Misconceptions Based on Race, 'Genetics', et. al.

Discussion in 'Race Relations' started by DarkSkies, Jul 29, 2015.

  1. DarkSkies

    DarkSkies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    4,522
    Likes Received:
    583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for sharing the news of Rushton's passing. The world has become that much better.

     
  2. DevilMayhem666

    DevilMayhem666 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Old news really.
     
  3. ThirdTerm

    ThirdTerm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,318
    Likes Received:
    456
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Jean-Philippe Rushton was a psychology professor and his training was unrelated to biology or genetics, which is why his academic papers and books published during his lifetime were less scientific than papers related to human genetics. I think psychologists and anthropologists are still trapped in old racial stereotypes, while geneticists are conducting ground-breaking research on various ethnic groups, including the Neanderthals, who turned out to be our genetic cousins.
     
  4. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I just got a reply from Nisbett.....

    That is literally all he wrote. :mrgreen:

    I also emailed a Harvard statistician who specializes in correlation research. I will let you know what he says should I get a reply.

    While most Anthropologists do not believe the concept of race is applicable to humans Rushton was fixated on seeking a genetic basis to racist stereotypes. Indeed Rushton was a psychologist and had no formal training in biology or genetics. His evolutionary theories were refuted in detail by Joseph Graves an evolutionary biologist. Before Rushton died I had a debate with a racist supporter of Rushton's named Frank at The Phora who emailed Rushton for clarification on his position on Graves' arguments. Rushton had never responded to Graves in print. I forwarded the reply to Graves and got a response. This is the exchange.

    On another website a racist tried to defend Rushton's research by claiming that r/K selection theory had been verified as correct citing a paper they found on Wikipedia. I emailed the author of that paper and this was his response:


    Here is a followup email:

    Clearly Rushton was speaking outside his field of expertise and I have the backing of two biologists among other scholars who say he didn't know what he is talking about.
     
  5. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It is interesting indeed to learn northeast Asians have higher levels of neanderthal DNA than whites and also larger brain volume and higher iq. The recent data showing genes linked to iq also reveal northeast have higher frequencies of these genes than whites than blacks. The more research compiled erodes the environmental theories of Marxists in favor of what rushton and others have said for years. Perhaps soon the science will be undeniable.
     
  6. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What is your background? Do you have a university degree, and, if so, what is it?

    I'm also curious what you do for a living?

    As far as my comments, my post you quoted is my position and I realized previous posts were not what I meant to say.

    Admixture studies cannot determine the cause but only if white heritage positively affects black iq.

    Any positive correlation shows white heritage to increase black iq, zero correlation has no affect, and negative correlation inversely affects black iq.

    BTW, did you get round to asking nisbett for comment over his numerous omissions?
     
  7. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The idea that Neanderthal, a subspecies that was replaced by modern humans, contributed genes for larger brain size and greater intelligence to Northeast Asians or any other population is absurd. If they were so smart why are they extinct today while modern humans thrive? The fact is that Neanderthal only contributed a small quantity of genes to the modern human gene pool and there is no evidence that they were smarter than modern humans, in fact the archaeological evidence indicates they were less intelligent. Rushton was a racist quack who was exposed by many scholars. The studies on genes and IQ that you are referring to by Davide Piffer were published in Mankind Quarterly, a journal known for publishing racist trash that no credible scientist takes seriously. I'm going to try to get feedback from some scholars on his work any way and create a new thread should I get responses.

    Racists have in general been defeated and humiliated on this subject. All you are doing is spreading propaganda that anyone who knows any better doesn't believe.
     
  8. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Personal questions of this nature are not of interest. I will say that I did graduate from college and took elective courses in Biology, Psychology and Anthropology plus I've read several books related to this subject and conversed with many scholars.

    What did you mean to say?

    Racial admixture studies can assess the nature of the relationship between different genotypes. If White ancestry is not related to high Black IQ as the studies suggest then White genes do not make Blacks smarter. This can be viewed as direct evidence of the cause of the Black-White IQ gap supporting an environmental model over a hereditarian one. It's not the only evidence and I would like to see if these conclusions can be replicated with modern genetic testing but these studies clearly qualify as evidence.

    A correlation shows a degree of relatedness between two attributes. The higher the correlation the more likely to attributes are to be related. The lower the correlation the less likely they are to be related. In this case the correlation between White ancestry and Black IQ is on the low end of the spectrum. Zero correlation would mean no relatedness whatsoever and a negative correlation could point to different conclusions.

