[quote]Liv92 wrote:
I did, and it got the reaction I wanted and I have everyone’s attention. Trying to call me a Nazi is funny since you seem to support israel stand on gaza. Looool.[/quote]
So you just want attention?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
my question remains
Right = Kick ass and Non empathy ??
Left = ???[/quote]
Right = Strong, independent, free thinking, able to defend themselves and not afraid to do so, intelligent, have well thought out LOGICAL arguments based on these things called “FACTS”, respects individual achievement, doesn’t believe in a free lunch, would rather teach someone to fish than GIVE them a fish, acts responsibly, has a strong moral compass and therefore doesn’t need a million laws telling us how to live, fiscal conservative, low taxes, LESS GOVERNMENT.
Left = Weak, dependent on government because they are too incompetent to fend for themselves, incapable of free thought, STUPID, Believes that all people are incompetent so that the Gubment should protect all of us, has arguments based on “FEELINGS” (that often change and don’t stand up to logic), respects communal achievement and group synergy and “getting along”, will take the free lunch every day of the week and twice on Sunday and never question who paid for it (they believe money falls from the sky like fairy dust), acts irresponsibly over and over again because they ignore history and don’t learn from past mistakes, has a weak moral compass and believes 8 year olds have the “right” to be transgender because they are just “expressing themselves” (expressing one’s self freely with no judgment or consequence is the most important value to the left), High taxes, MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL over EVERY ASPECT of our lives from the cradle to the grave - they don’t want to have to make a SINGLE FUCKING DECISION FOR THEMSELVES, they want it all provided for them.
EDIT: ANNND they want to redistribute wealth so that it’s “fair” to everyone (except for the evil capitalist who, you know, EARNED IT).[/quote]
Basically I agree with you, but what should be done with the clueless people? I’m a big fan of the scandinavian system, obviously. I don’t want to have them sitting by the church door, even though I seldom venture there. I would provide them their booze, it’s cheap, and joints, cheap too, and a roof above their heads and a door open for those that have a revelation. Basically it could be arranged with low costs, but there are all kind of “moral” restraints. [/quote]
I basically come from the position that NO ONE should get something for nothing. Make the EARN their welfare. Have them pick up trash on the side of the road. At least SOMETHING. Make them pass a piss test to GET welfare - I have to pass one to earn it for them! Have it be in the form of credits, if you “work” five days a week, you get X number of credits and a “full” check. If you “work” only three days a week you get 60% of a full check. There are PLENTY of low skilled, community oriented activities that poor people could do, from picking up trash to painting over gang signs. If they want money, they should EARN IT.[/quote]
just curious , did you pay the state or the fed back for your time in the big house ? [/quote]
Yes.
And why does everyone think that being INCARCERATED (which is being held by the state against one’s will) has ANYTHING AT ALL in common with someone who is NOT INCARCERATED (and therefore has the ability to seek gainful employment)?
I get that thrown in my face every time I suggest someone on welfare actually get off their lazy ass and earn it. So I was an unwilling “burden” to the state. While I was incarcerated, I worked. I mopped floors, I worked in the library, I picked up trash on the side of the road - making 18 dollars a month. When I was on work release working at Wendy’s, they KEPT MY PAYCHECKS, when I was on parole/probation I had to pay a monthly fee to be supervised. Since my release in 1996, I dare say I’ve paid more than enough in taxes to cover whatever difference there is. Shit, I paid about 70K in taxes last year alone… So you can put that argument to rest.
And as an ex felon with out a HS diploma, I KNOW what it’s like to have trouble finding a job. Guess what? It can still be done if you want it bad enough. I’ve NEVER collected a DIME of unemployment in my life. I’ve got two hands and and strong back and when I was laid off I traveled out of state, lived in a fucking TENT and worked in the middle of the fucking ocean to feed my family. So when someone tells me that “they can’t find a job”, I’m sorry, I HAVE NO SYMPATHY. FUCK YOU, if you want it bad enough, YOU WILL FIND WORK. The problem is, they don’t want it bad enough. So I’m sorry, I don’t have “empathy” for someone who is too lazy and stupid to do what they need to do to handle their responsibilities as ADULTS. If I can sacrifice and handle MY business, why can’t they?[/quote]
I commend you on getting your life together and working hard to achieve despite having formidable obstacles to over come.
