Jewish Genius, by Charles Murray, Commentary, April 2, 2007

[ll74]

You do not prove that by asserting it. The graph demonstrates that Professor Jensen, who was persecuted for telling the truth, told the truth: with too few exceptions to merit consideration, the illegitimate children of welfare mothers and petty criminals cannot be educated, and are unemployable.

I already explained why it's shit. One axis, two separate and different types of data. You may see a spike in numbers, but only because you've obfuscated the information.

 

[JohnEngelman]

I already explained why it's shit. One axis, two separate and different types of data. You may see a spike in numbers, but only because you've obfuscated the information.

What the graph says is that while spending on education has risen, test scores have not. What it means is that you can't teach stupid people.

 

[ll74]

What the graph says is that while spending on education has risen, test scores have not. What it means is that you can't teach stupid people.

There is no reason financial information belongs there. Except to obfuscate the message. It's a shit graph
Test scores and financial data aren't the same type of data and therefore don't belong on the same axis

 

[JohnEngelman]

There is no reason financial information belongs there. Except to obfuscate the message. It's a shit graph
Test scores and financial data aren't the same type of data and therefore don't belong on the same axis

The tax payers have the right to know when their tax money does not have the desired effect.

 

[ll74]

The tax payers have the right to know when their tax money does not have the desired effect.

You continue to not understand the problem with the graph. There are two axis, typically the y axis is for amount of items and typically the x axis is for timeframe.

The data is the same type of data because comparing two different types distorts the information presented. That is why this graph is shit.

This is true no matter why you think it isn't. Because you're a moron who's never made a graph before (and if you did, you likely got a shit grade for it)

 

[JohnEngelman]

The graph shows clearly that from 1970 to 2010 every decade more tax money was spent, but test scores remained reasonably constant. If you do not understand that you are the one who does not understand graphs, Your resort to name calling and obscene language illustrated what I have been saying about you for a long time.

Here is a news story that documents what the graph shows:

------------

The Daily Signal

School Spending Up, Test Scores Down​

Terence Jeffrey / @TerryJeffrey / October 22, 2021

In fiscal year 2012, according to the Census Bureau, the United States spent $10,608 per pupil in its public elementary and secondary schools. In fiscal year 2020, in the 35 states and the District of Columbia that have so far reported their totals to the Census, the per pupil spending was $14,455...

In fiscal year 2019, the latest year for which the full national numbers are available, the United States spent $13,187 per pupil in its public schools...

Even when you adjust the $10,608 spent per pupil in 2012 from June 2012 dollars to June 2019 dollars, it still equals only approximately $11,841 per pupil. That means real per pupil spending in American public schools in 2019 was $1,346 more than it was in 2012...

But back in 2012, 13-year-old students in public schools scored an average of 261 out of 500 in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress long-term trend test. In 2020, according to the results published last week by the National Center for Education Statistics, they scored an average of 260, a decline of one point.

In 2012, 13-year-old students in public schools scored an average of 284 on the National Assessment of Educational Progress long-term trend mathematics test. In 2020, they scored an average of 279, a decline of five points.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/10/22/school-spending-up-test-scores-down/

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The graph shows clearly that from 1970 to 2010 every decade more tax money was spent, but test scores remained reasonably constant. If you do not understand that you are the one who does not understand graphs, Your resort to name calling and obscene language illustrated what I have been saying about you for a long time.

Here is a news story that documents what the graph shows:

------------

The Daily Signal

School Spending Up, Test Scores Down​

Terence Jeffrey / @TerryJeffrey / October 22, 2021

In fiscal year 2012, according to the Census Bureau, the United States spent $10,608 per pupil in its public elementary and secondary schools. In fiscal year 2020, in the 35 states and the District of Columbia that have so far reported their totals to the Census, the per pupil spending was $14,455...

In fiscal year 2019, the latest year for which the full national numbers are available, the United States spent $13,187 per pupil in its public schools...

Even when you adjust the $10,608 spent per pupil in 2012 from June 2012 dollars to June 2019 dollars, it still equals only approximately $11,841 per pupil. That means real per pupil spending in American public schools in 2019 was $1,346 more than it was in 2012...

But back in 2012, 13-year-old students in public schools scored an average of 261 out of 500 in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress long-term trend test. In 2020, according to the results published last week by the National Center for Education Statistics, they scored an average of 260, a decline of one point.

In 2012, 13-year-old students in public schools scored an average of 284 on the National Assessment of Educational Progress long-term trend mathematics test. In 2020, they scored an average of 279, a decline of five points.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/10/22/school-spending-up-test-scores-down/

All this shows, is that money can't buy educational improvements. Improvements are made by better curriculum.

 

[YDB95]

So what? What you call racism I call telling the truth about Negro race, keeping in mind that there are exceptions to the rule.

