st434u

Qatar has a low average IQ (78 is one score I've seen), and I don't know about the other 2 criteria but I suppose you would say they have shame. They have the highest per-capita income in the world. They also happen to have one of the few remaining monarchies in the world. When laws are bad, corruption is good. Corruption in it's essence is the lack of enforcement for certain laws at certain times and for certain people. When you have millions of different laws, most of which shouldn't exist, this is a benefit. Of course it would be much better if you didn't have as many laws, or if all laws that existed were good, and then corruption would be bad. Or to put it another way, corrupt enforcement of a bad law (such as the laws against certain types of trade) is good, while corrupt enforcement of a good law (such as the laws against murder) is bad. There is an argument to be made that corruption allows for bad laws to continue to exist because it prevents people from revolting, while still maintaining the ability of the government to arbitrarily and selectively enforce those laws against those they don't like. That's a fair argument, but I think overall, there are much more benefits to be gained from corruption than detriments, for the average person in an average democratic country nowadays. I agree. And in this context, let us also remember that it was european western societies that brought the world the plagues of democracy and socialism (which as I see them are two sides of the same coin), and this is the only time in all of history that humanity's very existence has been threatened. I'm all for identifying the effects of IQ in improvements in the standard of living, and for recognizing the achievements of the caucasian race and all the good it has brought to the world, and but let's also acknowledge the woes it brought to the world. High intelligence can give you power, but there is no saying whether you will use that power for good or for evil. Some of the worst people in the world are highly intelligent. Like any other physical trait such as beauty or strenght, we shouldn't worship intelligence. It's a good trait to have and aim for, but it doesn't in and of itself represent nor create everything good.

Well, democracy is the worst possible form of government, as it creates an increasing progression towards the total State, and therefore total chaos. Look up Democracy: The God That Failed in your favorite book store. Or you could just take Karl Marx's word for it. He said that true socialism will not be achieved through violent revolution, but through democracy. And he was right. So if anything you could say that a high IQ society is necessary to make democracy somewhat sustainable, enough that it won't completely collapse in three or four generations. But it will eventually fall apart nevertheless.

It's funny that they chose the drug industry as an example of the market in function, when in reality the drugs and health care industry is one of the areas that is the most controlled and influenced by the State. I personally believe that the drug companies are being efficient when they devote most of their expenses to advertising rather than R&D... Because at the end of the day they're just pushing drugs. And the people who buy the drugs buy them because they've been told to, not because the drugs are actually going to improve their health. So the drug companies are actually responding to market incentives, and being efficient by investing primarily in their main business model which is to push drugs, and the R&D is more of a secondary concern, the primary focus of which is to come up with new drugs that they can push on people who've already tried the existing drugs and didn't like them.

There's been lots of situations where food hasn't been scarce for hundreds of years, and certainly in the last 100 years, and yet obesity is increasing. So your idea that they will be bred out of the gene pool seems misguided, at least with the evidence so far. Also, correlation doesn't equal causation. Lots of highly intelligent people have been obese throughout history. Also, your idea that it's caused by psychology is a belief that hasn't been substantiated to any degree. Also, your idea that obesity clearly isn't a beneficial trait in terms of spreading your genes is questionable. There have been plenty of periods and places, even today, where the opposite is clearly the case.