You should not put too much faith in IQ tests. I have done several and have scored anything from 93 to 130.
Regarding the conflict in Israel and the jews: Yes the klling of innocents in Gaza by the Israeli government is horrible and a crime, but it doesnt have shit to do With them being ethnic jews. Some of the shit you have said in this thread regarding jews are pure racism and conspiracy-theory based. Your thesis of jews being behind multiculturalism to marginalize the white race, is very similar too the islamophic thesis that Cultural-marxist are behind multiculturalism and mass immigration in Europa to margianlize the white race. They are basicky the same except that in he newer Version, jew are replaced With cutural-marxist. You should stop believing such silly notions.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Liv92 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Liv92 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Liv92 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Liv92 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Liv92 wrote:
@beans racism is not just some outdated concept. Races exist for a reason, and that’s because so called “racism.” Without it we’d all be the same shade of grey. I’m very proud of my white ethnicity and so is everyone else of theirs. American white and some in Europe are the only one ones who seem to think like this around the globe, that racism is something evil or outdated. Being racist actually means to acknowledge the actual diffrences between each race that science proves is real, but won’t get published and taught because it’s deemed politically incorrect and racist. Boo hoo. Did You know the average white Caucasian in us or Europe iq is 100, in China Japan and Korea is 105, Arabs south Americans and African Americans avg around 80-85, and Africans at 70 iq. Then not to mention the distinct thought patterns races have exclusively. Not to also mention the physical aspects.
[/quote]
Just curious; what would the average Ashkenazim IQ be?
[/quote]
Beat me to it.[/quote]
Ashkenazi are European I believe so at least 100.[/quote]
IQ is a function of embedded human capital. It has little if any generic basis. [/quote]
Lies. There’s no way you believe what you just said. IQ means a lot. Look at societies who’s population avg 100 vs any in the 80s. It’s not even debatable. [/quote]
Umm, embedded human capital summarizes my position. The onus is upon you to demonstrate otherwise. [/quote]
Well I’m not familiar so how bout you provide and educating argument and throw some links up big boy. [/quote]
You have already provided ample evidence that “race” and intelligence do not necessarily correlate. [/quote]
But on a mass scale it obviously does correlate as proven by societies around the world. Not to mention inventions and break throughs and their successors. You can avoid reality and facts and stick to trolling, I think it’s apparent who’s intelligence and critical thinking is low.[/quote]
Again, embedded human capital is the critical variable, not natural variances in intelligence. Oh? Intelligence and critical thinking from the Neo-fucking-Nazi? What is the highest level of education you have obtained, and in what discipline? [/quote]
Again you keep saying that but it doesn’t justify anything. Furthermore you’re ignoring the specific thought patterns every race has accordingly. The differences between north America, south America, europe, Africa and Asia are pretty apparent. Why do you think 3rd world countries exist? Because the host population genetics determine their intelligence. Africans for example avg at 70 iq and afro American at 80-85. Yes being in a better society (which are either European based or asian) does increase ones threshold or whatever your trying to imply but there’s still a floor and a ceiling. It’s literally apparent in the state of every country and who inhabits it and how well it does. This correlates with the avg iq baseline population.
Have you heard of the aborigines in Australia? They’re some of the most primitive and old tribe of humans that there could be. Their iq was measured to be around 60 which explains their primitive lifestyles.
[quote]florelius wrote:
@liv92.
You should not put too much faith in IQ tests. I have done several and have scored anything from 93 to 130.
Regarding the conflict in Israel and the jews: Yes the klling of innocents in Gaza by the Israeli government is horrible and a crime, but it doesnt have shit to do With them being ethnic jews. Some of the shit you have said in this thread regarding jews are pure racism and conspiracy-theory based. Your thesis of jews being behind multiculturalism to marginalize the white race, is very similar too the islamophic thesis that Cultural-marxist are behind multiculturalism and mass immigration in Europa to margianlize the white race. They are basicky the same except that in he newer Version, jew are replaced With cutural-marxist. You should stop believing such silly notions.
