Discussion:
Retro-computing Museum Destroyed in Ukraine
(too old to reply)
Robert Bernardo
2022-03-27 01:57:16 UTC
Permalink
https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/retro-computing-museum-in-ukraine-destroyed-by-russian-bomb/

Commodores, Amigas, and others destroyed. Fortunately, no one was hurt.

Truly,
Robert Bernardo
Fresno Commodore User Group - http://www.dickestel.com/fcug.htm
Southern California Commodore & Amiga Network - http://www.portcommodore.com/sccan
June 25-26 Commodore Los Angeles Super Show 2022 - http://www.portcommodore.com/class
maus
2022-03-27 09:03:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Bernardo
https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/retro-computing-museum-in-ukraine-destroyed-by-russian-bomb/
Commodores, Amigas, and others destroyed. Fortunately, no one was hurt.
Truly,
Robert Bernardo
Fresno Commodore User Group - http://www.dickestel.com/fcug.htm
Southern California Commodore & Amiga Network - http://www.portcommodore.com/sccan
June 25-26 Commodore Los Angeles Super Show 2022 - http://www.portcommodore.com/class
My God! Is nothing safe?
--
***@mail.com
That's not a mousehole!
Peter Flass
2022-03-27 22:53:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by maus
Post by Robert Bernardo
https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/retro-computing-museum-in-ukraine-destroyed-by-russian-bomb/
Commodores, Amigas, and others destroyed. Fortunately, no one was hurt.
Truly,
Robert Bernardo
Fresno Commodore User Group - http://www.dickestel.com/fcug.htm
Southern California Commodore & Amiga Network - http://www.portcommodore.com/sccan
June 25-26 Commodore Los Angeles Super Show 2022 - http://www.portcommodore.com/class
My God! Is nothing safe?
I suppose, compared to all the people these idiots are killing, this is
small potatoes, but sad nonetheless.
--
Pete
Peter Flass
2022-03-27 22:53:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Bernardo
https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/retro-computing-museum-in-ukraine-destroyed-by-russian-bomb/
Commodores, Amigas, and others destroyed. Fortunately, no one was hurt.
Truly,
Robert Bernardo
Fresno Commodore User Group - http://www.dickestel.com/fcug.htm
Southern California Commodore & Amiga Network - http://www.portcommodore.com/sccan
June 25-26 Commodore Los Angeles Super Show 2022 - http://www.portcommodore.com/class
:-(
--
Pete
A.T. Murray
2022-03-28 05:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Bernardo
https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/retro-computing-museum-in-ukraine-destroyed-by-russian-bomb/
Commodores, Amigas, and others destroyed. Fortunately, no one was hurt.
Truly,
Robert Bernardo
Fresno Commodore User Group - http://www.dickestel.com/fcug.htm
Southern California Commodore & Amiga Network - http://www.portcommodore.com/sccan
June 25-26 Commodore Los Angeles Super Show 2022 - http://www.portcommodore.com/class
President Biden wants the Russian butcher Putin to be gone. So be it.
Leave Putin to Mentifex. Mentifex will get rid of Putin.

98004 42278 13935 96409 49097 88134 66187 34961
02750 62677 85021 91735 69568 63394 23804 67947
34322 30350 08918 08967 37613 98589 13452 81487
94136 01892 64829 39659 10745 58729 53448 53972
D.J.
2022-03-29 17:44:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 18:57:16 -0700 (PDT), Robert Bernardo
Post by Robert Bernardo
https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/retro-computing-museum-in-ukraine-destroyed-by-russian-bomb/
Commodores, Amigas, and others destroyed. Fortunately, no one was hurt.
That is no good at all.
--
Jim
A.T. Murray
2022-04-02 04:27:04 UTC
Permalink
:МИР МИРУ ("Peace to the World") has been achieved so completely by Vladimir Putin that the Nobel Committee gushes with Schadenfreude in the awarding of the most prestigious Nobel Peace Prize ever to the 69-year-old President-for-Life-and-Death of Russia, Vladimir Satanovich Putin. Aided and abetted by the Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodeath Church,
Vlad the Impaler has removed and terminated the noisy children of Ukraine and the loud drunken carousing of 16,000 young Russian soldiers now peacefully dead in fruitless battle. Imagine the joy and rapture of the surviving parents whom Putin has forever freed from the crying of babies and from the loud behavior of boisterous young Russian men. Peace and stillness at last, thanks to Putin! Quiet and deathly silence at last, Putin be praised! No more waking up in the middle of the night to tend to noisy babies, silenced now forever by the bombshells and missiles of the greatest Russian leader Putin. No more setting out precious food and drink for the rowdy Russian sons of 16 thousand Russian mothers, now granted the serene privilege of burying their hushed sons in peaceful cemeteries all across Russia. The grateful dead thank Putin for bringing peace and silence to sixteen thousand once-noisy Russian families. Moscow does not believe in tears, but 16K Russian mothers may shed tears of joy in the thanks-be-to-Putin knowledge that noisy grandchildren will never disturb the childless quiet and the kid-free tranquillity of their twilight years. Putin the Invincible, Putin the Baby-Slayer, has valiantly earned his Nobel Peace Prize by making all quiet on the western front, leaving peaceful Rubble for Rubles in the Ukrainian towns and soundless Graveyards for Grandsons in the heroic Russian cemeteries.

Instructions for taking his just reward to Putin:

58187 48967 21331 44763 71818 90089 71452 59260
25360 44699 14176 59827 18234 41769 20017 35312
63735 64243 19746 40628 13172 35566 28085 84321
65020 10808 87999 98632 46241 52744 97485 19950
Quadibloc
2022-04-02 11:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by A.T. Murray
:МИР МИРУ ("Peace to the World")
I just recently learned that it's only because of the Soviets that this confusion
exists in the Russian language. Under the old orthography, МИР was still the word
for "peace", but МІР was the word for "world".

John Savard
Quadibloc
2022-04-02 11:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by A.T. Murray
:МИР МИРУ ("Peace to the World")
I just recently learned that it's only because of the Soviets that this confusion
exists in the Russian language. Under the old orthography, МИР was still the word
for "peace", but МІР was the word for "world".
Oh, that should have been МИРЪ and МІРЪ of course, reflecting the _one_
characteristic of the old orthography that it made sense to remove.

