According to the theologians, God did not make all men alike.
He made races differing in intelligence, stature and color. Was
there goodness, was there wisdom in this?
Ought the superior races to thank God that they are not the
inferior? If we say yes, then I ask another question: Should the
inferior races thank God that they are not superior, or should they
thank God that they are not beasts?
When God made these different races he knew that the superior
would enslave the inferior, knew that the inferior would be
conquered, and finally destroyed.
If God did this, and knew the blood that would be shed, the
agonies that would be endured, saw the countless fields covered
with the corpses of the slain, saw all the bleeding backs of
slaves, all the broken hearts of mothers bereft of babes, if he saw
and knew all this, can we conceive of a more malicious fiend?
Why, then, should we say that God is good?
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/what_is_religion.html
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Individual Differences in Executive Function Are Almost Perfectly Heritable
Individual Differences in Executive Function Are Almost Perfectly Heritable
Your ability to control thought and behavior relative to your peers - a set of capacities known as "executive functions" - is almost entirely genetic in origin, according to a newly in-press paper from Friedman et al. Over 560 twins completed tests to measure fundamental components of these executive functions, and the results were analyzed in terms of how similar identical twins performed to one another relative to fraternal twins (all twins in the study were reared together). Astonishingly, the results show that the variance common to all executive functions is correlated roughly twice as much between identical twins as between fraternal twins, and that individual variance in executive function falls directly in line with what would be expected from a perfectly heritable trait.
The components of executive function (as determined through previous latent variable analyses) can be loosely described as inhibition (the ability to resist habit), updating (the ability to quickly change the focus of attention or the contents of working memory), and shifting (the ability to quickly change goals and respond appropriately).
[...]
The results from this approach are jaw-dropping: variance shared among each variety of executive function (inhibition, updating, and shifting) is nearly perfectly heritable: the contribution of the "A" component to those correlations is 99%. This heritable variance in the common executive function predicts nearly all of the genetic variance in the inhibition factor, consistent with the idea that those constructs are isomorphic from a heritability standpoint. Second, genetic influences on updating and shifting were roughly half due to the common executive function (43% and 44%, respectively) and half due to unique genetic influences (56% and 42%, respectively). Thus, the overall picture is that executive functions, in both their unity and diversity, are somewhere between 86 to 100% heritable.
Continued:
http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2008/05/99_genetic_individual_differen.php
Your ability to control thought and behavior relative to your peers - a set of capacities known as "executive functions" - is almost entirely genetic in origin, according to a newly in-press paper from Friedman et al. Over 560 twins completed tests to measure fundamental components of these executive functions, and the results were analyzed in terms of how similar identical twins performed to one another relative to fraternal twins (all twins in the study were reared together). Astonishingly, the results show that the variance common to all executive functions is correlated roughly twice as much between identical twins as between fraternal twins, and that individual variance in executive function falls directly in line with what would be expected from a perfectly heritable trait.
The components of executive function (as determined through previous latent variable analyses) can be loosely described as inhibition (the ability to resist habit), updating (the ability to quickly change the focus of attention or the contents of working memory), and shifting (the ability to quickly change goals and respond appropriately).
[...]
The results from this approach are jaw-dropping: variance shared among each variety of executive function (inhibition, updating, and shifting) is nearly perfectly heritable: the contribution of the "A" component to those correlations is 99%. This heritable variance in the common executive function predicts nearly all of the genetic variance in the inhibition factor, consistent with the idea that those constructs are isomorphic from a heritability standpoint. Second, genetic influences on updating and shifting were roughly half due to the common executive function (43% and 44%, respectively) and half due to unique genetic influences (56% and 42%, respectively). Thus, the overall picture is that executive functions, in both their unity and diversity, are somewhere between 86 to 100% heritable.
Continued:
http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2008/05/99_genetic_individual_differen.php
Monday, April 14, 2008
Below is a response to an E-mail I received from someone called 'Orange'
1. Ashkenazi Jews in Israel achieve higher social status than everyone else because they are a very gifted people, not because they vent racial prejudice against non-Ashkenazim.
