Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[Fatman3001]

I guess my point is "potential intelligence" is like Libertarian's "value" (as in "Bitcoin is a store of value") -- only meaningful until you try to define it.

By "potential intelligence" I simply mean the range of intelligence available within the group. It doesn't seem to differ between human racial groups, but it differs a lot when you compare a human to an orangutan. All humans (except maybe small-blockers) will register in a completely different range than the orangutan.

[bargainbin]

I guess my point is "potential intelligence" is like Libertarian's "value" (as in "Bitcoin is a store of value") -- only meaningful until you try to define it.

By "potential intelligence" I simply mean the range of intelligence available within the group. It doesn't seem to differ between human racial groups, but it differs a lot when you compare a human to an orangutan. All humans (except maybe small-blockers) will register in a completely different range than the orangutan.

"Potential intelligence" = "range of intelligence available within the group" is a poor definition of "potential intelligence," for several reasons.
1. The word "potential" implies ...well, potential, as in "possibility of becoming something." Your definition appears to evaluate the actual intelligence within the group.
2. "Intelligence" is left undefined. Before we can go on to evaluate X ("range of [X] available within the group", or even "potential [X]"), we must know what it is that we are evaluating. ( arguments of why IQ tests are ethnocentric/anthrocentric go here)

But let's get ahead of ourselves and, without defining what "potential intelligence" is, figure out how "all groups have identical potential intelligence" proposition could be proven/disproved. Since can't a priori, have to resort to messy empiricism & do this:



I doubt we did, because just no.
I guess my point is "races are equal" is just the B-side of eugenics.

[Fatman3001]

I guess my point is "potential intelligence" is like Libertarian's "value" (as in "Bitcoin is a store of value") -- only meaningful until you try to define it.

By "potential intelligence" I simply mean the range of intelligence available within the group. It doesn't seem to differ between human racial groups, but it differs a lot when you compare a human to an orangutan. All humans (except maybe small-blockers) will register in a completely different range than the orangutan.

"Potential intelligence" = "range of intelligence available within the group" is a poor definition of "potential intelligence," for several reasons.
1. The word "potential" implies ...well, potential, as in "possibility of becoming something." Your definition appears to evaluate the actual intelligence within the group.
2. "Intelligence" is left undefined. Before we can go on to evaluate X ("range of [X] available within the group", or even "potential [X]"), we must know what it is that we are evaluating. ( arguments of why IQ tests are ethnocentric/anthrocentric go here)

But let's get ahead of ourselves and, without defining what "potential intelligence" is, figure out how "all groups have identical potential intelligence" proposition could be proven/disproved. Since can't a priori, have to resort to messy empiricism & do this:

[im g]http://s8.postimg.org/56jn3rxd1/Capture.png[/img]

I doubt we did, because just no.
I guess my point is "races are equal" is just the B-side of eugenics.

I know, both 1 and 2 are complex. That's why I tried to dumb it down.

And I'm sorry for calling you a creationist. It was just a joke. I didn't mean to upset you.

[bargainbin]

... I didn't mean to upset you.

UPSET ME?!!



Go home to your mother! Doesn't she ever watch you?
Tell her this isn't some communist daycare center! Tell your mother I hate her!
Tell your mother I hate you!

[r0ach]

No. Evolution has stopped in humans. It basically stopped with regards to potential intelligence before we left Africa.

Oh, wonderful Marxists, if only the Aboriginal people didn't exist to hilariously invalidate every word out of your mouth.  The average IQ tested is in the 60's and no matter how much money is thrown at them, makes nearly no difference.  A large portion of the group went extinct due to being the only modern day humans that couldn't invent fire.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8688531/Billions-spent-on-Australias-Aborigines-yield-dismal-results.html

Even looking at the skull difference between an Aboriginal and European, you need to be both stupid and a liar to claim there's "no genetic differences".  The skull on the left is AFTER 1800's, it's not from millions of years ago.  There's a clear divergence of species going on here:

[bargainbin]

^^So which shitty race r u? (You'll never be as smart as a Jew )

[Fatman3001]

No. Evolution has stopped in humans. It basically stopped with regards to potential intelligence before we left Africa.