John Savard
D.J.
2022-04-02 20:44:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
I just recently learned that it's only because of the Soviets that this confusion
exists in the Russian language. Under the old orthography, ??? was still the word
for "peace", but ??? was the word for "world".
John Savard
Pooty is uncultured.
--
Jim
J. Clarke
2022-04-02 22:25:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.J.
Post by Quadibloc
I just recently learned that it's only because of the Soviets that this confusion
exists in the Russian language. Under the old orthography, ??? was still the word
for "peace", but ??? was the word for "world".
John Savard
Pooty is uncultured.
I am told that "nekulturny" is one of the direst insults in the
Russian language. And it certainly applies to him.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2022-04-03 04:18:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 02 Apr 2022 18:25:39 -0400
Post by J. Clarke
I am told that "nekulturny" is one of the direst insults in the
Russian language. And it certainly applies to him.
One of his victims (she was trying to get out of the country and
didn't make it) had a phrase that applies to him he is a "nekulturny
fuckwit".
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Scott Lurndal
2022-04-03 14:48:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sat, 02 Apr 2022 18:25:39 -0400
Post by J. Clarke
I am told that "nekulturny" is one of the direst insults in the
Russian language. And it certainly applies to him.
Sounds like Clarke has been reading too much Clancy.
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
One of his victims (she was trying to get out of the country and
didn't make it) had a phrase that applies to him he is a "nekulturny
fuckwit".
Originally Answered: What does it mean for a Russian to
accuse someone of being "nekulturny"?
Do people say that anymore or is that a relic of Soviet times?

'Nekulturny' is 'uncultured'. No more.
It is a polite way to rebuke someone. Stronger word would be 'gruby' - 'rude'.
So the Urban Dictionary translation that you have is wrong in definition:
we'd never use 'bastard' with 'nekulturny'. Bastard is much more offensive.

'Nekulturny' can be used by mother, explaining to her kid why,
say, a drunk man is yelling. She'd say, 'that is a nekulturny
man, do not be like him'.

"No, it is not a relic of the Soviet times. When we say
that someone is uncultured, we mean that they are not interested
in culture per se - they don\u2019t read books, they cannot
speak or write properly and their outlook is narrow. They
cannot put two words together without an oath - these are
the people whom we call \u201cnekulturny\u201d.

https://www.quora.com/What-does-it-mean-for-a-Russian-to-accuse-someone-of-being-nekulturny-Do-people-say-that-anymore-or-is-that-a-relic-of-Soviet-times
Charlie Gibbs
2022-04-03 16:01:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sat, 02 Apr 2022 18:25:39 -0400
Post by J. Clarke
I am told that "nekulturny" is one of the direst insults in the
Russian language. And it certainly applies to him.
Sounds like Clarke has been reading too much Clancy.
Or Heinlein, who mentions the term in his essay on visiting the
Soviet Union which is included in _Expanded Universe_.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
J. Clarke
2022-04-04 03:02:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 03 Apr 2022 16:01:29 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sat, 02 Apr 2022 18:25:39 -0400
Post by J. Clarke
I am told that "nekulturny" is one of the direst insults in the
Russian language. And it certainly applies to him.
Sounds like Clarke has been reading too much Clancy.
Or Heinlein, who mentions the term in his essay on visiting the
Soviet Union which is included in _Expanded Universe_.
If we ever get back to working in the office I'll have to go across
the hall and ask the model governance guys about this. They're native
speakers of Russian.
Quadibloc
2022-04-19 08:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
If we ever get back to working in the office I'll have to go across
the hall and ask the model governance guys about this. They're native
speakers of Russian.
From what I've read about the matter, the use of this term tells
us something about Russian culture; if someone is openly
racist, he would be called "nekulturny", meaning that he is
ignorant - rather than something which, to us, would seem a
stronger criticism, based on racism being _morally wrong_.

This reflects what many Westerners would view as a defective
model of the world - viewing things through the superficial
prism of what is considered to be modern and sophisticated,
instead of putting the basic distinction between Right and
Wrong always front and center.

John Savard
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2022-04-19 10:48:22 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 01:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
If we ever get back to working in the office I'll have to go across
the hall and ask the model governance guys about this. They're native
speakers of Russian.
From what I've read about the matter, the use of this term tells
us something about Russian culture; if someone is openly
racist, he would be called "nekulturny", meaning that he is
ignorant - rather than something which, to us, would seem a
Stronger than ignorant AIUI there's a real implication of "decent
people don't do that" about it. It comes over as an attempt at education
and behaviour correction by peer pressure which seems to me to be a very
appropriate response.
Post by Quadibloc
stronger criticism, based on racism being _morally wrong_.
Therefore punishable if not corrected ?
Post by Quadibloc
This reflects what many Westerners would view as a defective
model of the world - viewing things through the superficial
Many consider the Western view of the world defective - they're not
wrong IMHO it would be incredibly arrogant and stupid to think it perfect.
Post by Quadibloc
prism of what is considered to be modern and sophisticated,
There is another viewpoint though. The only thing that stops us
fighting openly over things, taking what we want and so on is the culture of
mutual respect and tolerance built up slowly over thousands of years. The
definitions of morally right and wrong shift like quicksand over the
centuries and across cultures but one thing has remained constant - if
you're not following the norms of the culture around you then you are
likely to have trouble.
Post by Quadibloc
instead of putting the basic distinction between Right and
Wrong always front and center.
The trouble with that is that right and wrong are moving targets.
For most of history holding slaves was normal and therefore considered
right by most people - including many of the slaves by all accounts! Up
until some time in the early twentieth century eugenics was considered by
many (famous and widely respected among them) people to be sound and correct
science and the only real hope for the future of mankind. Putting capitals
on them and holding them up as fixed points is false to fact and often seen
as an attempt to impose a particular flavour of morality on people who
disagree with some aspects of it.

The current preoccupation with political correctness raised to the
level of moral imperative does sometimes make it difficult to discuss real
differences of racial origin because somewhere there's this deep seated
idea that if two things are not the same one must be better than the other.
That is cultural and starts in early education with "What's your favourite
colour" and less formally with "Who do you support".

It is important that we recognise right and wrong as cultural
artefacts subject to change because it is by changing the widespread
understanding of these concepts that real social development happens. Not
too long ago a successful duelist was a celebrated character acting fully
within their rights, now they'd be despised as a multiple murderer. In 1553
in the UK homosexual acts were so wrong that they became punishable by
death, four hundred and fourteen years later they became legal for some,
a little too late to prevent Alan Turing's ill treatment at the hands ofthe
law and consequent suicide. The torturers of the Spanish Inquisition
believed they were doing Right and staked their immortal souls on that
belief by doing terrible things in the cause of Right.