You're moving the goalposts. Again.
Lest we forget, this exchange started with you claiming when I called you a racist, that meant I couldn't refute your argument with facts. So the fact that we disagree about what is and isn't racist is completely irrelevant. The point is, my calling you a racist doesn't mean I can't defeat your (tired, and flawed to begin with) arguments; it just means I consider you a racist. And several of us - including myself - have refuted your arguments repeatedly. You just always say otherwise because, clearly, that's all you've got.

That is just my point. Oppression genetically selected the Ashkenazim for superior intelligence. What goes out the window is the argument that oppression is the reason blacks tend to be less intelligent than white Gentiles, and much less intelligent than Ashkenazi Jews.

It's an apples-to-oranges comparison at best. Jews were oppressed in a way that had the happy accident of pushing them into prestigious, well-paying professions. Blacks were oppressed in a way that gave them reason to feel less than fully human for generations, with predictably depressing results.

As far as blacks are concerned, they were not enslaved by whites of European birth or ancestry. They were enslaved by other blacks in Africa and sold to white slave traders. Slavery was rife in sub Saharan Africa. Black slaves in Africa were often the victims of cannibalism and human sacrifice.

The Arabs had a lot to do with it, too. But if your point is that some Blacks were the oppressors in their own way, no one here ever denied that.

You claim to have three college degrees. I assume therefore that you are aware of the French Enclopedia that was written and published in France before the French Revolution. It was contributed to by Diderot, d'Alembert, and Voltaire, among others. Again, as one with three college degrees I complement you by assuming that you know who those three men were.

The following excerpts are taken from the Enclopedia's essay entitled "Negroes." It was written by Le Romain, who in his essay calls Negro slavery a "loathsome commerce, which is contrary to natural law." He also writes:

"There are Negroes who ambush each other while the European vessels are lying at anchor, and they bring those whom they have captured to the vessels to sell them and have them loaded on board against their wills. Then one sees sons selling their fathers, fathers their children. Still more frequently one sees Negroes who are not linked by family ties put a price of a few bottles of brandy, or bars of iron on each other's freedom."

These quotes come from the anthology of the French Encyclopedia published by the Library of Liberal Arts, which again I assume you are familiar with.

So, the Negro slaves were not enslaved by whites; they were enslaved by other blacks.

Yes, I am familiar with them, and I am familiar with the fact that some Africans were complicit in the slave trade. That's neither here nor there with respect to your beliefs that one race is fundamentally dumber than another.

I have read that black slaves in the thirteen colonies, and later in the United States tended to grow taller and live longer than black slaves and free blacks in Africa. That indicates better health.

You forgot to control for the fact that they were all descended from the 10% or so of captives who survived the slave ship voyages. So genetically, they were probably the hardiest among the Africans you're comparing them to.

So, I do not think whites are pushing blacks down. I think we are holding them up.

I know you do.

 

[JohnEngelman]

You're moving the goalposts. Again.
Lest we forget, this exchange started with you claiming when I called you a racist, that meant I couldn't refute your argument with facts. So the fact that we disagree about what is and isn't racist is completely irrelevant. The point is, my calling you a racist doesn't mean I can't defeat your (tired, and flawed to begin with) arguments; it just means I consider you a racist. And several of us - including myself - have refuted your arguments repeatedly. You just always say otherwise because, clearly, that's all you've got.

You have never refuted my fact based arguments. All you have are insults, name calling, and obscene words.

My arguments once again: by every objective, measurable criterion blacks tend to be less intelligent than whites; they have higher rates of illegitimacy; they have much higher crime rates.

I have explained these durable racial differences in terms of different population pressures lasting for thousands of years. Moreover, I have pointed out that black social pathology got worse after 1963, when the civil rights legislation was passed into law and the War on Poverty was declared.

 

[JohnEngelman]

It's an apples-to-oranges comparison at best. Jews were oppressed in a way that had the happy accident of pushing them into prestigious, well-paying professions. Blacks were oppressed in a way that gave them reason to feel less than fully human for generations, with predictably depressing results.

National Library of Medicine

Adolescent Self-Esteem: Differences by Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Age​

Large-scale representative surveys of 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students in the United States show high self-esteem scores for all groups. African-American students score highest, Whites score slightly higher than Hispanics, and Asian Americans score lowest. Males score slightly higher than females. Multivariate controls for grades and college plans actually heighten these race/ethnic/gender differences. A truncated scoring method, designed to counter race/ethnic differences in extreme response style, reduced but did not eliminate the subgroup differences. Age differences in self-esteem are modest, with 12th graders reporting the highest scores. The findings are highly consistent across 18 annual surveys from 1991 through 2008, and self-esteem scores show little overall change during that period.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3263756/

 

[YDB95]

You have never refuted my fact based arguments. All you have are insults, name calling, and obscene words.