    I think Nisbett was baffled by your argument and didn't want to waste time with it so he gave the reply that he did. Let's see what the Harvard statistician says.

    I'm going to read his book first. I bought the book on Amazon so I have it in my possession. Once I have read it I will review Rushton's critique and answer your inquiries. But I need to read the book first so I am familiar with all of his references and arguments. At the moment I have only read PDF files of his on the internet. The book by the looks of it provides much more detail.
     
  9. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nisbett's response to the admixture studies showing liw positive correlation with white heritage is that they are the result of blacks having the advantage of having lighter skin in white majority society. So, it doesn't matter if the studies contradict his hypothesis of 0.0 correlation: he has an excuse ready for the data which falsifies his hypothesis.

    Then again, Nisbett's omitted a study by Lynn 2002 showing 0.17 correlation between iq and skin color.

    Curiously you have questioned my educational background but are unwilling to give your employment or educational background.

    Do you have a bachelors or associates, and in what?


    What is it you do?

    Bear in mind I have revealed my educational background and employment.
     
  10. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    You provided that information willingly and as I recall you accused me of being a high school dropout as an insult. That's what started the conversation over education and employment. The reason I don't tell people my education and employment background is because I prefer to keep my personal life separate from my activities on the internet. Besides anyone can claim to be anything on the internet. On another website a racist poster claimed that I was the dumbest person on the board and that he was not only smarter than me but made more money. He then claimed that his law school achievements put Barack Obama's to shame. I pointed out the absurdity of this as Obama graduated from Harvard Law School with high honors...you can't put that to shame.

    I also called him out on being a lawyer and he refused to provide any proof of his claim. He said he would but insisted I put something out there first. I pointed out that he's the one making insinuations about me when he doesn't know me and I have no interest in putting my personal info out there so if he wanted to be believed he should provide some evidence. At this point he dropped the conversation.

    The point is we don't know each other and I'm only interested in what you can offer as debate points not your personal background or you knowing mine.

    I've already told you I took classes in college related to these subjects. Beyond that I'm not telling what type of degree I earned, what my major was or what I do for work because all of that is personal. You have also suggested in the past that I am not intelligent. I will let my vocabulary, knowledge and reasoning ability speak for itself.

    As for Nisbett he said that a mere correlation between skin color and IQ could point to greater socialization of lighter-skinned Blacks in American (or White majority) society. But racial admixture studies go deeper than that. Nisbett cited studies that looked at correlations between White admixture (based on skin color) and high Black IQ, degree of "Negroidness" (i.e. facial features) and blood groups that assessed "Europeaness." In other words these studies were designed to see if White ancestry itself made Blacks smarter not simply if lighter-skinned Blacks do better in society. Now all of these studies were done before modern DNA testing where population geneticists are able to look at Ancestry Informative Markers and determine a person's continental ancestry as well as genetic composition estimating percentages of continental ancestry. This type of research could be used to see if there are strong correlations between IQ and continental ancestry. I would like to see this done to see if the conclusions of old racial admixture studies could be replicated with modern genetics research. But as it stands unless the racial admixture studies have been refuted they qualify as direct evidence supporting the environmental model.

    Lynn's study finding a 0.17 correlation between skin color and IQ by the way is still a low correlation.
     
  11. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You were the one to inquire my background. I told you, and, in fact, you attempted to slight me at the time. Interesting you refuse to disclose your educational achievement and current employment.

    The correlation between skin color and and white admixture is low/moderate. Tests using skin color as an indicator for ancestry are therefore limited to begin with. Rushton has shown studies Nisbett cited - eg., Turkheimer - have not been replicated. Other studies Nisbett dismissed or invented excuses from thin air. He provided no evidence for his claim of 'social advantages' that lighter skinned Blacks supposedly have in the US relating to IQ compared to Blacks with darker skin. Last I knew, lighter and darker skinned Blacks still attend the same schools, live in the same neighborhoods and are from the same families. How exactly, then, does Nisbett propose having lighter skin effects higher IQ in Blacks? Other forms of admixture studies are also cited by Rushton, such as research on half-breed mulatto children from South Africa show an average IQ of 85 intermediate of the 70 and 100 IQ's of Blacks and Whites, respectively.