There are no demonstrably correct definitions of right and wrong,
but there are far too many strong opinions and too little tolerance of
differences but there seems to be what looks to me like steady improvement
over long periods.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Andreas Eder
2022-04-19 12:36:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 01:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
If we ever get back to working in the office I'll have to go across
the hall and ask the model governance guys about this. They're native
speakers of Russian.
From what I've read about the matter, the use of this term tells
us something about Russian culture; if someone is openly
racist, he would be called "nekulturny", meaning that he is
ignorant - rather than something which, to us, would seem a
Stronger than ignorant AIUI there's a real implication of "decent
people don't do that" about it. It comes over as an attempt at education
and behaviour correction by peer pressure which seems to me to be a very
appropriate response.
Post by Quadibloc
stronger criticism, based on racism being _morally wrong_.
Therefore punishable if not corrected ?
Post by Quadibloc
This reflects what many Westerners would view as a defective
model of the world - viewing things through the superficial
Many consider the Western view of the world defective - they're not
wrong IMHO it would be incredibly arrogant and stupid to think it perfect.
Post by Quadibloc
prism of what is considered to be modern and sophisticated,
There is another viewpoint though. The only thing that stops us
fighting openly over things, taking what we want and so on is the culture of
mutual respect and tolerance built up slowly over thousands of years. The
definitions of morally right and wrong shift like quicksand over the
centuries and across cultures but one thing has remained constant - if
you're not following the norms of the culture around you then you are
likely to have trouble.
Post by Quadibloc
instead of putting the basic distinction between Right and
Wrong always front and center.
The trouble with that is that right and wrong are moving targets.
For most of history holding slaves was normal and therefore considered
right by most people - including many of the slaves by all accounts! Up
until some time in the early twentieth century eugenics was considered by
many (famous and widely respected among them) people to be sound and correct
science and the only real hope for the future of mankind. Putting capitals
on them and holding them up as fixed points is false to fact and often seen
as an attempt to impose a particular flavour of morality on people who
disagree with some aspects of it.
The current preoccupation with political correctness raised to the
level of moral imperative does sometimes make it difficult to discuss real
differences of racial origin because somewhere there's this deep seated
idea that if two things are not the same one must be better than the other.
That is cultural and starts in early education with "What's your favourite
colour" and less formally with "Who do you support".
It is important that we recognise right and wrong as cultural
artefacts subject to change because it is by changing the widespread
understanding of these concepts that real social development happens. Not
too long ago a successful duelist was a celebrated character acting fully
within their rights, now they'd be despised as a multiple murderer. In 1553
in the UK homosexual acts were so wrong that they became punishable by
death, four hundred and fourteen years later they became legal for some,
a little too late to prevent Alan Turing's ill treatment at the hands ofthe
law and consequent suicide. The torturers of the Spanish Inquisition
believed they were doing Right and staked their immortal souls on that
belief by doing terrible things in the cause of Right.
There are no demonstrably correct definitions of right and wrong,
but there are far too many strong opinions and too little tolerance of
differences but there seems to be what looks to me like steady improvement
over long periods.
Very well put! I totally agree.
+1

'Andreas
Vir Campestris
2022-04-19 20:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
The trouble with that is that right and wrong are moving targets.
For most of history holding slaves was normal and therefore considered
right by most people - including many of the slaves by all accounts! Up
until some time in the early twentieth century eugenics was considered by
many (famous and widely respected among them) people to be sound and correct
science and the only real hope for the future of mankind. Putting capitals
on them and holding them up as fixed points is false to fact and often seen
as an attempt to impose a particular flavour of morality on people who
disagree with some aspects of it.
The time in the 20th century that eugenics became unacceptable was when
Hitler used the term.

I think it may be the future of mankind. But I don't know how to stop
another Hitler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons

Andy
Charlie Gibbs
2022-04-20 05:27:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vir Campestris
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
The trouble with that is that right and wrong are moving targets.
For most of history holding slaves was normal and therefore considered
right by most people - including many of the slaves by all accounts! Up
until some time in the early twentieth century eugenics was considered by
many (famous and widely respected among them) people to be sound and correct
science and the only real hope for the future of mankind. Putting capitals
on them and holding them up as fixed points is false to fact and often seen
as an attempt to impose a particular flavour of morality on people who
disagree with some aspects of it.
The time in the 20th century that eugenics became unacceptable was when
Hitler used the term.
I think it may be the future of mankind. But I don't know how to stop
another Hitler.
a.k.a Putin, Kim, Trump...
Post by Vir Campestris
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons
Wonderful book. I think of it when I hear terms like "de-skilling".
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2022-04-20 05:45:51 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:51:48 +0100
Post by Vir Campestris
The time in the 20th century that eugenics became unacceptable was when
Hitler used the term.
I think it may be the future of mankind. But I don't know how to stop
another Hitler.
Nobody does, but use of eugenics would probably have prevented
Stephen Hawking.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Kerr-Mudd, John
2022-04-20 09:56:15 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:45:51 +0100
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:51:48 +0100
Post by Vir Campestris
The time in the 20th century that eugenics became unacceptable was when
Hitler used the term.
I think it may be the future of mankind. But I don't know how to stop
another Hitler.
Nobody does, but use of eugenics would probably have prevented
Stephen Hawking.
Prevented his degeneration do you mean? Or is gene therapy different?
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2022-04-20 12:07:12 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 10:56:15 +0100
Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:45:51 +0100
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:51:48 +0100
Post by Vir Campestris
The time in the 20th century that eugenics became unacceptable was
when Hitler used the term.
I think it may be the future of mankind. But I don't know how to stop
another Hitler.
Nobody does, but use of eugenics would probably have prevented
Stephen Hawking.
Prevented his degeneration do you mean? Or is gene therapy different?
Very different - eugenics is about cleaning the bad genes from the
pool by removing the carriers or preventing them from entering the pool. He
would either have been denied conception or destroyed as defective very
early on (before birth if possible). If he got to the point of reproducing
before being declared defective then it would be him and all the children
removed from the pool (killing or sterilisation either is fine by eugenics)
unless they could be proven not to be carriers.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Quadibloc
2022-04-21 19:50:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:45:51 +0100
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Nobody does, but use of eugenics would probably have prevented
Stephen Hawking.
Prevented his degeneration do you mean? Or is gene therapy different?
No, he meant preventing him like it would have prevented Beethoven -
likely to develop deafness later in life.

Gene therapy isn't eugenics - it isn't going around killing or sterilizing
people who don't measure up.

John Savard
Peter Flass
2022-04-21 18:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:51:48 +0100
Post by Vir Campestris
The time in the 20th century that eugenics became unacceptable was when
Hitler used the term.
I think it may be the future of mankind. But I don't know how to stop
another Hitler.
Nobody does, but use of eugenics would probably have prevented
Stephen Hawking.
OTOH, it might have prevented Trump, in which case I’d have been for it.
The original intent was to prevent “undesirables” from reproducing - black,
brown yellow, or just plain poor.
--
Pete
Quadibloc
2022-04-21 20:25:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
The trouble with that is that right and wrong are moving targets.
For most of history holding slaves was normal and therefore considered
right by most people - including many of the slaves by all accounts! Up
until some time in the early twentieth century eugenics was considered by
many (famous and widely respected among them) people to be sound and correct
science and the only real hope for the future of mankind. Putting capitals
on them and holding them up as fixed points is false to fact and often seen
as an attempt to impose a particular flavour of morality on people who
disagree with some aspects of it.
You raise an important point.

