Reply to: Short people are fick.

[stackpole]

Hmmm. Same name, same zombie, Could be.

Do you run it then? It looks cool.

[xoggoth]

Hmmm. Same name, same zombie, Could be.

[stackpole]

I used to be when I was alive.

Are you anything to do with the xoggoth?

[xoggoth]

I used to be when I was alive.

[CaribbeanPirate]

If they just arrested 5% of the population based on ugliness and having piggy eyes the crime rate would drop to near zero overnight.

If beauty, or the lack of it, is only skin deep, then if we round up all the mingers, skin them alive and send them on their way. It should have the same effect.

[xoggoth]

Cant be bothered with this race/intelligence thing again but the figures do seem remarkably consistent. Think it's more the conclusions some draw that may be wrong.

Hardly deliberate bias by white racists anyhow as they also universally show that Asians are brighter than us.

[stackpole]

These people were pig ugly too so that's another correlation. Another I am certain could be demonstrated is of ugliness and piggy eyes to criminality. If they just arrested 5% of the population based on ugliness and having piggy eyes the crime rate would drop to near zero overnight.

xog, you're no picture yourself!

[xoggoth]

Decades back when most people were white (blacks tend to be taller generally so it doesn't work anymore) you could walk around places in London and see the correlation of success to height. Diet maybe? In markets in poor crummy areas one felt taller by contrast.

These people were pig ugly too so that's another correlation. Another I am certain could be demonstrated is of ugliness and piggy eyes to criminality. If they just arrested 5% of the population based on ugliness and having piggy eyes the crime rate would drop to near zero overnight.

[stackpole]

I believe Threaded is over 6 feet - around...

If intelligence is directly proportional to height, threaded would be three metres tall.

[Churchill]

I believe Threaded is over 6 feet - around...

[stackpole]

Whoa Francko, hold on a minute. I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

I am saying so to refer to all the other crap researches where they want to show that one race is more intelligent than the other.

Why is all research in this field crap?

First, it might well be a casual distribution that is lucky for one particular race at one particular moment, it doesn't have to mean that one race is more clever than the other.

Well, that is not impossible, but improbable if results from different researches show similar results.

Secondly, because all those race statistics do no count that white people are on average richer so they can give more education to kids, spend more time with them, so on... the same applies to children with an above than average height, they are more certainly children of richer people who could afford better food, better education, etc. etc.

Perhaps what you are unwittingly describing is how evolution works. Maybe it was the same in the cold climates thousands of years ago, when "white" people had to work out better ways of hunting scarce resources, learn to store food (become "rich"), learn to find or make shelter and keep warm, and to work harder at keeping their offspring alive in the cold. They developed differently.

I am amazed that if the man on the street can come up with some discriminatory statement against any category is labelled as a racist/sexist/ect. while academic scientists can get away with that, covered by obviously flawed researches.

Don't you think it more amazing that academic research is always flawed if it produces descrimitary or politically incorrect results?

[Francko]

So you're saying white people are richer, better educated and better nourished than non-whites?

If so why do you think that is?

I am saying so to refer to all the other crap researches where they want to show that one race is more intelligent than the other. First, it might well be a casual distribution that is lucky for one particular race at one particular moment, it doesn't have to mean that one race is more clever than the other. Secondly, because all those race statistics do no count that white people are on average richer so they can give more education to kids, spend more time with them, so on... the same applies to children with an above than average height, they are more certainly children of richer people who could afford better food, better education, etc. etc. I am amazed that if the man on the street can come up with some discriminatory statement against any category is labelled as a racist/sexist/ect. while academic scientists can get away with that, covered by obviously flawed researches.

[mcquiggd]

It is obviously because white people are institutionally racist, and owe any non-white people an apology and lots and lots of money.

You should understand, thousands of years of evolution, have no meaning in todays political climate... white people must pay the price for having been successful.

[Troll]

Another ridicolous research where the study proves that rich people (the whiter, the taller, the ones who had a better education thanks to the money and a better nutrition thanks to better food) are better than poor people. Let's keep it going. I have more scientific proof of the opposite in this picture than the whole study:

So you're saying white people are richer, better educated and better nourished than non-whites?

If so why do you think that is?

[mcquiggd]

I understand Crouch scored tonight. Maybe the theory has some merit...