[/quote]
Regarding the IQs you have to take a real test and not done iq test on Google. Second that would still indicate your somewhere around 100. There’s many people that could take the test many times and not even pass 85 threshold.
Regarding the second part, if it was happening then and people were labeling it something, and it’s happening now and people call it something else makes it not valid why?
[quote]
Have you heard of the aborigines in Australia? They’re some of the most primitive and old tribe of humans that there could be. Their iq was measured to be around 60 which explains their primitive lifestyles.[/quote]
IF there is a correlation, there’s a least three ways to explain it :
-
“low IQs → primitive lifestyles”
-
“primitive lifestyles → low IQ”
-
“Low IQs <-> primitive lifestyles”
Bismark is not saying that there is no correlation, but that 2) explains it better than 1)
[quote]Liv92 wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
@liv92.
You should not put too much faith in IQ tests. I have done several and have scored anything from 93 to 130.
Regarding the conflict in Israel and the jews: Yes the klling of innocents in Gaza by the Israeli government is horrible and a crime, but it doesnt have shit to do With them being ethnic jews. Some of the shit you have said in this thread regarding jews are pure racism and conspiracy-theory based. Your thesis of jews being behind multiculturalism to marginalize the white race, is very similar too the islamophic thesis that Cultural-marxist are behind multiculturalism and mass immigration in Europa to margianlize the white race. They are basicky the same except that in he newer Version, jew are replaced With cutural-marxist. You should stop believing such silly notions.
[/quote]
Regarding the IQs you have to take a real test and not done iq test on Google. Second that would still indicate your somewhere around 100. There’s many people that could take the test many times and not even pass 85 threshold.
Regarding the second part, if it was happening then and people were labeling it something, and it’s happening now and people call it something else makes it not valid why? [/quote]
Regarding Your second point: Its not valid because there is neither a jewish conspiracy nor a Cultural-marxist one too marginalize white People. Its utter batshit crazy to believe that.
[quote]kamui wrote:
A problem With the idea that africans have an average IQ score of 70 and aboriginals have an IQ score of 60, kind of suggests its a miracle that they have survided. Humans in contrast too animals are weak and slow and ergo Depends on Our minds and ability to make Things With Our hands. A score of 60 and 70 seems to low for a human cultures existing for thousands of years. It opens the question regarding the validity regarding IQ tests and the concept of IQ. How important can IQ be if we dont need to much of it to survive and dominate other animals?
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
A problem With the idea that africans have an average IQ score of 70 and aboriginals have an IQ score of 60, kind of suggests its a miracle that they have survided. Humans in contrast too animals are weak and slow and ergo Depends on Our minds and ability to make Things With Our hands. A score of 60 and 70 seems to low for a human cultures existing for thousands of years. It opens the question regarding the validity regarding IQ tests and the concept of IQ. How important can IQ be if we dont need to much of it to survive and dominate other animals?[/quote]
Maybe, but the aboriginals who take the test today are not the ones who managed to survive for 40 000 years.
Today’s aboriginals are plagued with alcoholism, drug abuse, dysfunctional families, etc.
These things are not exactly known to contribute to high IQs and i’m not sure today’s aboriginals would still manage to survive 2 more centuries if they were suddenly left alone.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
A problem With the idea that africans have an average IQ score of 70 and aboriginals have an IQ score of 60, kind of suggests its a miracle that they have survided. Humans in contrast too animals are weak and slow and ergo Depends on Our minds and ability to make Things With Our hands. A score of 60 and 70 seems to low for a human cultures existing for thousands of years. It opens the question regarding the validity regarding IQ tests and the concept of IQ. How important can IQ be if we dont need to much of it to survive and dominate other animals?[/quote]
Having an iq of 70 is enough intelligence to have a spoken language and manipulate simple tools. That of course makes them able to survive in numbers and overcome wild animals. What a silly notion
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
A problem With the idea that africans have an average IQ score of 70 and aboriginals have an IQ score of 60, kind of suggests its a miracle that they have survided. Humans in contrast too animals are weak and slow and ergo Depends on Our minds and ability to make Things With Our hands. A score of 60 and 70 seems to low for a human cultures existing for thousands of years. It opens the question regarding the validity regarding IQ tests and the concept of IQ. How important can IQ be if we dont need to much of it to survive and dominate other animals?[/quote]
Maybe, but the aboriginals who take the test today are not the ones who managed to survive for 40 000 years.
