The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Africans Are Less Intelligent Than Westerners

I suppose that it's difficult for some persons in his age group to be free from racist and homophobic attitudes. A smart person like him should know to keep these views to himself--given what is socially acceptable. :mad:
 
In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that " stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."
Click to expand...

Says all I need to know about this guy. Also pretty girls by whose standards?
 
My thoughts? You seem to enjoy quoting controversial things written by other people and asking for our "thoughts".

Lex
 
Even geniuses are quite liable to be afflicted with stupid genes.
 
But its interesting that public opinion is so heavily loaded against him now.
A few centuries ago he would have actually had people sagely nodding in agreement if not actually applauding.....

Of course, it easy to guess who laid down the criteria for gaging intelligence.
Do you also find it odd that the newspaper hasn't dwelt on how he came to such conclusions - I mean methods, criteria and all of that
 
James Watson may have got the Nobel Prize half a century ago, but at 79, he holds the views of the society and class he was born, raised and educated into. When Britain still her her colonies and the King was still Emperor of India. His mentality shows that he's of the old guard, the dying breed of elitist empire drum beaters now acting out his fantasies by speaking his prejudices in areas he is out of his depth in.
 
Something told me this was about Watson as soon as I read the thread title. He's been espousing this stuff for his entire professional career. The science community tends to nod and give a little smile to humor him because of his early contributions. Oddly, he's never produced any scientific evidence to back up any of those claims. It's always "within a decade".

At this point in the game he can't really hurt anyone. He'll be gone before long and the world will mourn the passing of a man who contributed greatly to our understanding, but the obituaries won't cite any later accomplishments because there haven't been any.

The topic may have changed, but the underlying dynamics are exactly the same:
 
Honestly, a person who uses the term "Africans" can't be expected to be taken seriously and therefore he shoots himself in the leg.

"Africa is the world's second-largest and second most-populous continent, after Asia. At about 30,221,532 km² (11,668,545 sq mi) including adjacent islands, it covers 6% of the Earth's total surface area, and 20.4% of the total land area.[1] With more than 900,000,000 people (as of 2005)[2] in 61 territories, it accounts for about 14% of the world's human population." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa

It baffles me sometimes why people use the term "Africans" when they'r reffiring to someone who just happens to live in the continent of Africa.

Generalizing is a tool for uninformed people who think they are making a point.

There are piles upon piles of scientific data which break his argument.

Enough said.
 
This guy is not a real scientist in that he's really out to prove his point, instead of getting data and reality come through. He's using science like it's religion. Get the data sir then make your conclusions.
 
If this fellow were an idiot it would be much easier to dismiss his claims. The fact of life is that this researcher is a well balanced person who does influence people into treating his theories with serious respect.

I prefer to focus on his ideas rather than pour scorn on the man. His ideas are from a scientific viewpoint implausible and yet can impress some people into accepting that his conclusions are worth inviting him to speak at conferences in order to appreciate his powers of reasoning.

Reason enough to beware of such ideas and the power that they reveal in the behaviour of some people. Racism is never far removed from homophobia and its acts of inhumane treatment of the homosexual person.
 
Transpogue said:
Thoughts?

He's a lunatic. Everyone in the science community knows this.

This is 19th century "science" he's employing. An utterly irresponsible and ignorant man.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. He isn't a 'lunatic' or an 'ignorant man', if he were no one would be discussing his comments. He's one of the greatest and most famous scientists of the 20th century (although there is some controversy over who actually did all the work back in the 1950s and who should have shared the Nobel Prize).

While I find his views the opposite of mine I still don't like the idea of the Science Museum banning him from speaking this week. He is an influential person and I would rather that he were cross examined by someone like Jeremy Paxman on his views so they can be exploded or so he can produce the 'evidence' and other scientists can take it apart.

The trouble with banning obviously clever people from airing controversial views is that there may be some people who think there is something in it (well, we know there are lots) and that it is just political correctness that is stopping him from being allowed to tell 'the truth'.

IMO it is better for him to be thoroughly examined on it. To me it's like watching anti-gay bigots waving the Bible around to prove homosexuality is evil. The more they do it and are confronted about it properly in a debating chamber, the less they are able to explain and support their hateful views. Sending them back to where they came from doesn't lance the boil.
 
Lets not act like this is the first time this has been said. Plenty of scientist have said this before. Much worse things have been said as well. I don't care, whats the point of even debating this. Some agree, some don't if you do or not it really wont matter. What makes me wonder is why any of you here actually care ? Besides tryings to get your post count higher.
 
It reminds me of Charles Murray's bell curve theory, which postulated that Eastern European Jews were the most intelligent, followed by Chinese (and related Asians), then Western Europeans, followed by blacks and native Americans, or something like that. There should be no doubt that Charles Murray is an Eastern European Jew. Of course very few scholars took his writing seriously, since he was obviously demented.

I do believe that intelligence is inherited, however - otherwise what makes us different from other apes? How this intelligence is inherited is a different matter, and I believe that the mixing of races can enhance intelligence, among other things. Genetics is not that well understood IMO.
 
A couple of thoughts:

1. It is not clear to me that intelligence is something that can be reduced to one or two genes, but is rather more multifaceted. However, to the extent particular types of intelligence have a genetic component, they do appear to be distributed unequally across individuals so it is possible that they are also distributed unequally across racial or ethnic groupings. Certainly less politically loaded characteristics such as height or ability to digest lactose or process alcohol vary according to ethnicity.

2. Even if there were statistically significant differences in intelligence from one ethnic or racial group to another so what? Differences among individuals would overwhelm racial differences so it shouldn't affect the opportunities that individuals are given, just as height differences within racial groups are more significant than differences in average height. However, if it were possible to test individuals for an intelligence gene in the future that could have vast social implications that would only tangentially involve race.

3. I suspect the reason that the Bell Curve and other race based theories of intelligence have not been crowd pleasers in America is due to the success of Asian-American students. When white students on average perform better than African-American students, some right-wing commentators found it convenient to attribute that success to innate white ability rather than social injustice. When Asian-American students perform better than white students, the same social commentators prefer to stress Asian family values, discipline and work ethic rather than a supposed inferiority of whites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top