Haven't we talked a lot about black people having lower IQ and thus lower intelligence? The evidence shows this beyond a reasonable doubt. If you don't accept this you're just being willfully ignorant of reality.

Aren't all Libertarian asking for it the ability to opt-out of taxes and pay for the individual services and utilities they use? Just leaving and going to another country with the exact same system isn't a solution. It's immoral because obviously not everyone is going to agree with their money being spent and taken with this way. If the people in society actually were all OK with it, you wouldn't need to enforce it with coercion would you.

By worthy, I mean people who have earned money through their own ability and therefore are worthy of it as opposed to people who've just taken it from someone else. It's like taking apples from a healthy apple tree and giving it to one that is withered and failing and then expecting them to be equal.

Just talking about Scandinavian countries is hardly a valid argument, considering they don't have a large black population like America. Arguing for the existence of a social safety net within a white homogenous country is one thing, which can be done voluntarily by the way. But as we will see in the coming years, these countries and their system won't cope well with a large influx of non-white non-Western immigrants. And the "safety net" will turn into something more like affirmative action.
If you want to talk about Scandinavian countries I can do that, I think they're more of a proof of the Right wing position than anything. Socialists like to make out they are proof of the superiority of democratic socialism over capitalism, but they don't realise that it's a lot more nuanced than that (talk about drawing large conclusions from a few bits of evidence). America is a good example of big-government crony-capitalism more than anything.

Considering that Capitalism has been responsible for some of the greatest successes in human history, and socialism some of the worst low points, I wonder why you throw out the idea of laissez-faire Capitalism and a classical liberal society in favour of a socialist one. And by the way, there is very little difference between Socialism and Communism, the Soviet Union called itself Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

안녕하세요 나는 카이.

B1rd wrote:

Haven't we talked a lot about black people having lower IQ and thus lower intelligence? The evidence shows this beyond a reasonable doubt. If you don't accept this you're just being willfully ignorant of reality.

Bird mate, what is your definition of IQ? You seem to be the ignorant one here if you use that term when the term itself is of quite a debatable status when it comes to its definition.

I'd also like to see actual evidence of what you claimed about them there (that is: evidence which is not from some random extremist or heavy right-wing source) since I could actually both agree with you or completely disagree with you based on the evidence that you provide and your answer on the question above.
I have my own opinion on that and it either aligns with yours or is completely different, based on what you say.

There is only one definition of IQ

I'm not gonna bother to dig out any evidence, I'm just gonna state the results, and that is that blacks have lower IQ than whites, even when factoring in sociolo-economic level. All the races vary in IQ to some degree.

Now, it's completely alright if you don't provide any links if you can't be bothered, since I mostly wanted to hear the IQ part, but for us to even begin discussing it we would need to be on the same page about generalization, which we're not. I can't for the life of me accept "racial variations in IQ" as IQ itself varies not based on race, but on culture, surroundings and genes.
Saying that I, as a white person, am in the same IQ bag as some inbred hillbilly from rural Georgia solely based on the mutual colour of our skin is both statistically distasteful and insulting to me as a human being.

Of course all those things that you mention influence IQ, but if all those factors are the same and race is the only variable, then there will be somewhat significant differences.

Well that's the thing. For all those factors to be the same, we would need to look at a much narrower picture. For example, you COULD compare blacks vs whites in, say, France, as they for the most part have an identical culture and surroundings. However, if we broaden it onto Europe and Africa we lose the core of what defines IQ - a black guy from Paris can't be mixed together with a black guy from Kongo.

To compare races on a planetary level, we'd need identical circumstances everywhere, which we can't get. Usually you could argue that statistics are valid and do not require every variable to be identical for the bigger picture to be formed, but in this case we're discussing something that completely DEPENDS on those same variables to be identical in order for it to work.

Of course you can never get 100% the same set of circumstances, that's impossible, but you can get them close enough to sensibly draw conclusions.

I'm looking around and so far my suspicions are confirmed - there is no black-white test that spans the entire Globe. The only RELIABLE tests ever done were in United States and there it's obvious why blacks scored so low compared to whites - surroundings and culture. That is far from being a fair study, since the circumstances black and white children grow up in are vastly different.

I'd very much like to see a study done on all countries in the world, which we both know is something impossible, as you cannot reliably test children brought up in severe poverty or wartime (and MANY of the countries populated mainly by blacks are currently either poverty-stricken or unstable and behind the times) - something that falls under the surroundings variable.

lets colonize an island and reject every niggers

Iceland

I kinda hate drinking water after eating a banana

feels good that I got these right

i like that test.
it's testing reading comprehension on a very high level, something most students nowaday severely lack, as proven by the results: 90 percent got the second question wrong - even though it had a very clear answer.