However, I think it is possible to distinguish between what we know about
right and wrong, and current fashions.
Even when slavery was tolerated in the United States - as a pragmatic
compromise so that the country could include the South, and thus be
large enough to fight Britain - people knew the Truth, as it was written in
the Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal".
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
The current preoccupation with political correctness raised to the
level of moral imperative does sometimes make it difficult to discuss real
differences of racial origin because somewhere there's this deep seated
idea that if two things are not the same one must be better than the other.
That is cultural and starts in early education with "What's your favourite
colour" and less formally with "Who do you support".
I think that it's difficult to discuss "real differences of racial origin" for
other reasons.
It's true that of two skin colors that are not the same, one _is_ better for
avoiding sunburn. But the other is better for getting vitamin D naturally
from being out in the sun.
But that isn't where the problem lies.
If there _were_ a real difference in IQ due to race, _that_ would be a big
problem, not because being smarter is _assumed_ to be better - it _is_
better - but because the reason horses aren't allowed to vote is because
horses aren't as smart as people.
The fact that humans have higher intelligence than other species of animals
is the *reason why* humans, and only humans, are recognized as persons
with rights. So if blacks had less of that, it would be an easy jump to thinking
of them as _less human_.
The _good_ news is that there _isn't_ a "real difference" of _this sort_ between
the races.
Not because there shouldn't be, according to liberal political dogma. But
because of observed fact.
- Observed fact 1: The pervasiveness of inequality faced by black people in
the U.S. is _easily_ enough to account for the measured 15 points difference
in I.Q. between blacks and whites found by one study.
- Observed fact 2: To examine the hypothesis that intelligence differences
exist between the races, one should look for a case where it will be the easiest
to measure. Of the various human races, the smallest brain weight is found in
the Bushmen/Hottentots/Pygmies of Africa, and the Australian Aborigine. But
it's a general law that intelligence is also determined by brain size relative to
body size, and the Pygmies are short.
So if there were any intellectually inferior humans about, the Australian Aborigine
would be the most obvious case.
And I recall reading of how an explorer who lived among the Aborigines for a
while was impressed at their incredible feats of the intellect in remembering and
recognizing an immense catalogue of varieties of the local fauna and flora, thus
enabling them to survive in their harsh environment.
So they're geniuses, not dummies.
- Observed fact 3: All humans everywhere have spoken language. Indigenous
languages show as much grammatical sophistication as any other languages.
- Observed fact 4: In the case of the racial groups that appear to be *superior*
to the baseline of white Europeans, cultural reasons appear to exist that are
sufficient to account for their superiority from environmental causes: the
_bar mitzvah_ in the case of Jews, and the Imperial Civil Service Examinations
in the case of East Asians.

I'll grant you that this is a very limited amount of evidence, but it's what I've
managed to find out _for myself_, given that usually the books and essays
that argue for racial equality *don't* take seriously the concept that the
(intellectual, rather than moral) equality of all races is something that
actually needs to be tested and proved, because possibly it could be the
other way.

Stephen Jay Gould at least _mentioned_ the existence of this issue.

So what I'd _like_ to see is someone show that all the races are equal in
intelligence in a book packed with meticulous examination of vast amounts
of evidence gathered from all over the world, like _The Origin of Species_.
I'm not holding my breath, but based on the evidence above, I think that
racial equality is extremely likely. There may be slight differences, but the
overlap between the bell curves for each race would make them invisible.

But there are "real differences" between ethnic groups deriving from genetics.
But they have to do with _details_, not the essence of what makes us human.
However, details on their own can be troublesome.
So, it might indeed be the case, once we finally eradicate the vast amounts
of economic and social inequality between the races that now exist, that
people of some minority groups are still under-represented in some fields.
Particularly in the STEM fields, which are likely to be the ones so highly
valued for this to be a concern.
Black people may be over-represented in music for cultural reasons, since
for so long it was the only field in which they were _allowed_ to be
successful.
Some indigenous peoples may be more likely to be dyslexic, since dyslexia
wouldn't be selected against for people *without a written language*.

I can, therefore, see how real differences between the races could
come into conflict with our ideals of racial equality - but I think that's
a problem we will have to face in the far future, not today.

John Savard
Vir Campestris
2022-04-21 20:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
I think that it's difficult to discuss "real differences of racial origin" for
other reasons.
It's true that of two skin colors that are not the same, one_is_ better for
avoiding sunburn. But the other is better for getting vitamin D naturally
from being out in the sun.
There's quite a lot of evidence now that early farmers suffered from
dietary problems. They were shorter than the hunter gatherers that
preceded them. And there's also evidence from people like Cheddar Man
that the hunter-gatherers were quite dark. Whiteness is a response to
poor farming techniques.
Post by Quadibloc
But that isn't where the problem lies.
If there_were_ a real difference in IQ due to race,_that_ would be a big
problem, not because being smarter is_assumed_ to be better - it_is_
better - but because the reason horses aren't allowed to vote is because
horses aren't as smart as people.
The fact that humans have higher intelligence than other species of animals
is the*reason why* humans, and only humans, are recognized as persons
with rights. So if blacks had less of that, it would be an easy jump to thinking
of them as_less human_.
The_good_ news is that there_isn't_ a "real difference" of_this sort_ between
the races.
Not because there shouldn't be, according to liberal political dogma. But
because of observed fact.
- Observed fact 1: The pervasiveness of inequality faced by black people in
the U.S. is_easily_ enough to account for the measured 15 points difference
in I.Q. between blacks and whites found by one study.
<snip>

I find myself between two camps here.

I'll be surprised if there _isn't_ a real, but small difference between
the races.

I _know_ there is prejudice and inequality of opportunity.

But when somebody walks in to my office for an interview none of that
matters. I can't afford a genius, and I don't want an idiot. And it's
immaterial whether a single person meets my criteria by being unusual
for their race and gender, or just because there's no difference between
the races and genders.

Andy
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2022-04-21 21:39:32 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 21:44:31 +0100
Post by Vir Campestris
I'll be surprised if there _isn't_ a real, but small difference between
the races.
There are many real and not small differences between the races, if
there weren't we wouldn't be able to tell them apart so easily. Here's one
I rather envied - an old friend of mine had maintenance free hair, it never
needed cutting and it never grew to more than a skullcap of tight curls.
Only some races are lucky enough to have that - but then some might not
think it lucky.