Oh, wonderful Marxists, if only the Aboriginal people didn't exist to hilariously invalidate every word out of your mouth.  The average IQ tested is in the 60's and no matter how much money is thrown at them, makes nearly no difference.  A large portion of the group went extinct due to being the only modern day humans that couldn't invent fire.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8688531/Billions-spent-on-Australias-Aborigines-yield-dismal-results.html

Even looking at the skull difference between an Aboriginal and European, you need to be both stupid and a liar to claim there's "no genetic differences".  The skull on the left is AFTER 1800's, it's not from millions of years ago.  There's a clear divergence of species going on here:

I didn't say there's "no genetic differences".

^^So which shitty race r u? (You'll never be as smart as a Jew )

I think he might be "special". One of those kids who dropped out of the Derek Zoolander Institute.

[r0ach]

I think he might be "special". One of those kids who dropped out of the Derek Zoolander Institute.

It's always fun listening to your diversity nonsense when you don't seem to know anything about human sociology.  There's no such thing as a "majority" and "minority" within a nation.  Nations are always based on ethnocentric majorities.  Either the minority group integrates and essentially ceases to exist, one group is eliminated through war, or the nation splits and goes their separate ways.  Even with all the insane Marxist propaganda you and your people try to push on "the goy", the intermarriage rates between Caucasians and Africans is so miniscule, that integration is clearly a failure and not going to ever happen even with coercion.  And why would the two groups integrate?  White genes are recessive, so by integrating, you would essentially be committing suicide on purpose.

But there's not a whole lot of benefit in Africans being unwilling participants in this forced collectivism either.  Since not all blacks are entirely puppets of Jewish, Marxist propaganda, used as tools to try and further different motives, they realized these facts as well.  Rather than being cattled into forced collectivism, which will obviously never work, people like Marcus Garvey wanted a "pans-africa" movement, or simply going back to Africa instead to live as the majority there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Garvey

Instead, what we really have going on today, is Jewish terrorists like George Soros funding "black lives matter" to use them as pawns.  When the majority of America notices the financial system imploding, George Soros knows exactly who we're going to come looking for.  He funds black lives matter with millions of dollars to try and create a buffer, or more immediate, tangible problem in front of you so you're too busy to go after people like him.  That's all "black lives matter" is, a buffer, a group being used as pawns.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/?page=all

More on the life of people like George Soros:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2626002/posts

Good job "buffer" idiots!:



What is there to gain by "young niggas inciting riots"?  Absolutely nothing.  You'll always be a second class citizen by being a minority in a majority country.  Just like a white person expects to be treated differently as a second class citizen by going somewhere like China.  You can either go after people like Soros instead and be a slightly wealthier second class citizen, or go somewhere where you're the majority and not be one.  You'll still likely have to deal with people like Soros first before leaving, because he will come wherever you go:

"Soros has at various times attacked the currencies of Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Mexico, coming into newly opened financial markets which have little experience with foreign investors, let alone ones with large funds like Soros. Soros begins buying stocks or bonds in the local market, leading others to naively suppose that he knows something they do not. As with gold, when the smaller investors begin to follow Soros, driving prices of stocks or whatever higher, Soros begins to sell to the eager new buyers, cashing in his 40% or 100% profits, then exiting the market, and often, the entire country, to seek another target for his speculation. This technique gave rise to the term "hit and run." What Soros always leaves behind, is a collapsed local market and financial ruin of national investors. "

[vonBerlichingen]

No. Evolution has stopped in humans. It basically stopped with regards to potential intelligence before we left Africa.

Oh, wonderful Marxists, if only the Aboriginal people didn't exist to hilariously invalidate every word out of your mouth.  The average IQ tested is in the 60's and no matter how much money is thrown at them, makes nearly no difference.  A large portion of the group went extinct due to being the only modern day humans that couldn't invent fire.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8688531/Billions-spent-on-Australias-Aborigines-yield-dismal-results.html

Even looking at the skull difference between an Aboriginal and European, you need to be both stupid and a liar to claim there's "no genetic differences".  The skull on the left is AFTER 1800's, it's not from millions of years ago.  There's a clear divergence of species going on here:

Yes and the same idiots are talking about the Neanderthals as a primitive non-race.