Regression to the mean is a phenomenon that happens because every time you have a new lifeform coming into being, you have two sets of genes that recombine. Because those genes have recombined a new time for each generation, they are used to working together in certain ways, to produce certain lifeforms as a result of their combinations. People are used to thinking of features, such as tall, as being caused by a "tall gene", but in reality it's generally a combination of genes that produced a tall person, and another combination of genes won't, even if most of those genes are present. You can see this very clearly in race horse breeding. Let's simplify it down to speed. These horses are generally bred from both a male and a female winning race horses, which are very fast, to increase the likelihood that some of the offspring will be winners (fast horses). But on average, most of the offspring will be slower than both the father and the mother, because of regression to the mean. However, some of the offspring will be just as fast, and even fewer still might be even faster than their parents. Both the mother and the father, because they are so fast, represent a significant deviation from the mean, which is to say that if you took all of their recent ancestors, and you averaged their speed, both the mother and the father would be much faster than the average. Regression to the mean means that there will be a tendency for their offspring to revert to a level that is closer to the mean, although never reaching it on average. That is, assuming you could breed thousands of horses from the same pair of a top level winning male and female race horses, and you took an average of their speed, what you would see is that even though the average offspring is slower than both their parents, the average offspring is also faster than the average for race horses, and faster than the average for both the father and the mother's recent ancestors, whichever way you want to look at it. So it's not either regression to the mean or evolution; in fact it could be argued that regression to the mean helps evolution work better in the long term because it smoothes out drastic changes so that it's harder to get massive changes that pile on top of each other over few generations, which could render the lifeform unfit.

Tell me more about your business project. You can send me a PM if you want. I have a lot of experience in sales.

I wasn't just talking about laws that penalize non-crimes, although that is an important factor as well. What I meant was that even when the police detain someone for actual crimes such as murder or theft, the "lawful detention" is in most cases still entirely immoral. They have no right to detain you on the mere suspicion that you could be guilty. Of course when the supposed crime you are accused of is a victimless crime or other such non-crimes, it's even worse. I was drawing a comparison between everyday "lawful detention" and what this woman did which was called "unlawful detention", which I think is a ludicrous categorization of what is seen in the video. And then it was you, Jer, who implied that the two are the same. In one instance you are put in chains and thrown in a cage for an indefinite period, and if you resist, you will be killed. In the other, the guy was forced to move his arm and state his preferences loudly and clearly. You have something very wrong in your understanding of human interaction if you think the two are even remotely comparable.

Let us not forget that almost every time the police "lawfully detains" someone, it's a complete violation of that person's rights, as they have not been proven guilty of a crime, and often all the police has is a suspicion along with some mildly incriminating evidence. I don't see you guys making an outcry out of that. And for argument's sake, compare what the police do on a daily basis, to what this woman did, and the damage that each represents. All this "victim" had to do was vigorously shake his hand off and make it clear that he wanted no part in the woman's advances, and that was the end of the interaction.

She never even grabbed his shirt, nor did she offer any significant resistance to him actually getting through. She put her arm around him and then he stopped and continued to engage with her. When she grabbed his hand and told him to come back, he did for a moment, then vigorously shook his hand free and left, and that's when she disengaged. I don't know if what happened should or shouldn't be legal, because it's hard to tell from the video, but what I can tell is that no serious damage was caused in any way, and she was being playful, maybe she overstep her boundaries and committed a minor offense, maybe she didn't, I don't know. But to call this assault is not very different from when radical feminists cry rape because they regret having had sex with someone.

Also in the USA people are convicted of rape because their sex partner had a drink and they didn't. Just because the justice system calls it assault doesn't mean it is. And I didn't say I approve nor disapprove of her behavior, I was simply stating that it is in no way comparable to actual assault.

The test seems somewhat useful to me. As you can see the orders are reversed automatically and some people randomly get different orders. The more relevant question is, if a lot of people have a strong preference one way or the other, why would that be a problem? Not saying that tests like these are useless, but the way they're often applied seems to be.

She was flirting with him. Cmon, this is not assault, not even close. He took it the wrong way and when she realized that he wasn't into her she backed out. That's why she got upset that it was being filmed, not because she was assaulting him.

Well it wasn't our "species" by definition, but anyway, by the same token our ancestors have spent more time living underwater than on land. But you wouldn't say it's a good idea for our long-term health to try to breathe exclusively underwater. Of course there is. Which is why he likely won't get any more responses from me.