The core problem is the common idea that if two things are
different then one must necessarily be better than the other - which is
brain dead stupid and nearly universal at a gut level.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Peter Flass
2022-04-21 22:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 21:44:31 +0100
Post by Vir Campestris
I'll be surprised if there _isn't_ a real, but small difference between
the races.
There are many real and not small differences between the races, if
there weren't we wouldn't be able to tell them apart so easily. Here's one
I rather envied - an old friend of mine had maintenance free hair, it never
needed cutting and it never grew to more than a skullcap of tight curls.
Only some races are lucky enough to have that - but then some might not
think it lucky.
The core problem is the common idea that if two things are
different then one must necessarily be better than the other - which is
brain dead stupid and nearly universal at a gut level.
Maybe better for one thing than another. Groups that are genetically tall
and long-legged are better at basketball and running, for example. People
with a higher inherited level of body fat survive better in cold climates
than very lean people. You can probably go on and on with genetic physical
differences, why not also intellectual differences?
--
Pete
Scott Lurndal
2022-04-21 22:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 21:44:31 +0100
Post by Vir Campestris
I'll be surprised if there _isn't_ a real, but small difference between
the races.
There are many real and not small differences between the races, if
there weren't we wouldn't be able to tell them apart so easily. Here's one
I rather envied - an old friend of mine had maintenance free hair, it never
needed cutting and it never grew to more than a skullcap of tight curls.
Only some races are lucky enough to have that - but then some might not
think it lucky.
The core problem is the common idea that if two things are
different then one must necessarily be better than the other - which is
brain dead stupid and nearly universal at a gut level.
Maybe better for one thing than another. Groups that are genetically tall
and long-legged are better at basketball and running, for example.
Is that really true? Or are you only looking at the exceptional "tall
and long-legged"? I sucked at basketball, and I'm taller than Steph
Curry.
Peter Flass
2022-04-21 23:34:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 21:44:31 +0100
Post by Vir Campestris
I'll be surprised if there _isn't_ a real, but small difference between
the races.
There are many real and not small differences between the races, if
there weren't we wouldn't be able to tell them apart so easily. Here's one
I rather envied - an old friend of mine had maintenance free hair, it never
needed cutting and it never grew to more than a skullcap of tight curls.
Only some races are lucky enough to have that - but then some might not
think it lucky.
The core problem is the common idea that if two things are
different then one must necessarily be better than the other - which is
brain dead stupid and nearly universal at a gut level.
Maybe better for one thing than another. Groups that are genetically tall
and long-legged are better at basketball and running, for example.
Is that really true? Or are you only looking at the exceptional "tall
and long-legged"? I sucked at basketball, and I'm taller than Steph
Curry.
Not entirely, but short basketball players have a disadvantage vs. tall
ones. Natural talent and hard work can overcome some of it, but given two
players of equal talent I’d put my money on the taller one. Likewise given
two football players of roughly equal talent, I’d put my money on the
300-pounder and not the 200-pounder.
--
Pete
Scott Lurndal
2022-04-22 15:13:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Peter Flass
Maybe better for one thing than another. Groups that are genetically tall
and long-legged are better at basketball and running, for example.
Is that really true? Or are you only looking at the exceptional "tall
and long-legged"? I sucked at basketball, and I'm taller than Steph
Curry.
Not entirely, but short basketball players have a disadvantage vs. tall
ones. Natural talent and hard work can overcome some of it, but given two
players of equal talent I’d put my money on the taller one.
I dunno - Steph (6'3") and Jordan Poole (6'4") make most of those
taller players look silly quite often. Jokic vs Curry and I'd take
Curry every time.
Post by Peter Flass
Likewise given
two football players of roughly equal talent, I’d put my money on the
300-pounder and not the 200-pounder.
Quarterbacks, place kickers and punters?

Generalities often aren't.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2022-04-22 06:14:34 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:26:24 -0700
Post by Peter Flass
Maybe better for one thing than another. Groups that are genetically tall
and long-legged are better at basketball and running, for example. People
with a higher inherited level of body fat survive better in cold climates
than very lean people. You can probably go on and on with genetic physical
differences, why not also intellectual differences?
Mainly because there is no evidence for any racially linked
intellectual differences but there is clear evidence for racially linked
physical differences.

But my real point is that there are differences of all kinds
between people and the racial differences are no different to any of the
other differences.

They don't change the simple fact that we're all people and we all
deserve the same baseline consideration and respect from others until as
individuals we change that.

Now to speculation - if there are any racially linked intellectual
differences they won't be so crude as "these people are incredibly
intelligent and these ones are stupid" they will be more along the lines of
"these people tend to have better than average spatial awareness because
they ..." or even more subtle and specific.

In an environment without meaningless bias these kinds of
differences would lead to some professions being biased towards some races
simply because the required skills/talents/physique are more common in those
races. This is where political correctness (must match the population
distribution, everybody is the same under the skin ...) and the obsession
with better (that comes from the obsession with best) as an absolute
interfere with even thinking clearly about it.

Sadly we do not live in an environment without meaningless bias and
there are people who look upon anyone different to themselves as being
inferior and undesirable without actually seeing the person. The next step
is the classic dehumanising of the different in exactly the same way as the
enemy is dehumanised in time of war (with insulting nicknames like tommy,
frog, bosch, gook, chink, kike, nigger ...).

To really make a difference we need to train a generation to resist
this sort of thing no matter what the driving force is (war, racism,
greed ...). To see every attempt at dehumanising any group of people as
wrong and evil. We seem to be going that way - I hope we survive long
enough.

IQ tests are culturally biased and the idea of reducing
intellectual capability to a single number is false to fact, yet another
part of this obsession with better and worse that makes no sense at all when
looked at closely.

I have a higher measured IQ than pretty much everyone around
me but that doesn't make be better except at solving some kinds of puzzles -
for example I'm poor at languages while I recall a school friend with a much
lower measured IQ who was fluent in nine languages at the age of sixteen.

Which of us has the better brain ? Are either of us better than the
school dropout who is now an expert car mechanic, or the woman who uses a
calculator to multiply by ten and plays hauntingly beautiful music ? Right
the questions are meaningless, stupid and divisive - and I haven't even
mentioned race!
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Charlie Gibbs
2022-04-22 19:23:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Now to speculation - if there are any racially linked intellectual
differences they won't be so crude as "these people are incredibly
intelligent and these ones are stupid" they will be more along the lines of
"these people tend to have better than average spatial awareness because
they ..." or even more subtle and specific.
And even there we come back to the nature vs. nurture argument.
With the spread of GPS, people's spatial awareness is atrophying.
I think I read of a study that suggested the area in our brains
that deals with spatial relationships is actually shrinking.
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
I have a higher measured IQ than pretty much everyone around
me but that doesn't make be better except at solving some kinds of puzzles -
for example I'm poor at languages while I recall a school friend with a much
lower measured IQ who was fluent in nine languages at the age of sixteen.
I do really well with numbers, music, and many spatial problems -
but I'm totally stumped by politics (and happy to be so).

