwope 654]

100%, I was incorrect in that post, @jerryskids - I confused you with someone else in this thread.   My apologies.  

[GutterBoy 2,898]

@jerryskids If you just google the article you posted, you will see lots of other articles that dispute what Cofnas wrote.

 

https://philarchive.org/archive/ROSMTP-3

https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/29030/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/01/23/intelligent-argument-race

 

I get that you're trying to be a free thinker and when you read articles like Cofnas wrote you like to keep yourself open to the possibility that whites are genetically smarter than blacks, but that doesn't make it true.

Even so, what's the point?  Why would anyone want to make an argument that one race is smarter than another race.  Lets just say somehow it can be proven, what now?  Now we can in good conscience relegate blacks to remedial jobs, dismiss what they say, put them into a tier below us and justify it with science?  For years white supremecists have been using these arguments to put other races down.  You trying to help them?

The whole thing is just disgusting.  That's why righteous people dismiss all this racial intelligence talk in the first place.  Nothing has scientifically been proven, and to pretend otherwise makes you look hateful.

The whole fast twitch muscle and longer achilles stuff is silly, but mostly harmless.  When you start in about how blacks are genetically inferior intellectually, then it becomes disturbing.

[TBayXXXVII 2,483]

43 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

100%, I was incorrect in that post, @jerryskids - I confused you with someone else in this thread.   My apologies.  

I wasn't playing the race card either.  I wasn't pointing out that Democrat policies are negatively affecting black people.  It's being proven in Baltimore.  The culture is the issue, the culture that has been derived from the Democrat ideology over the last 70 years.  Proof?  Go look up how many Republican's sat on a governmental seat in the city of Baltimore, the County of Baltimore, and the 7th legislative district of Maryland since 1950.  When you find out that the answer is less than FIVE, maybe you're realize that the political platform in Baltimore IS in fact, the problem.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

33 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

@jerryskids If you just google the article you posted, you will see lots of other articles that dispute what Cofnas wrote.

 

https://philarchive.org/archive/ROSMTP-3

https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/29030/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/01/23/intelligent-argument-race

 

I get that you're trying to be a free thinker and when you read articles like Cofnas wrote you like to keep yourself open to the possibility that whites are genetically smarter than blacks, but that doesn't make it true.

Even so, what's the point?  Why would anyone want to make an argument that one race is smarter than another race.  Lets just say somehow it can be proven, what now?  Now we can in good conscience relegate blacks to remedial jobs, dismiss what they say, put them into a tier below us and justify it with science?  For years white supremecists have been using these arguments to put other races down.  You trying to help them?

The whole thing is just disgusting.  That's why righteous people dismiss all this racial intelligence talk in the first place.  Nothing has scientifically been proven, and to pretend otherwise makes you look hateful.

The whole fast twitch muscle and longer achilles stuff is silly, but mostly harmless.  When you start in about how blacks are genetically inferior intellectually, then it becomes disturbing.

Exactly. And that’s why it’s racist.

And like I said before, people like Jerry do not actually dispute this. Rather, what Jerry is saying is that it’s okay to be racist because he’s right to be racist.

Think about that.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,934]

It’s all in the genes Charlie. The horse got nothin to do with it. It’s the genes that does the running. 

[BuckSwope 654]

39 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I wasn't playing the race card either.  I wasn't pointing out that Democrat policies are negatively affecting black people.  It's being proven in Baltimore.  The culture is the issue, the culture that has been derived from the Democrat ideology over the last 70 years.  Proof?  Go look up how many Republican's sat on a governmental seat in the city of Baltimore, the County of Baltimore, and the 7th legislative district of Maryland since 1950.  When you find out that the answer is less than FIVE, maybe you're realize that the political platform in Baltimore IS in fact, the problem.

So when you posted that it was "by and large a race thing", you weren't being serious?  

Basically every single big city is D run, correct?   Why is it when a city like Balt has issues like this, it's a Democrat policy issue?  So the other cities run by Dems not having similar issues it's what exactly?  Just curious - are liberal havens like Oregon struggling with math or do you just pick and choose when you blame Dems? 

Jacksonville is an example of a R run city in a R run state - no issues with math there in minority communities?   I know they have similar or worse crime numbers than those evil Democratic cities, but I'm sure they are crushing it in education.  

 

 

[seafoam1 2,802]

2 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

So when you posted that it was "by and large a race thing", you weren't being serious?  

Basically every single big city is D run, correct?   Why is it when a city like Balt has issues like this, it's a Democrat policy issue?  So the other cities run by Dems not having similar issues it's what exactly?  Just curious - are liberal havens like Oregon struggling with math or do you just pick and choose when you blame Dems? 

Jacksonville is an example of a R run city in a R run state - no issues with math there in minority communities?   I know they have similar or worse crime numbers than those evil Democratic cities, but I'm sure they are crushing it in education.  

 

 

Democrat issues. They arr really bad at running cities. But really good at promising free things. So there's that.

[BuckSwope 654]

8 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

Democrat issues. They arr really bad at running cities. But really good at promising free things. So there's that.

By that thinking you would think the few areas where that is not the case they would be head and shoulders above the D cities in these categories, right?  Shouldn't their crime stats be better, their violence be down, and evidently their math scores should be up.        How are those rural communities doing in these categories where they are far from the reaches of the evil dems?