But pretty rough when you're just learning English and you only have 1-2 minutes to complete each question.

they are trying to select capable people, raising the bar very high is just the right thing to do if you're gonna go for that.


Looking at the youtube comments..

''An English editor would have a great time with these passages. The language is obviously designed for failed comprehension and is completely pointless as no one speaks, writes, or communicates that way. What's the point of this? Poor kids.'' (878 upvotes)

i'm commenting on this because i feel many people who come across the video might share this sentiment:

Few write like this in ''normal'' literature, but try reading philosophic essays or anything post-graduate and you'll have to face this level of convolution on a regular basis.
its not designed for miscomprehension, its just hard to comprehend.



what do you think about the test, B1rd?

Wait, what was so hard about the second question? The first one was at least 5 times harder for me...
I'm guessing that last sentence in the second one screwed people over just for shits and giggles.

its amazing that 90 percent got the last question wrong.. thats worse than if everyone had picked at random!

And yet the people from buzzfeed could answer it, and B1rd and us two would probably have picked the correct answer too.
This is brilliant design: Everyone who tried to answer it without being entirely sure must have gotten the question wrong.

Well as far as I understood, those questions were in English and were given to normal Korean students, correct? Even if English is their second language, most of them won't have better than average knowledge of the language, and even those who do, probably still struggle since these questions test the span of your vocabulary and core understanding of the language.
It's insane for a random fucking test. It's just as one of the guys said - made to make you fail.

its not just a random test though, its an SAT-equivalent, a filter to select the people that can go to the best universities of the country.

i don't think it was ever meant to be possible for the majority to get high scores on it.
And thats how it should be, as it increases the tests efficiency as a filter.

B1rd wrote:

feels good that I got these right

These weren't too difficult, right? Also, buzzfeed, I'm not sure about the accuracy of it all. I highly doubt 90% would have that second one wrong.

Aurani wrote:

Well as far as I understood, those questions were in English and were given to normal Korean students, correct? Even if English is their second language, most of them won't have better than average knowledge of the language, and even those who do, probably still struggle since these questions test the span of your vocabulary and core understanding of the language.
It's insane for a random fucking test. It's just as one of the guys said - made to make you fail.

I actually thought they were pretty good questions. You have to dissect through the vocabulary, in essence. The questions themselves, after doing that, are surprisingly easy. It's really about how well you can understand what is written down.

keep in mind that its a test for highschoolers, the overwhelming majority not being english natives.

90 percent is insane, but not unbelievable. Many students probably followed the logic of the woman in the video:
''oh there's numbers, but that breaks the patter of the text! Can't be that one!'' *picks any of the other 4 options*


And i agree with you, i think its an excellent test (considering what it is for).

Railey2 wrote:

its not just a random test though, its an SAT-equivalent, a filter to select the people that can go to the best universities of the country.

i don't think it was ever meant to be possible for the majority to get high scores on it.
And thats how it should be, as it increases the tests efficiency as a filter.

Oh, I missed the SAT part..... well that makes much more sense now. I take back what I said - those questions are fairly well structured and thought out if they're meant to test people who are supposed to attend the best unis in the country.

GladiOol wrote:

I actually thought they were pretty good questions. You have to dissect through the vocabulary, in essence. The questions themselves, after doing that, are surprisingly easy. It's really about how well you can understand what is written down.

I do agree with you now.

to be more precise, they are supposed to pick people who are fit for uni in general, lower ranked universities included.

But a really high score will obviously send you to a top-university, so they kinda do both..


i do agree with what you said before: if this was just a random test, it would completely fail its purpose.

Interestingly enough, the tests here are in my opinion all incredibly easy even if you did not study at all for them, as it only really requires you to have paid SOME kind of attention in high school.
There is nothing remotely similar to these questions here....... and by that I mean not even in the same universe. If those questions were compared to the ones we have here, these ones would be elementary school admission questions. :V

i don't like easy tests.

Most of the time the most important thing is your result, relative to others.
When you have an easy test, less capable people can still get very close to your performance, or even out-perform you when the right questions are asked.

When the test is hard, you are guaranteed to score way higher if you play out your strengths.
Hard tests are better even if you score lower in them, because your relative performance will always be way better if you even try only a little bit.