    Rushton additionally addresses blood type studies, but I'd rather know the skin and mulatto admixture studies out before moving to further discredit Nisbett.
     
  12. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't recall asking your background out of nowhere. As I recall you insulted my intelligence by calling me a liar and a high school dropout which I addressed in this post and I reported you for flaming.

    I have never assumed your background and if I attempted to slight you I'm sure it was retaliation for something you said about me. You're not going to get personal information about about me so don't bother. But why don't you explain how such questions are even relevant to the discussion?

    Lighter-skinned Blacks experience greater socialization in America. They receive preferential treatment from teachers and are more likely to be hired for jobs. They are generally treated better both in the Black community and by White America. You can read about colorism all over the internet. Biracial children in South Africa generally go to better scholars than children with two Black biological parents. Their education explains their higher IQs. This is a legacy of the Apartheid system and "Coloreds" being treated better in South African society.

    Rushton admits that the existing blood group studies did not show a relationship to African American IQs and therefore do not support the hereditarian position. He takes issue with the reliability of these tests because he says the genetic markers used turned out to have too little variation in allele frequencies to make detection likely between Africans and Europeans. He comments on the advances in modern DNA testing and how they are very reliable at showing a relationship between self-reports of racial identity and continental ancestry. As I said before I would be very interested in seeing if the results of older racial admixture studies could be replicated with modern DNA testing or if they point to different conclusions. I find it strange that Rushton and Jensen did not try to arrange for such testing while they were alive. The technology to do this was available for many years.
     
  13. DevilMayhem666

    DevilMayhem666 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
  14. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    That's disgusting but I'm not surprised. And indeed there are adoption studies I cited which show that biracial adoptees are not always intermediate in IQ between Blacks and Whites. Rayznack, did you seriously not know that interracial families in South Africa send their biracial children to better schools? The preferential treatment Coloreds get is well known. Colorism also exists in America. You simply cannot take the success of light-skinned Blacks in White majority society as evidence that White ancestry makes Blacks smarter because of the existence of colorism in their favor. That's what Nisbett is talking about and like I said it's well-documented. Racial admixture studies which look directly at the correlation between White ancestry and high Black IQ indicate that they are not related. I hope by now you have abandoned the argument that low correlations support your arguments because they clearly don't. Skin color is admittedly a weak proxy for racial admixture however there were 5 types of designs which all came to the same conclusions on this matter. The use of modern DNA tests would be interesting to see if results could be replicated but until that is done and the results contradict prior tests the evidence stands.
     
  15. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'm unaware of the correlation between greater socialization and IQ. Do you have evidence for any of your claims?

    Do you have evidence that lighter skinned blacks are a) more socialized and b) greater socialization correlates with higher IQ?

    I'd like to see evidence of half-breed south Africans attending better schools and that better schooling results in higher adult IQ.

    Making arguments from assertions won't pass with me.

    So far you've only supported everything you've said with conventional wisdom and your own opinion.
     
  16. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The effects of greater socialization on IQ are well-known. You can read details in this article by Nisbett et al. (2012).

    Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments American Psychologist Vol. 67, No. 2, 130–159 (2012)

    Read the sections titled social factors and Class and race differences in socialization for intellectual abilities.

    Among the findings are that:

    1. Adoption significantly boosts IQ for children of lower SES families (by 12-18 IQ points).

    2. Socialization affects on children begin in infancy.


    The above study establishes my point for claim B. As for claim A read this article:

    The Persistent Problem of Colorism: Skin Tone, Status, and Inequality Sociology Compass 1/1 (2007): 237 –254,

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Colored_people_(South_Africa).aspx

    The effect of better schooling on IQ is addressed in the Nisbett article.

    You have your evidence. Now I expect to see some sensible feedback. You can either refute these claims or concede the point.
     
  17. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This is a completely extraneous comparison.

    Lighter skinned Black babies aren't raised differently by their Black parents; they attend the same schools, live in the same area and inhabit the same culture as their darker skinned Black peers and siblings.

    How are lighter skinned Black babies socialized differently starting at infancy?

    Do you have any proof Black parents treat their lighter skinned children differently?

    Do you have any proof teachers treat lighter skinned Black children differently?

    Ignoring these children's IQs regress into adulthood, you are comparing children adopted to different families and raised in completely different settings to children who are not.