So you keep saying, while carefully ignoring every factual refutation I and anyone else offers up.

My arguments once again: by every objective, measurable criterion blacks tend to be less intelligent than whites; they have higher rates of illegitimacy; they have much higher crime rates.

I have explained these durable racial differences in terms of different population pressures lasting for thousands of years. Moreover, I have pointed out that black social pathology got worse after 1963, when the civil rights legislation was passed into law and the War on Poverty was declared.

Yes, and I have refuted that claim: violent crime rates have actually been dropping for decades now, among Blacks and other ethnicities alike. What you have done again and again is present cherrypicked facts - and some myths that you believe are facts - that fit with certain racist assumptions that are widespread in our society and thus easy to believe, nothing more.

 

[ll74]

So you keep saying, while carefully ignoring every factual refutation I and anyone else offers up.

Yes, and I have refuted that claim: violent crime rates have actually been dropping for decades now, among Blacks and other ethnicities alike. What you have done again and again is present cherrypicked facts - and some myths that you believe are facts - that fit with certain racist assumptions that are widespread in our society and thus easy to believe, nothing more.

The only refutation is that his measure of what is superior or inferior is bullshit. He is a racist. Blacks are not inferior to whites...full stop. Blacks and whites are not interior to Asians...full stop.

He measures the worth of a person based on race..which is a shit perspective by a shit person

 

[JohnEngelman]

The only refutation is that his measure of what is superior or inferior is bullshit. He is a racist. Blacks are not inferior to whites...full stop. Blacks and whites are not interior to Asians...full stop.

He measures the worth of a person based on race..which is a shit perspective by a shit person

You do not prove that by asserting it.

I value the worth of a person by the person's intelligence and character. I value the worth of a race by the average intelligence and character of those who make up the race. The characteristics I value are characteristics that are found in each of the races, although not in equal proportions.

 

[ll74]

You do not prove that by asserting it.

I value the worth of a person by the person's intelligence and character. I value the worth of a race by the average intelligence and character of those who make up the race. The characteristics I value are characteristics that are found in each of the races, although not in equal proportions.

You demonstrate it every day with every post

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You do not prove that by asserting it.

Fuck of the only thing written about you I care to read is your obituary....nah I don't even want to read that....just knowing is great news for the world....

 

[JohnEngelman]

1174 and Fuzzy1975, you know that what I say is true. You hate the truth, so you hate me for telling you the truth.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Fuck of the only thing written about you I care to read is your obituary....nah I don't even want to read that....just knowing is great news for the world....

Quite whining with emoticons you racist piece of shit....you get what you deserve!!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

1174 and Fuzzy1975, you know that what I say is true. You hate the truth, so you hate me for telling you the truth.

No I don't "hate you" I fucking DESPISE you....you a person who judges others, solely on their genetic make up.......fuck off and die....

 

[JohnEngelman]

No I don't "hate you" I fucking DESPISE you....you a person who judges others, solely on their genetic make up.......fuck off and die....

I judge others by their intelligence, their character, and their civility. You fall short in each regard. So does 1174.

 

[ll74]

1174 and Fuzzy1975, you know that what I say is true. You hate the truth, so you hate me for telling you the truth.

I hate racist assholes...yes. Your pictures don't represent any truth.

 

[JohnEngelman]

I hate racist assholes...yes. Your pictures don't represent any truth.

You hate those who express truths you privately recognize to be true, but wish desperately were not true.

 

[ll74]

You hate those who express truths you privately recognize to be true, but wish desperately were not true.

You continually demonstrate your racism. I publicly and privately hate racism. That means you, Sparky. You keep trying to prove that blacks are inferior.....so that you can feel good about your racism. Ill continue to call you out and mock you for it.

 

[JohnEngelman]

You continually demonstrate your racism. I publicly and privately hate racism. That means you, Sparky. You keep trying to prove that blacks are inferior.....so that you can feel good about your racism. Ill continue to call you out and mock you for it.

I have never said "blacks are inferior." That begs the question of what I would mean by "inferior." Blacks excel in certain sports. There may be a few Negroes with less basketball talent than I have. They were never in my gym classes in high school.

I do believe that Negroes tend to be less intelligent than whites and Orientals, and that they have higher rates of crime and illegitimacy. To substantiate those assertions I have posted the most recent data I could find. I will change my mind, ll74, when yu post more recent data from credible sources that I am mistaken about any of these three assertions.

Until you do, ll74, you mock yourself by doubting what is commonly known to be true.

 

[JohnEngelman]

I will add, ll74, that it is characteristic of you to deflect my praise of God's Chosen People into your condemnation of me for stating what you privately know to be true.

 

[ll74]

I will add, ll74, that it is characteristic of you to deflect my praise of God's Chosen People into your condemnation of me for stating what you privately know to be true.

Which god?