What does that even mean? Of course it's an appeal to emotion because it's emotions we're talking about, and we use reason to navigate our responses. Saying "they're just kids so it's not a sexual attack" is completely morally bankrupt. If anything a 12 year old girl should feel more secure that her body won't be sexually attack than an adult woman, but you're flipping it around and saying, hey, if it's a 12 year old boy that does it, it doesn't count. No, it absolutely counts and the damage is the same or possibly even more as if an adult man was doing it. In a situation like that it's perfectly reasonable to want vengeance, but not just that, the girl needs to make sure that her attacker is incapacitated. A slap in the arm is a joke, almost inciting him and other boys to continue to attack her. You need to seriously reconsider your perspectives. What if this was your daughter? Or maybe you did things like this when you were a boy and are trying to excuse your crimes by saying that it was all in good fun, or you were just trying to learn how to behave. No. A 12 year old boy is perfectly capable of understanding what he is allowed to do and what things constitute crimes against others.

I can suggest an alternative, holistic-type approach, but you said you're looking for medical expertise, so I suppose you're not interested.

I didn't say humans are carnivores. Also most carnivores require particular teeth for killing as well as for butchering their prey, whereas humans use tools so that in effect all we need to do is crush the meat down with our molars and mix it with saliva to begin the digestive process. Different meat eating animals evolved differently. It's true that in our recent evolutionary history, say 10 million years ago, our ancestors were only occasional meat eaters, but over the past 2.5 million years that changed. This is all according to the mainstream view of human and proto-human evolution, which could certainly be wrong, but let's assume that it is correct.

The argument is that humans and proto humans evolved for millions of years eating lots of meat, so chances are our bodies are more adapted to function better eating meat than not eating meat. A vegetarian or vegan diet simply was not available year-round in evolutionary times other than perhaps in the tropics, and even there it's a stretch. Other great apes such as chimps have bodies that are better adapted for moving around tree branches, where the fruits are. Our bodies are better adapted for moving on flat land, where hervibores you can hunt are. And even chimps supplement their diet with meat. Your claim that it's not up for debate does not make it so. And again, you're not addressing the argument. You say I'm nihilistic which I'm not, but you are extremely authoritarian when you claim your view is the holy word of god in terms of nutrition and that everybody must feed their children exactly what you think their children need to eat, else their children be taken from them "for their own good". I wonder when they're gonna make a dystopian movie or book featuring your views for a totalitarian big brother food police state. If someone wants to eat those or feed them to their kids that is their choice, just like it's your choice to eat or feed your kids a broccoli and kale smoothie every morning. And btw, just about every country now follows the WHO guidelines on health care and nutrition, and as I said in the other post, health is worse than ever. It's interesting how people can distrust government in all levels except in the one where the government's view happens to agree with their own biases; even when there is ample evidence that these views could be mistaken. Sure it is. If it's constantly changing it's mind even as we speak, and there are plenty of experts who disagree, then clearly the science is not settled. Not that the science would be settled if this wasn't the case, but this just makes it easier to realize that it's not. But that's not what I said. I could tell you my opinions, but that's not what this thread is about, like you said. All I said was that I don't force my views on others the way you are trying to do.

The aggressor doesn't get the benefit of claiming that the violent response perceived to be needed to stop him needs to be "proportionate". No. You initiate violence, you live with the consequences. No, she was very specific about what acts of aggression were needed to justify the response she was talking about. She wasn't vague at all.

Where's the misandy? The woman writing the article is completely right. In fact, I don't think that's enough. The boy (or his parents, and/or the school) should also be made to restitute the girl for sexual assault. She didn't say the same doesn't also apply if the victim is a boy and the aggressor is a girl.