Tests that put you under heavy time pressure are my favourite, because i can easily outperform people that know more about the subject than me, simply because i am processing the questions faster :v

That's the thing, you just said that you don't like it when someone can outperform you based on a very specific circumstance, yet you like it when you can outperform others based on the sole factor of your ability to process things faster than average. :p

I personally hate time pressure, simply because I already know I'm going to nail the test, so the time factor only adds unnecessary micromanagement for me. I COULD answer the question in 10 seconds, but why do that when I can lean back and answer it within 30 and enjoy the atmosphere.
I guess I'm just a different type of person. :p

It's a good test.

I'm really quite fond of the private cram schools in South Korea, it really shows how good the schools can be when market principles are applied as opposed to top-down planned public schools. The schools are free to implement innovations like having classes based on students' ability rather than age, and teachers' incomes are based on their ability to teach rather that their seniority or whatever. Stuff that's pretty much impossible to implement in the public sector due to the mess of bureaucracy and interest groups like teacher's unions not wanting competition. I heard that some of the best teachers in South Korea can be payed in the realm of $4 million a year.

(*´∇｀*) are we talking about the korean shit system now??

Aurani wrote:

That's the thing, you just said that you don't like it when someone can outperform you based on a very specific circumstance, yet you like it when you can outperform others based on the sole factor of your ability to process things faster than average. :p

I personally hate time pressure, simply because I already know I'm going to nail the test, so the time factor only adds unnecessary micromanagement for me. I COULD answer the question in 10 seconds, but why do that when I can lean back and answer it within 30 and enjoy the atmosphere.
I guess I'm just a different type of person. :p

Of course i like it when the circumstances work to my advantage, who doesn't?

:V

You know, one day I will come over there and rape you when you least expect it. :V

oh shiet

B1rd wrote:

I'm really quite fond of the private cram schools in South Korea, it really shows how good the schools can be when market principles are applied as opposed to top-down planned public schools.

"Se-Woong Koo wrote that "the system's dark side casts a long shadow. Dominated by tiger moms, cram schools and highly authoritarian teachers, South Korean education produces ranks of overachieving students who pay a stiff price in health and happiness. The entire program amounts to child abuse. It should be reformed and restructured without delay."

In a response to the article, educator Diane Ravitch warned against modeling an educational system in which children "exist either to glorify the family or to build the national economy". She argued furthermore that the happiness of South Korean children has been sacrificed, and likened the country's students to "cogs in a national economic machine"

A 2014 poll found that over half of South Korean teenagers have suicidal thoughts, with over 40% of respondents reporting that school pressure and future uncertainty dismayed them the most. Furthermore, suicide is currently the leading cause of death among South Korean youth."

How does the market prevent these issues? It seems like people's welfare and independence are being disregarded in order to put them at "maximum efficiency", a problem seen in many Asian cultures regarding education and work.

they just need more free market. That would give an incentive to teachers to teach more efficiently, and the school book publishers would write and publish better studying materials, actually taking stress away from students.

imagine every teacher could get paid more if they were better at teaching. Everything would just spiral itself into utopia.

Everyone would be happy and nobody had to die.

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

"Se-Woong Koo wrote that "the system's dark side casts a long shadow. Dominated by tiger moms, cram schools and highly authoritarian teachers, South Korean education produces ranks of overachieving students who pay a stiff price in health and happiness. The entire program amounts to child abuse. It should be reformed and restructured without delay."

In a response to the article, educator Diane Ravitch warned against modeling an educational system in which children "exist either to glorify the family or to build the national economy". She argued furthermore that the happiness of South Korean children has been sacrificed, and likened the country's students to "cogs in a national economic machine"

A 2014 poll found that over half of South Korean teenagers have suicidal thoughts, with over 40% of respondents reporting that school pressure and future uncertainty dismayed them the most. Furthermore, suicide is currently the leading cause of death among South Korean youth."

How does the market prevent these issues? It seems like people's welfare and independence are being disregarded in order to put them at "maximum efficiency", a problem seen in many Asian cultures regarding education and work.

I don't know, it seems more of a problem with these Asian cultures rather than a problem rooted in the schools. And I wouldn't make definite conclusions about the system just from one quote, it puts pressure on the students but I wouldn't say I know for sure that it's too much, a certain amount of pressure is needed. And some Western countries are probably too lax in their standards.