2. The description of the BNP as a 'racist' organisation is a meaningless kneejerk reaction to its ethnocentric immigration policy, and akin to labelling supporters of the welfare state as 'commies' or supporters of gun control as 'fascists'.
Perhaps the Left should direct some of its opprobrium to the 'racist' regimes of South Korea and Japan, which have instituted immigration controls specifically designed to secure the numerical supremacy of the founding raciocultural stock of those nations - they are guilty of doing exactly what the BNP advocates for Britain. To pathologise ethnic homophily as 'racist', even if it is worthy of criticism on other grounds, is ludicrous.
2. The description of the BNP as a 'racist' organisation is a meaningless kneejerk reaction to its ethnocentric immigration policy, and akin to labelling supporters of the welfare state as 'commies' or supporters of gun control as 'fascists'.
Perhaps the Left should direct some of its opprobrium to the 'racist' regimes of South Korea and Japan, which have instituted immigration controls specifically designed to secure the numerical supremacy of the founding raciocultural stock of those nations - they are guilty of doing exactly what the BNP advocates for Britain. To pathologise ethnic homophily as 'racist', even if it is worthy of criticism on other grounds, is ludicrous.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Muslim Child Brides
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U1dADd23RE
The Arab Christian begins by quoting a leading Islamic scholar (or someone considered as such by the Muslim being interviewed):
"All kinds of sexual relationships, like touch, desire, or putting your private parts in between the legs of that little baby, are okay."
They continue (I've removed repetitions and corrected some of the fractured English):
Arab Muslim: "Don't forget that this baby is a wife, is a wife!"
Arab Christian: "What do you mean she's a wife? She doesn't have teeth yet. How can you say she is a wife?"
Arab Muslim: "We are talking about marriage, okay? This is a special situation."
Arab Christian: "Listen. This is your scholar, one you approve of, one you say is a big leader for you, and he is saying you can have sexual relationships with little baby girls. Explain to us how you can do such a thing?"
Arab Muslim: "Who makes the rules? Who decides the age I can marry a woman? These are not God's standards, these are human standards."
Arab Christian: "Okay, so humans put the standard at 18 years old to marry. Your god says you can have sex with a baby girl. Which one is correct, you think? The human standard or your god's standard?"
Arab Muslim: "Well of course God's. You are a human. God says you can marry a baby, you can touch her in a sexual way, and when she reaches 9 years old, you can do whatever you want with her, okay? So what's wrong with that?
The Arab Christian begins by quoting a leading Islamic scholar (or someone considered as such by the Muslim being interviewed):
"All kinds of sexual relationships, like touch, desire, or putting your private parts in between the legs of that little baby, are okay."
They continue (I've removed repetitions and corrected some of the fractured English):
Arab Muslim: "Don't forget that this baby is a wife, is a wife!"
Arab Christian: "What do you mean she's a wife? She doesn't have teeth yet. How can you say she is a wife?"
Arab Muslim: "We are talking about marriage, okay? This is a special situation."
Arab Christian: "Listen. This is your scholar, one you approve of, one you say is a big leader for you, and he is saying you can have sexual relationships with little baby girls. Explain to us how you can do such a thing?"
Arab Muslim: "Who makes the rules? Who decides the age I can marry a woman? These are not God's standards, these are human standards."
Arab Christian: "Okay, so humans put the standard at 18 years old to marry. Your god says you can have sex with a baby girl. Which one is correct, you think? The human standard or your god's standard?"
Arab Muslim: "Well of course God's. You are a human. God says you can marry a baby, you can touch her in a sexual way, and when she reaches 9 years old, you can do whatever you want with her, okay? So what's wrong with that?
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Are Jews white? Theopsyche comments at Majority Rights
Ashkenazi Jews consider themselves as white, they are recognised as white by society at large, and they are unambiguously white in their physical characters. They have called Europe their home for a longer period of time than the Slavs, and their contributions to white civilisation surpass those of any other European substock of comparable numerical size. Whether you define the white race as a biological taxon or a sociological construct and social identity, or some a combination of the two, Jews should be recognised as white.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)