Today’s aboriginals are plagued with alcoholism, drug abuse, dysfunctional families, etc.
These things are not exactly known to contribute to high IQs and i’m not sure today’s aboriginals would still manage to survive 2 more centuries if they were suddenly left alone. [/quote]
Hard to say, but since they are humans I suspect they would find a way. However the argument made by racists regarding IQ, is to show that IQ differences beetwen ethnic Groups are Genetic and ipso facto in their perception todays aboriginals are exactly the same as those who developed a distinct human culture and who survived for 40 000 years. I am not arguing against Your position that ones social-place within a society + drug problems + alienation etc doesnt effect one’s cognitiv abilities.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
my question remains
Right = Kick ass and Non empathy ??
Left = ???[/quote]
Right = Strong, independent, free thinking, able to defend themselves and not afraid to do so, intelligent, have well thought out LOGICAL arguments based on these things called “FACTS”, respects individual achievement, doesn’t believe in a free lunch, would rather teach someone to fish than GIVE them a fish, acts responsibly, has a strong moral compass and therefore doesn’t need a million laws telling us how to live, fiscal conservative, low taxes, LESS GOVERNMENT.
Left = Weak, dependent on government because they are too incompetent to fend for themselves, incapable of free thought, STUPID, Believes that all people are incompetent so that the Gubment should protect all of us, has arguments based on “FEELINGS” (that often change and don’t stand up to logic), respects communal achievement and group synergy and “getting along”, will take the free lunch every day of the week and twice on Sunday and never question who paid for it (they believe money falls from the sky like fairy dust), acts irresponsibly over and over again because they ignore history and don’t learn from past mistakes, has a weak moral compass and believes 8 year olds have the “right” to be transgender because they are just “expressing themselves” (expressing one’s self freely with no judgment or consequence is the most important value to the left), High taxes, MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL over EVERY ASPECT of our lives from the cradle to the grave - they don’t want to have to make a SINGLE FUCKING DECISION FOR THEMSELVES, they want it all provided for them.
EDIT: ANNND they want to redistribute wealth so that it’s “fair” to everyone (except for the evil capitalist who, you know, EARNED IT).[/quote]
Basically I agree with you, but what should be done with the clueless people? I’m a big fan of the scandinavian system, obviously. I don’t want to have them sitting by the church door, even though I seldom venture there. I would provide them their booze, it’s cheap, and joints, cheap too, and a roof above their heads and a door open for those that have a revelation. Basically it could be arranged with low costs, but there are all kind of “moral” restraints. [/quote]
I basically come from the position that NO ONE should get something for nothing. Make the EARN their welfare. Have them pick up trash on the side of the road. At least SOMETHING. Make them pass a piss test to GET welfare - I have to pass one to earn it for them! Have it be in the form of credits, if you “work” five days a week, you get X number of credits and a “full” check. If you “work” only three days a week you get 60% of a full check. There are PLENTY of low skilled, community oriented activities that poor people could do, from picking up trash to painting over gang signs. If they want money, they should EARN IT.[/quote]
just curious , did you pay the state or the fed back for your time in the big house ? [/quote]
Yes.
And why does everyone think that being INCARCERATED (which is being held by the state against one’s will) has ANYTHING AT ALL in common with someone who is NOT INCARCERATED (and therefore has the ability to seek gainful employment)?