    Your claim is supported by assumption piled onto assumption. I note the author not only assumes, but bases her assumptions on a complete lack of quantifiable data:

    So, no actual evidence. The claim boils down to 'if', 'may' and 'it is possible'.

    The only claim the author makes with certainty is of a study on school counselors from 1987. Beyond that, no evidence that teachers socialize differently with lighter skinned Black students or different socializing results in differences in IQ.


    So have test scores and the IQ gap narrowed since the end of apartheid?

    Interestingly SAT scores have not narrowed between Asians, Whites and Blacks in the US.

    I'm curious why you haven't pursued that angle.

    If I believed the IQ gap between races were completely environmental I would immediately search for changes in the IQ gap over times as the conditions in South Africa since apartheid have undoubtedly improved for Blacks and coloreds.

    Interesting if you have not bothered to do that type of research.

    I glanced through but didn't see compelling data. It seems the effects of better schooling diminish in return by junior high or high school.

    How much does better schooling raise the IQ of a child, teen, young adult and adult?
     
  18. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I didn't say anything about lighter-skinned Black babies being socialized differently at infancy. You asked me about socialization effects on IQ. I presented you the evidence.

    That would be hard to prove considering people lie but researchers have interviewed children who report noticing favoritism towards lighter-skinned students.

    Ability tests have however indicated improvements in Black test scores since the Civil Rights movement.

    First of all you're making assumptions. You don't know what I've researched. We were discussing the fact that Coloreds generally go to better schools than Black Africans. That was the point I made.


    I don't know of any studies that research the boost in actual IQ score from childhood to adulthood however there is a study that indicates that better schooling in various countries leads to improvement in cognitive skills.

    Do Better Schools Lead to More Growth? Cognitive Skills, Economic Outcomes, and Causation Journal of Economic Growth December 2012, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 267-321
     
  19. ElDiablo

    ElDiablo Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Claiming environmental reasons for the difference between the i.q. in various races is simply illogical....aka believing that poverty and lack of educational opportunities is why why some races have lower i.q.'s.

    America and the Western European nations have had the highest standards of living of any nation for a very long time....yet the Chinese have a higher average i.q. than Americans or W. Europeans....you know the nation that has had one of the lowest standard of livings for decades...famines,
    unavailability of education etc. Millions and millions dying from starvation and political purges.......thus apparantly environment plays no role in the high i.q. of Chinese.

    If the Environmental claim was true America and Western European nations should have the highest average i.q.'s which of course we know is not the case.
     
  20. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it doesn't take a genius to understand that IQ test performance is influenced by education, language and level of cultural integration
     
  21. ElDiablo

    ElDiablo Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Reading, studying and learning will indeed increase your knowledge, but not necessarily your IQ. IQ should be seen more as the capacity to learn, not a measure of how much you know.

    Practicing IQ-tests could help boost your result, but not significantly. This could also cloud your actual results, giving you a better score than you actually should have. Hence there is usually a ban after taking a test, before you can attempt it again.

    Results of different intelligence tests follow a Gaussian distribution with an average score of 100, this is common for all (that I'm aware of) IQ-test scores. Different standard deviations are however used, resulting in different numbers. If you are not on the 100-point average, the same result could give you several different "IQ-scores" depending on which standard deviation was used. For instance, if you score 130 in a test using SD=15, this equals a score of 132 with SD=16 and 148 with AD=24. All these scores are equal and place you on the same spot on the gaussian curve describing the statistical distribution of IQ. So I guess the fastest and easiest way to "boost" your score is to use the SD=24 score. This is what media typically use when mentioning IQ of some celebrity. It is not wrong, but should not be compared to the SD=15 scale. Because of this it is more precise and usually more interesting to talk about percentiles rather than score.

    All the b.s. about i.q. tests being culturally biases is fallacious. Once again the Asians demonstrate this...despite taking i.q. tests designed by Westerners they score the highest.

    African Americans’ lower average performance on IQ tests cannot be because of differences in vocabulary, because African Americans have slightly better performance on verbal tests than on nonverbal tests. The IQ difference also cannot be because the tests depend on White culture, or that Whites inevitably do better on tests designed by Whites. In fact, Blacks perform better on tests that are culturally loaded than they do on tests designed to not include cultural references unfamiliar to Blacks, and Japanese children tend to outscore White children by an average of six points. Nor can the difference be a reflection of socioeconomic status, because when Black and White children are tested who are at the same socioeconomic level, the difference between their average IQs is still twelve points.