If you want an excuse to discriminate against a group, there
all sorts of criteria you can pick to back up your arguments.
(There are just as many criteria that will refute those arguments,
though, and if you want to win you just have to shout them down.)
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Andreas Eder
2022-04-23 09:01:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Now to speculation - if there are any racially linked intellectual
differences they won't be so crude as "these people are incredibly
intelligent and these ones are stupid" they will be more along the lines of
"these people tend to have better than average spatial awareness because
they ..." or even more subtle and specific.
And even there we come back to the nature vs. nurture argument.
With the spread of GPS, people's spatial awareness is atrophying.
I think I read of a study that suggested the area in our brains
that deals with spatial relationships is actually shrinking.
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
I have a higher measured IQ than pretty much everyone around
me but that doesn't make be better except at solving some kinds of puzzles -
for example I'm poor at languages while I recall a school friend with a much
lower measured IQ who was fluent in nine languages at the age of sixteen.
I do really well with numbers, music, and many spatial problems -
but I'm totally stumped by politics (and happy to be so).
If you want an excuse to discriminate against a group, there
all sorts of criteria you can pick to back up your arguments.
(There are just as many criteria that will refute those arguments,
though, and if you want to win you just have to shout them down.)
“It was so much easier to blame it on Them.
It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us.
If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault.
If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us.
I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them.
No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them.
We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.”
― Terry Pratchett, Jingo
Charlie Gibbs
2022-04-23 20:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Eder
Post by Charlie Gibbs
If you want an excuse to discriminate against a group, there
all sorts of criteria you can pick to back up your arguments.
(There are just as many criteria that will refute those arguments,
though, and if you want to win you just have to shout them down.)
“It was so much easier to blame it on Them.
It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us.
If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault.
If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us.
I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them.
No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them.
We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.”
― Terry Pratchett, Jingo
We have met the enemy and he is us.
-- Walt Kelly: Pogo
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Andreas Eder
2022-04-22 05:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
The core problem is the common idea that if two things are
different then one must necessarily be better than the other - which is
brain dead stupid and nearly universal at a gut level.
Somehow most people do not grok partial orders.
They think, if there is an order, it is always total (linear).

'Andreas
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2022-04-22 07:43:23 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 07:49:47 +0200
Post by Andreas Eder
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
The core problem is the common idea that if two things are
different then one must necessarily be better than the other - which is
brain dead stupid and nearly universal at a gut level.
Somehow most people do not grok partial orders.
They think, if there is an order, it is always total (linear).
Added to that they tend to think that all differences must be
ordered, and I think that's taught!

"What's your favorite colour ?" - I was five when that question
stumped me (so I picked black at random at got laughed at). It took many
years to fully understand why it stumped me and I still don't understand
why it doesn't stump *everybody* the same way. I sometimes suspect that it
does stump everybody but they pick something at random that doesn't get
laughed at and stick with it so that it eventually becomes true and they're
becoming indoctrinated to the idea that there is always a best/favourite/...
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Andreas Eder
2022-04-22 13:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 07:49:47 +0200
Post by Andreas Eder
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
The core problem is the common idea that if two things are
different then one must necessarily be better than the other - which is
brain dead stupid and nearly universal at a gut level.
Somehow most people do not grok partial orders.
They think, if there is an order, it is always total (linear).
Added to that they tend to think that all differences must be
ordered, and I think that's taught!
"What's your favorite colour ?" - I was five when that question
stumped me (so I picked black at random at got laughed at). It took many
years to fully understand why it stumped me and I still don't understand
why it doesn't stump *everybody* the same way. I sometimes suspect that it
does stump everybody but they pick something at random that doesn't get
laughed at and stick with it so that it eventually becomes true and they're
becoming indoctrinated to the idea that there is always a best/favourite/...
You are right.
In a partial order you can have arbitrarily many maximal elements (the
best).
And I certainly perceive colours as a partial order - so there is no
single best one.

'Andreas
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2022-04-22 14:44:25 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 15:16:53 +0200
Post by Andreas Eder
You are right.
In a partial order you can have arbitrarily many maximal elements (the
best).
And I certainly perceive colours as a partial order - so there is no
single best one.
Yet every infant school child winds up getting asked what their
favourite colour is. I had forgotten about it until my daughter came home
asking me the question and didn't like my answer that I didn't have a
favourite colour. She thought I *must* have a favourite and was convinced
for years that I was just refusing to tell her what it was and got quite
angry about it.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Mike Spencer
2022-04-22 19:26:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 07:49:47 +0200
Post by Andreas Eder
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
The core problem is the common idea that if two things are
different then one must necessarily be better than the other - which is
brain dead stupid and nearly universal at a gut level.
Somehow most people do not grok partial orders.
They think, if there is an order, it is always total (linear).
Added to that they tend to think that all differences must be
ordered, and I think that's taught!
"What's your favorite colour ?" - I was five when that question
stumped me (so I picked black at random at got laughed at). It took
many years to fully understand why it stumped me and I still don't
understand why it doesn't stump *everybody* the same way. I
sometimes suspect that it does stump everybody but they pick
something at random that doesn't get laughed at and stick with it
so that it eventually becomes true and they're becoming
indoctrinated to the idea that there is always a best/favourite/...
You are right. In a partial order you can have arbitrarily many
maximal elements (the best). And I certainly perceive colours as a
partial order - so there is no single best one.
Is this the place to mention Warren McCulloch's "A Heterarchy of Values
Determined by the Topology of Nervous Nets"?