The bottom line is, nobody knows for a fact what type of nutrition is the one that will maximize health. Nobody even knows if the same type of nutrition will be ideal for different individuals. If you think you do - that's fine. If you want to encourage others to try your nutritional approach, that's fine. But to go over and above that and to claim that anybody who doesn't eat exactly what you think they should, and in the amounts and frequencies you think they should, is intentionally damaging their health, and their children's, and is therefore immoral... That's just crazy. Which is why some of you are rightfully being called militant here. Because your tactics are the same as the socialists who think building a business and making a profit is immoral and do whatever is in their power to ensure that you are robbed on a daily basis, while claiming to be on the moral high ground themselves. Even if you knew for a fact what exact type of nutrition would be ideal for a particular person, or for everybody, where does individual choice enter into all this? Should children who want to eat something that is proven to be bad for their health be prevented from doing so? Maybe. Maybe not. I think it varies by age and the ability to comprehend concepts, my cut off point being somewhere around 2 years old, others are free to choose other arbitrary points at which children gain moral agency and can make their own choices, and that's fine too. Do parents have an obligation to feed their children a diet of the child's choosing? I don't believe so. Do they have an obligation to feed the children a diet that is believed to be ideal for health? I don't believe so. I have my own views about what I think is ideal nutrition and lifestyle, and they have changed several times through the years. At none of those points have I ever tried to force my views on anybody else. I tell them what I think, and that's it. Who knows if I'm right. I think I am, but others can disagree. Lots of experts disagree, not only in the present but throughout history, about what ideal nutrition and lifestyle comprises, and it could very well be that every single one of them has always been wrong. Unfortunately, very few people even attempt to be scientific about this, and those that do, usually employ faulty science that's full of assumptions and fails to tease out causation from correlation. There is now more information about nutrition than ever before, and at the same time degenerative diseases (which are believed to be caused largely by poor nutrition) are at an all-time high, not just going by percentage of the population but also by age groups.

I think Hitler was also initially hated by the other political parties. As far as I understand it the Nazi party was irrelevant and nobody thought they could win, but the economy was in such chaos that the outsiders who promised hope gained in popularity. Both Hitler and Trump had/have a very strong populist message, and economically they both support/ed moderate socialism and intense protectionism. Some of Trump's comments on war seem to suggest that he also may have an expansionist view, when he says they should take the oil, and get the spoils of war when they go to war and win, but it's too early to know for sure what his policy actually will be, since elected politicians rarely do exactly what they said they would during campaigns. Hitler obviously had a very expansionist military policy, and he didn't just go to war for war's sake, but had clear objectives, whether or not they were achievable is another matter. But I'm not sure if that was clear from the beginning or if it only happened as a result of what the rest of the countries were doing at the time in response to nazism.

Yes, there are scores of SSA children who moved elsewhere and scores of SSA children raised by parents of other races and of other socioeconomic statuses. Also, you're forgetting that part of what makes the environment and quality of parents is also captured by IQ scores. That is, a society made up of people with lower IQ will on average and all other things being equal, have more war, famine, etc, and parents with lower IQ will on average be worse parents by our standards. Yes, some people are better at taking IQ tests than others. IQ only measures a subset of what intelligence is, not everything. Studies on education have found that you can increase the IQ of young children, but by the time they reach a certain age (around 9 iirc), almost all of the increases vanish. On the other hand, you can train especifically on performing better at IQ tests, by taking lots of IQ tests over and over again, and in that way you'll improve your IQ with most known tests. However, if someone comes up with an entirely new test, your score will only be affected slightly. What is a "latino"? I think you mean mestizos. That is, people who are a roughly 50% and 50% mix of south or central american indian and european.

It's netspeak for replying to the original topic without reading any of the comments below. I included it because I didn't know if someone else had made the same comment already. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=grunching

If you thought the homeschooling families were shallow, you're lucky you didn't go to high school.

But they don't own "everything their labor interacts with". You said you have a problem with self-ownership, so you should start there. If I don't own my own body, then who does? Likewise, if the first person to put an unowned resource to use doesn't it own it, then who does? The second person to do it? The third?