My point was though that virtually any system can be improved by the free market. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking the market works fine with products like breakfast cereals or cars, but when it comes to schooling or health reality and human nature somehow change. They say that these thing "shouldn't be about money", however "being about money" in the most basic sense is simply wanting adequate compensation for the services you have provided. You can't divorce this facet from human nature just the same as you can't divorce money from any system, you will only change the market from the students, i.e. consumers, to the bureaucrats who decide how much money is granted, which is never a good thing. Essentially, the argument for liberalisation of the market is that individuals can make better choices about their own lives than some politicians, notwithstanding hysteria about creationism or whatever thing people think will be taught without the tight overview and regulation of the state.

Regardless of your political affiliation, you can't deny that free market principles should be applied to some degree.

Yeah, I think anyone can agree that if teachers would get rewarded more for working better, then that's a good thing.

The problem with it, though, is that "better" is a lot more subjective when it comes to human interaction than something as straightforward as a regular manufactured product like cereals or cars, that's why people see a difference. For example, if a teacher in a wealthy area can teach students more effectively than a teacher in a poor area, simply because of class culture and things like that- should the teacher in the poor area be screwed by the system even more and paid less for "not succeeding enough", despite not being in a fair environment to succeed in the first place? That's obviously just one small example, but there are plenty of hypothetical situations where the ultra-free market might not actually mean anything good.

The argument for state-funded services instead of free-market private ones comes from the idea that when profit is the only motivator, businesses can become exploitative of the system. Businesses can unethically increase profit by exploiting workers, polluting the environment, as well as other practices like unfair monopolization of the market due to the power that a large business has (see Amazon in the book market, Nestlé with water, probably any huge business has some examples of this). You also have a problem of some state-funded services being required despite being unprofitable, like cheap public transport in areas that wouldn't be able to afford tickets at "competitive market prices". Welfare is also of course necessary for anyone who is unable to earn enough money to survive on their own, like the elderly, or people who are incredibly ill, etc. Letting those people fall into poverty isn't a good thing in most people's eyes.

I think the benefits of the free market can exist, but they should never be looked at in isolation, but rather as part of a larger argument- it's dangerous to look at any ideology seriously without considering any downsides and simply concluding that it would lead to a utopia.

I've never heard anyone describe the free market as a utopia, that's just a strawman; just a better system. The common argument against economic liberalism is about exploitation and such things like that, but no one claimed that it would never happen to a degree; the fallacy is however to think that corruption and exploitation is somehow less common under an economy under strong centralised controls. I would argue that exploitation is much worse under a system in which those who are corruptible have much more control and influence over the economy than would otherwise be the case - and indeed the system is designed for lobbyists and special interest groups to take advantage of the system for their own selfish gain, which is something quite demonstrable in our current system.

So what is difficult about judging the standards of a teacher or school? It's very easy, just look at the results of students from that school, the reputation it has, and look at some of the lectures online of a teacher to see what they're like. Little fundamental difference from judging the quality of an automobile or breakfast cereal and I don't understand your criticism. Concerning how much teachers are paid, you seem to be under the impression that there is some arbitrating body deciding the salary of teachers like it's a public system. This isn't the case and the salary of a teacher would be more dependent on the consumer's perception of how much the teacher's services are worth like it is with anything in the market. And opening up schooling to competition doesn't just have an effect on teacher's salaries, it also drives down prices and increases the effectiveness of teaching country-wide as more effective teaching methods are created and emulated - because parents have a choice and send their kids to the best schools possible - way more than reforming the curriculum for the 1000th time or common core ever would or does. In effect it creates an better environment for every student, even poorer communities which the Left claim to be so concerned about.


I have heard pretty much every Left-wing hypothesis in the book about why strong government interference in the economy is necessary, however I have yet to hear a convincing argument or see a an actual example. These hypothesises often fall flat on their faces when you look at historical and contemporary examples.
For example looking into your claim about this Nestle CEO, you actually realise that what he is talking about is regulating all sources of water "for the environment". This would necessitate a strong monopoly of power, in other words the government, to pull off. Because if you think about it for two seconds you realise that monopolising every or nearly every source of water without coercive action is a ridiculous and impossible concept. And that is what he is talking about, he is talking about using the vehicle of the government to regulate water even from people who have their own private wells or rainwater tanks.