https://vordenker.de/ggphilosophy/mcculloch_heterarchy.pdf
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2022-04-22 20:40:17 UTC
Permalink
On 22 Apr 2022 16:26:35 -0300
Post by Mike Spencer
Is this the place to mention Warren McCulloch's "A Heterarchy of Values
Determined by the Topology of Nervous Nets"?
https://vordenker.de/ggphilosophy/mcculloch_heterarchy.pdf
That is going to take some thoughtful reading.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Peter Flass
2022-04-21 22:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vir Campestris
Post by Quadibloc
I think that it's difficult to discuss "real differences of racial origin" for
other reasons.
It's true that of two skin colors that are not the same, one_is_ better for
avoiding sunburn. But the other is better for getting vitamin D naturally
from being out in the sun.
There's quite a lot of evidence now that early farmers suffered from
dietary problems. They were shorter than the hunter gatherers that
preceded them. And there's also evidence from people like Cheddar Man
that the hunter-gatherers were quite dark. Whiteness is a response to
poor farming techniques.
Post by Quadibloc
But that isn't where the problem lies.
If there_were_ a real difference in IQ due to race,_that_ would be a big
problem, not because being smarter is_assumed_ to be better - it_is_
better - but because the reason horses aren't allowed to vote is because
horses aren't as smart as people.
The fact that humans have higher intelligence than other species of animals
is the*reason why* humans, and only humans, are recognized as persons
with rights. So if blacks had less of that, it would be an easy jump to thinking
of them as_less human_.
The_good_ news is that there_isn't_ a "real difference" of_this sort_ between
the races.
Not because there shouldn't be, according to liberal political dogma. But
because of observed fact.
- Observed fact 1: The pervasiveness of inequality faced by black people in
the U.S. is_easily_ enough to account for the measured 15 points difference
in I.Q. between blacks and whites found by one study.
<snip>
I find myself between two camps here.
I'll be surprised if there _isn't_ a real, but small difference between
the races.
I _know_ there is prejudice and inequality of opportunity.
But when somebody walks in to my office for an interview none of that
matters. I can't afford a genius, and I don't want an idiot. And it's
immaterial whether a single person meets my criteria by being unusual
for their race and gender, or just because there's no difference between
the races and genders.
Right on, but in addition there’s more to being able to do a job than
intelligence. A genius who can’t get along with cow-orkers would probably
be a bad fit for most jobs. Being a hard worker will usually trump higher
intelligence, etc.
--
Pete
D.J.
2022-04-22 15:41:52 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 21:44:31 +0100, Vir Campestris
Post by Vir Campestris
Post by Quadibloc
I think that it's difficult to discuss "real differences of racial origin" for
other reasons.
It's true that of two skin colors that are not the same, one_is_ better for
avoiding sunburn. But the other is better for getting vitamin D naturally
from being out in the sun.
There's quite a lot of evidence now that early farmers suffered from
dietary problems. They were shorter than the hunter gatherers that
preceded them. And there's also evidence from people like Cheddar Man
that the hunter-gatherers were quite dark. Whiteness is a response to
poor farming techniques.
And the further north a person lives, the skin lightens over
generations so Vitamin D can be produced via sunlight.
--
Jim
Peter Flass
2022-04-21 22:26:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
However, I think it is possible to distinguish between what we know about
right and wrong, and current fashions.
Even when slavery was tolerated in the United States - as a pragmatic
compromise so that the country could include the South, and thus be
large enough to fight Britain - people knew the Truth, as it was written in
the Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal".
By the mid 1700s, certainly, but up until a century or so before slavery
was accepted with few questions.
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
The current preoccupation with political correctness raised to the
level of moral imperative does sometimes make it difficult to discuss real
differences of racial origin because somewhere there's this deep seated
idea that if two things are not the same one must be better than the other.
That is cultural and starts in early education with "What's your favourite
colour" and less formally with "Who do you support".
I think that it's difficult to discuss "real differences of racial origin" for
other reasons.
It's true that of two skin colors that are not the same, one _is_ better for
avoiding sunburn. But the other is better for getting vitamin D naturally
from being out in the sun.
But that isn't where the problem lies.
If there _were_ a real difference in IQ due to race, _that_ would be a big
problem, not because being smarter is _assumed_ to be better - it _is_
better - but because the reason horses aren't allowed to vote is because
horses aren't as smart as people.
Whether or not there are any real genetic differences in IQ (and people who
have tried to find out have been crucified) this is too simplistic. The
intelligence of a group is spread out on a curve. Are you looking at the
“average” (mean, median, mode?) IQ of one group being higher than another?
Are you looking at the outliers?
Most people don’t use all the intelligence they have; what if members of
one group use more of possibly lesser brainpower than members of another?
Of course it’s impossible to measure intelligence in the abstract, isolated
from cultural factors.
Post by Quadibloc
The fact that humans have higher intelligence than other species of animals
is the *reason why* humans, and only humans, are recognized as persons
with rights.
This is changing. Apes, elephants, dolphins, whales, and octopi are
probably about as intelligent as many people, or at least as intelligent as
people on the right of the curve. This doesn’t mean that we give them the
franchise, but it does, of at least should, give them rights.
Post by Quadibloc
John Savard
--
Pete
Quadibloc
2022-04-22 15:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Quadibloc
If there _were_ a real difference in IQ due to race, _that_ would be a big
problem, not because being smarter is _assumed_ to be better - it _is_
better - but because the reason horses aren't allowed to vote is because
horses aren't as smart as people.
Whether or not there are any real genetic differences in IQ (and people who
have tried to find out have been crucified) this is too simplistic.
I should have clarified. Obviously, there are no differences in IQ between the
races large enough to justify treating the members of any race as if they were
just animals. That, in itself, doesn't mean slight differences can't exist.

But if they did exist, and were proven to do so, it would still cause a problem
because then it would make it harder to argue that bigotry isn't valid. (Unless
the differences are in the "wrong" direction, of course.)

John Savard
maus
2022-04-22 16:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Quadibloc
If there _were_ a real difference in IQ due to race, _that_ would be a big
problem, not because being smarter is _assumed_ to be better - it _is_
better - but because the reason horses aren't allowed to vote is because
horses aren't as smart as people.
Whether or not there are any real genetic differences in IQ (and people who
have tried to find out have been crucified) this is too simplistic.
I should have clarified. Obviously, there are no differences in IQ between the
races large enough to justify treating the members of any race as if they were
just animals. That, in itself, doesn't mean slight differences can't exist.
I would think that there are massive differences in social conditions
between peoples, for instance, Jewish social groups have an affinity to
learning that aids them in life, where Hottentots ( Khoikhoi),do not, which
impairs them. That is something that can be repaired easily.

The idea of Eugenics, arose with the rise in Racism after the 1880's or
so. It is stupid and cruel.