    The evidence actually indicates that IQ tests work the same way for all English-speaking Americans born in the United States, irregardless of race. IQ tests have been very successful in predicting performance for all Americans in school, work, and the armed forces. Another is that the race and sex of the person administering a test does not significantly affect how African Americans perform on it. The ranking in difficulty of test items on IQ tests is the same for both groups, and so is the overall shape of the graph showing the number of people achieving each score, except that the curve is centered slightly lower for Blacks than it is for Whites.

    A report by School Psychology Quarterly:

    One popular and longstanding claim is that mean differences are caused by
    “cultural bias” in the tests.

    On the basis of empirical criteria for evaluating test bias,
    that standardized aptitude/ability tests predict equally well for American-born, English-speaking
    majority and minority subgroups and measure similar constructs. This paper
    summarizes...... We conclude that empirical research to date consistently finds that standardized
    cognitive tests are not biased in terms of predictive and construct validity. Furthermore, continued
    claims of test bias, which appear in academic journals, the popular media, and some
    psychology textbooks, are not empirically justified. These claims of bias should be met with
    skepticism and evaluated critically according to established scientific principles.

    So now you have the left dismissing college in much they same way they dismiss IQ tests. If some people score low, it’s because of racism or some imagined external factor, not because of innate individual cognitive differences. For the left, the modus operandi, again, is the same: blame large external targets (society, the economy, college, technology…) for individual deficits and differences that are biological in nature, not external.

    Up to 80% of the variation found in adult human intelligence is thought to be attributable to genetics, despite the fact that it is a complicated, polygenic trait.


    Source: Boundless. “Genetic and Environmental Impacts on Intelligence.” Boundless Psychology. Boundless, 20 Aug. 2015. Retrieved 09 Jan. 2016 from https://www.boundless.com/psycholog...ironmental-impacts-on-intelligence-243-12778/
     
  22. lynnlynn

    lynnlynn New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    IQ tests are a joke and no one should take them seriously.
     
  23. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    ElDiablo,

    I can tell when you are posting original thoughts and when you are plagiarizing sources. You copied text from quora and Wikipedia and blended them together as if you said those words yourself. I know this isn't a college paper you're writing but you should give credit to other writers instead of taking credit for what they write in order to make yourself sound knowledgeable. I listed 7 lines of evidence in post #454 supporting an environmental model over a hereditarian model and elaborated on some of that evidence in post #458. Notice that I didn't say anything about testing bias.

    So the way I see it you have a lot of work to do if you want to make a case for the hereditarian position. Why not address my lines of evidence in your own words?
     
  24. ElDiablo

    ElDiablo Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How do you account for their 'predicitive' capability which has been proven? This aspect of predictability is the main reason they are given....aka being able to predict accurately the academic capability of a student.

    The term IQ, or Intelligence Quotient, is a yardstick to assess the subject's cognitive ability as compared to the general population. Cognitive ability corresponds to your general ability to solve problems and understand concepts. This includes reasoning ability, problem-solving ability and ability to perceive relationships between things and ability to store and retrieve information.

    Experts opine that for the most part people, who excel in one category, similarly do well in the other categories, and if someone does poorly in any one category, he also does poorly in the others. Based on this, these experts theorize there is one general element of intellectual ability that determines other specific cognitive abilities.

    Since IQ tests measure your prehensile and comprehensive abilities and not the quantity of your knowledge, gobbling new information does not automatically increase your IQ. Learning may exercise your mind, however, which could aid honing your cognitive skills.

    http://www.iqtestexperts.com/prediction-power-iq.php

    However the movement to discredit i.q. tests being done mainly for political reasons continues despite all the evidence regarding the value of i.q. tests....in Calif. it is illegal to give a child a i.q. test.....based on political correctness and the fallacious assumption that all students should be considered the same aka....equal in all respects...derived from cultlural marxism.
     
  25. ElDiablo

    ElDiablo Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Suzuki Admits Reality of Racial Heredity

    The other day I posted a video of Rushton engaging in a so called 'debate' with David Suzuki who instead of actually debating Rushton engaged in a fallacious philosophical appeal to the emotions and many at the time were duped by it...because it simply fit the infamous liberal narrative.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSgG6QxbtHY
     

Share This Page