And I really don't see what the point is about Amazon, I have heard a lot of people complain about them having a high market share, but what exactly is the problem with this? I like buying books of Amazon because they are very cheap; this goes against the central idea against monopolies which is that they can artificially inflate prices and are bad for the consumer. What is really happening is simply economy of scale; these big companies can offer a cheaper service and thus out compete smaller competitors. There is nothing wrong with this and it's good for the consumer. And one thing to note is that an economy of scale can quickly turn into a diseconomy of scale, in which upsizing creates more inefficiencies because of administrative costs and problems. I can buy books of amazon, and I can also go to my local bookstore, which is more expensive but it's very popular nonetheless because people enjoy that experience of shopping at a bookstore. I fail to see any problems with these oft demonised corporations simply because they can outcompete other businesses because they can offer cheaper prices.


And what are these public services that are apparently so important yet apparently no one would pay for them unless they are forced to by the government? I can think of Aus Post, something that barely anyone uses for mail and taxpayers have to pay the 4.6 million dollar salary of the CEO. It's nothing more than a form of corporate welfare which sustains inefficient companies that would fail or at least have to be optimised without this funding. Buses are expensive? Says who? How much do you think the fare has to be to cover the cost of fuel, maintenance, and the salary of a relatively unskilled worker in a bus carrying two dozen people? Literally anyone with some driving skill could take out a loan and start doing their own bus route, in the absence of bus driver unions, public transport services, or having to jump through 1000 arbitrary hoops of red tape forcing would-be entrepreneurs out of the market. It makes no logical sense that it would be expensive.
The thing with these public companies like public bus services is they are inefficient, they don't have to worry about making a profit, or putting it another way, not running a deficit, so there is no incentive for them to optimise their service anywhere near the level of a private company. Well you might argue, "if they were for profit, they wouldn't run through poor areas that don't generate much revenue!". Well, besides the fact that that argument is dangerously similar to that in the dystopian universe of Atlas Shrugged in which trains of Taggart Transcontinental had to go through poor, desolate areas instead of the industrious oil fields for "public good", you can't even really justify this in terms of "helping the poor". If a bus has to run an inefficient route then that cost is passed directly to the taxpayer: the taxpayers, the businesses have to pay higher taxes and subsequently that cost is passed off in increased cost of products, lower wages and less employees et cetera, stuff that will directly hurt poor people and it makes it harder for people trying to get into the middle class. So the typical context that these scenarios are put in in which it is stated that we will just "tax the rich" to pay for these things is no valid excuse.

And welfare? None of those things you mentioned cannot be done be private charity rather than welfare. And as I've explained before, charity is much more efficient: 70% of welfare money goes on administrative costs, while this is less than 30% for private charity. And charity is actually much better at helping people get out of poverty, while welfare creates a trap where in some cases people would need to earn much more than the minimum wage working a full time job just to break even with the benefits they could get on welfare. In effect, it penalises people for getting out of welfare. And it is said that the biggest cost of welfare isn't even the financial cost, but the human cost.


So, you come from a somewhat centrist angle, but I don't automatically consider the mainstream as correct and neither do I take accusations of being a radical as an insult. The mainstream political climate 50 years ago would be considered radical today and so it will be in 50 years from now. So I don't see our current political climate as the zenith of political or philosophical theory, and I don't feel any need to accept this recent trend of socialism as a necessary element in our society when it doesn't hold up under sceptical scrutiny.

Tiny response since I just got back from work- I mentioned the word "utopia" since railey just made the suggestion that under a totally free market, things naturally spiral towards that state, which is true if only the most positive outcomes happen.

My reference to Nestlé and Amazon were two specific ones that I think you misunderstood. Nestlé buys up water sources wherever it can, which deprives areas of clean water piped to them. You should be able to find examples of this fairly easily. Another point I wasn't mentioning was their use of child labour in developing countries though, which without regulation is something that is pretty much encouraged in a totally free market, since it maximises profits when the company has a monopoly on the area (they can pay inhumanely low wages in third-world countries since there's no competition for wages). As for Amazon, they're known for making rather unfair deals with publishers due to their monopoly on the market, but I don't know enough of the specifics to go deeper into that.

Public transport in rural areas, like trains and buses, can indeed be a net loss- but they're necessary for society, so those services are still offered despite being unprofitable. I imagine taxpayers are okay with paying for this, since they can empathise with people who aren't as well off and don't want them to get fucked over more just for being poor, y'know?

holy fuckin shit

having super strict firearm laws in US is mandatory at this point (or even just doing it JAP style and banning it altogether)

"protecting myself" argument cannot be justified in any way shape or form

One guy shot someone? BAN ALL GUNS! Think of the Children!

Yeah, one anecdotal example and emotional appeal really isn't convincing anyone.