[hdbuck]

hey trollz, free lunch!

[yefi]

Aboriginal people ... The average IQ tested is in the 60's

The Flynn effect demonstrates the influence one's environment has on "IQ". Without accounting for this effect in studies between peoples, you cannot claim that it is caused by genetics.

In any case, the intellectuals of all races should be allowed to breed a new super race. But you low IQ mofos prevent us. Instead of posting stupid shit about races, you should be out there helping the great minds impregnate as many women as possible, à la William Shockley.

[bargainbin]

... the intermarriage rates between Caucasians and Africans is so miniscule, that integration is clearly a failure ...

Your slutty children have been raped, repeatedly, long before old enough to marry. Because sluts.
Only a decadent infidel may marry your fallen Western slut-women!

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

hey trollz, free lunch!

[Fatman3001]

hey trollz, free lunch!

BAM! BAM! BAAAAAAAA!!!

[billyjoeallen]

No. Evolution has stopped in humans. It basically stopped with regards to potential intelligence before we left Africa. So the point I am making is that there is no genetic reason for discriminating on the basis of ethnicity or "race". We all know this. There is no reason to feel sorry for Kofi Annan or Ban Ki-Moon (or Freddy Mercury for that matter). They haven't been dealt inferior genes. It's not a thing. They're far "better" humans in their field than anyone on this forum.

LOL!  Have hereditary traits stopped producing varying survival and reproduction advantages?  Of course not.  Five minutes in any single's bar will tell you that.

Obviously you are correct that there's no such thing as "inferior" genes in any absolute sense, but there never was. There are only genes better or more poorly suited for their environment.  But as you just noted yourself, those environments differ and because of that, there are obviously selection pressures that continue to produce dominant genotypes  that vary by environment. That is natural selection, and it's very mush alive and well. More alive than ever, I'd say.

[Fatman3001]

No. Evolution has stopped in humans. It basically stopped with regards to potential intelligence before we left Africa. So the point I am making is that there is no genetic reason for discriminating on the basis of ethnicity or "race". We all know this. There is no reason to feel sorry for Kofi Annan or Ban Ki-Moon (or Freddy Mercury for that matter). They haven't been dealt inferior genes. It's not a thing. They're far "better" humans in their field than anyone on this forum.

LOL!  Have hereditary traits stopped producing varying survival and reproduction advantages?  Of course not.  Five minutes in any single's bar will tell you that.

Obviously you are correct that there's no such thing as "inferior" genes in any absolute sense, but there never was. There are only genes better or more poorly suited for their environment.  But as you just noted yourself, those environments differ and because of that, there are obviously selection pressures that continue to produce dominant genotypes  that vary by environment. That is natural selection, and it's very mush alive and well. More alive than ever, I'd say.

You've misunderstood

[blunderer]

...
LOL!  Have hereditary traits stopped producing varying survival and reproduction advantages?  Of course not.  Five minutes in any single's bar will tell you that. ...

Yup.

[Meuh6879]

hey trollz, free lunch!

-snip-

Make sound.
Don't stay static !

[r0ach]

Yup.

This is why women were never allowed in the political process for thousands of years.  Each one in the picture is basically just a large, naive child, but women never actually grow out of this.  They could be 16 or 30, it doesn't matter.  You may as well allow 10 year olds to vote and witness the devastation that occurs afterwards.

[bargainbin]

Yup.

This is why women were never allowed in the political process for thousands of years.  Each one in the picture is basically just a large, naive child, but women never actually grow out of this.  They could be 16 or 30, it doesn't matter.  You may as well allow 10 year olds to vote and witness the devastation that occurs afterwards.

The girls can't help it, refugee D too girthy, too massive, too strong https://youtu.be/oqz6Y9aHGIQ