BTW, when I was younger, I was mislead on the idea of IQ, and attempted
to join Mensa, and succeeded. Then I realised that I had joined a group
that would take money to tell you you were smarter than most others,
which logically actually showed that you were stupider.
Post by Quadibloc
But if they did exist, and were proven to do so, it would still cause a problem
because then it would make it harder to argue that bigotry isn't valid. (Unless
the differences are in the "wrong" direction, of course.)
John Savard
--
***@mail.com
He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness,
Charlie Gibbs
2022-04-22 19:23:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by maus
I would think that there are massive differences in social conditions
between peoples, for instance, Jewish social groups have an affinity to
learning that aids them in life, where Hottentots ( Khoikhoi),do not,
which impairs them. That is something that can be repaired easily.
Are you sure? Given the modern trend toward "de-skilling",
we seem to be moving in the opposite direction.
Post by maus
BTW, when I was younger, I was mislead on the idea of IQ, and attempted
to join Mensa, and succeeded. Then I realised that I had joined a group
that would take money to tell you you were smarter than most others,
which logically actually showed that you were stupider.
I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.
-- Groucho Marx
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Quadibloc
2022-04-22 20:00:40 UTC
Permalink
BTW, when I was younger, I was mislead on the idea of IQ, and attempted
to join Mensa, and succeeded. Then I realised that I had joined a group
that would take money to tell you you were smarter than most others,
which logically actually showed that you were stupider.
That does not _necessarily_ follow. After all, any group has expenses,
if they have offices and postage and things like that. I remember hearing
about Mensa back in the early 60s, but it does not seem to have been a
success story.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2022-04-22 20:44:13 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:00:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
BTW, when I was younger, I was mislead on the idea of IQ, and attempted
to join Mensa, and succeeded. Then I realised that I had joined a group
that would take money to tell you you were smarter than most others,
which logically actually showed that you were stupider.
That does not _necessarily_ follow. After all, any group has expenses,
if they have offices and postage and things like that. I remember hearing
about Mensa back in the early 60s, but it does not seem to have been a
success story.
They claim to have 134,000 members in more than 100 countries, so
perhaps rumors of their failure have been somewhat exaggerated.
J. Clarke
2022-04-22 20:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by maus
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Quadibloc
If there _were_ a real difference in IQ due to race, _that_ would be a big
problem, not because being smarter is _assumed_ to be better - it _is_
better - but because the reason horses aren't allowed to vote is because
horses aren't as smart as people.
Whether or not there are any real genetic differences in IQ (and people who
have tried to find out have been crucified) this is too simplistic.
I should have clarified. Obviously, there are no differences in IQ between the
races large enough to justify treating the members of any race as if they were
just animals. That, in itself, doesn't mean slight differences can't exist.
I would think that there are massive differences in social conditions
between peoples, for instance, Jewish social groups have an affinity to
learning that aids them in life, where Hottentots ( Khoikhoi),do not, which
impairs them. That is something that can be repaired easily.
Don't be too sure about that. When people are bound and determined to
resist your efforts to help them there's not really much you can do.
Post by maus
The idea of Eugenics, arose with the rise in Racism after the 1880's or
so. It is stupid and cruel.
BTW, when I was younger, I was mislead on the idea of IQ, and attempted
to join Mensa, and succeeded. Then I realised that I had joined a group
that would take money to tell you you were smarter than most others,
which logically actually showed that you were stupider.
Post by Quadibloc
But if they did exist, and were proven to do so, it would still cause a problem
because then it would make it harder to argue that bigotry isn't valid. (Unless
the differences are in the "wrong" direction, of course.)
John Savard
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2022-04-22 20:43:05 UTC
Permalink
On 22 Apr 2022 16:13:59 GMT
Post by maus
BTW, when I was younger, I was mislead on the idea of IQ, and attempted
to join Mensa, and succeeded. Then I realised that I had joined a group
that would take money to tell you you were smarter than most others,
which logically actually showed that you were stupider.
A college fiend of mine had one of the best descriptions of Mensa I
have ever heard, he called them "A bunch of brain proud idiots".
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Charlie Gibbs
2022-04-22 19:23:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Quadibloc
The fact that humans have higher intelligence than other species of animals
is the *reason why* humans, and only humans, are recognized as persons
with rights.
This is changing. Apes, elephants, dolphins, whales, and octopi are
probably about as intelligent as many people, or at least as intelligent as
people on the right of the curve. This doesn’t mean that we give them the
franchise, but it does, of at least should, give them rights.
I read an article about this yesterday. Maybe someday the list of species to
which we give these rights will someday be expanded to include _Homo sapiens_.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Charlie Gibbs
2022-04-22 19:23:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
- Observed fact 1: The pervasiveness of inequality faced by black people in
the U.S. is _easily_ enough to account for the measured 15 points difference
in I.Q. between blacks and whites found by one study.
It all comes back to the nature vs. nurture argument.
Those who argue it's all one and none of the other are
missing the point.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Quadibloc
2022-04-22 20:03:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
It all comes back to the nature vs. nurture argument.
Those who argue it's all one and none of the other are
missing the point.
Oh, I think that genetics plays a very important role in
determining an individual's potential intelligence. But that,
in itself, doesn't say anything about how differentiated that
genetic endowment might be between genetically distinct
ethnic groups.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2022-04-22 20:45:51 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 19:23:27 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Post by Quadibloc
- Observed fact 1: The pervasiveness of inequality faced by black people in
the U.S. is _easily_ enough to account for the measured 15 points difference
in I.Q. between blacks and whites found by one study.
It all comes back to the nature vs. nurture argument.
Those who argue it's all one and none of the other are
missing the point.
I'll believe there's not a genetic component when I get a
comprehensible text message from the cat.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2022-04-22 21:11:44 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 16:45:51 -0400
Post by J. Clarke
I'll believe there's not a genetic component when I get a
comprehensible text message from the cat.
How about a self aware AI - there's no genes there, assuming it's
possible of course which seems more likely than a texting cat.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Andreas Kohlbach
2022-04-03 19:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D.J.
Post by Quadibloc
I just recently learned that it's only because of the Soviets that this confusion
exists in the Russian language. Under the old orthography, ??? was still the word
for "peace", but ??? was the word for "world".
John Savard
Pooty is uncultured.
I am told that "nekulturny" is one of the direst insults in the
Russian language. And it certainly applies to him.
I seem to hear that in Russian dash cam videos quite often. I hope the
sanctions or retalliations (i.e. taking Youtube away from Russians) won't
dry them out.
--
Andreas
maus
2022-04-03 19:24:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
Post by J. Clarke
Post by D.J.
Post by Quadibloc
I just recently learned that it's only because of the Soviets that this confusion
exists in the Russian language. Under the old orthography, ??? was still the word
for "peace", but ??? was the word for "world".
John Savard
Pooty is uncultured.
I am told that "nekulturny" is one of the direst insults in the
Russian language. And it certainly applies to him.
I seem to hear that in Russian dash cam videos quite often.
Do What?. AFAIK, dashcams are used in Russia to record the frequent
carcrashes, for insurance claims.
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
I hope the
sanctions or retalliations (i.e. taking Youtube away from Russians) won't
dry them out.
Oh no banning youtube! Its too cruel. :)
--
***@mail.com
That's not a mousehole!
Andreas Kohlbach
2022-04-04 01:59:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by maus
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
I seem to hear that in Russian dash cam videos quite often.
Do What?.
Something missing in my sentence... I probably meant "I watch Russian dash
cam videos quite often".
Post by maus
AFAIK, dashcams are used in Russia to record the frequent
carcrashes, for insurance claims.
That and other things. Like the meteor event in 2013. Also road rage and
other car related things. Like in

Post by maus
Post by Andreas Kohlbach
I hope the
sanctions or retalliations (i.e. taking Youtube away from Russians) won't
dry them out.
Oh no banning youtube! Its too cruel. :)
Russians also go Netflix removed.

Rumors say Russia starts an own streaming service called Njetflix. -)
--
Andreas
Loading...