I get that thrown in my face every time I suggest someone on welfare actually get off their lazy ass and earn it. So I was an unwilling “burden” to the state. While I was incarcerated, I worked. I mopped floors, I worked in the library, I picked up trash on the side of the road - making 18 dollars a month. When I was on work release working at Wendy’s, they KEPT MY PAYCHECKS, when I was on parole/probation I had to pay a monthly fee to be supervised. Since my release in 1996, I dare say I’ve paid more than enough in taxes to cover whatever difference there is. Shit, I paid about 70K in taxes last year alone… So you can put that argument to rest.
And as an ex felon with out a HS diploma, I KNOW what it’s like to have trouble finding a job. Guess what? It can still be done if you want it bad enough. I’ve NEVER collected a DIME of unemployment in my life. I’ve got two hands and and strong back and when I was laid off I traveled out of state, lived in a fucking TENT and worked in the middle of the fucking ocean to feed my family. So when someone tells me that “they can’t find a job”, I’m sorry, I HAVE NO SYMPATHY. FUCK YOU, if you want it bad enough, YOU WILL FIND WORK. The problem is, they don’t want it bad enough. So I’m sorry, I don’t have “empathy” for someone who is too lazy and stupid to do what they need to do to handle their responsibilities as ADULTS. If I can sacrifice and handle MY business, why can’t they?[/quote]
unless you wrote a check for your keep then the tax payers kept you and most prisons used to have vocational programs .
[/quote]I did write a check. Several checks in fact. And I was not part of a vocational program. And I didn’t ASK to be incarcerated. I didn’t “apply” for my “incarceration card” so I could get three hots and a cot. And it was never “three” hots - you were lucky if there was one hot meal (“hot” being a relative term)[quote]
My guess the work you did was for some industry and possibly even got paid for what you did
[/quote] Your GUESS is wrong, asshole, just like most everything you write - you just talk out of your ass. I did NOT work for some industry. I got paid EIGHTEEN DOLLARS A MONTH to mop floors, work in the library, teach inmates to read, etc… so that I could buy soap, toothpaste and stamps from the commissary. [quote]
Possibly you got vocational training all because of those fucking liberals
[/quote]Possibly NOT[quote]
And why I bring this up IMO some one that has had the benefits poured on them like Rehabilitation should not be so hypocritical of their fellow man that is struggling
[/quote]What fucking benefit? Please, asshole, TELL ME how being locked up for four fucking years, getting stabbed five times, getting hit with a lock in a sock and having to fight AT LEAST every other week so that I didn’t get ass-raped BENEFITED ME? You stupid fucking moron - there is no “rehabilitation” in Maryland prisons… I served time in one of the top five worst prisons in the United States… And you have the balls to say that I had “benefits” poured on me? The State couldn’t even house me in an environment that prevented daily assault, rape and murder, so you can take all that “well you should write them a check for all the rehabilitation you got” and shove it up your liberal ass! What fucking planet are you from?[quote]
I know you see your self as a bastion of conservative values , I disagree , I think you were lucky
[/quote]Luck is where opportunity meets preparation. I don’t hold myself as a “bastion of conservative values” - I think many conservative values are fucking stupid. Having grown up poor and having been incarcerated and SEEN FIRST HAND the result of what welfare has done to minority communities, I happen to disagree with it. Not because some talking head told me to, but because I have WITNESSED first hand people abusing the system, not finding work when they are perfectly able to and just laying down and taking the government cheese because they CAN. I’ve seen what it does to communities and I’ve seen what it does to individuals. It doesn’t do ANYONE any good, it just kicks the can down the road.[quote]
I will give credit for not wasting any more tax dollars than you did , but you should be happy we have liberal people in the Judicial system
[/quote]I broke the law when I was EIGHTEEN. I was sentenced within the guidelines of that crime. I did my fucking time. I haven’t gone back. You got a problem with that?[quote]
FYI Unemployment Insurance is Insurance
Want some conservative values
I have never been to prison I will say I was lucky though. Have not collected Unemployment since 1983. I Collected food stamps 1977.
But other than that have been a contributing member of society since 1972
I don’t like paying taxes either but not every one is as smart as I am and I have compassion for them , are there people that abuse the compassion we have for them ??? Yes and we should work to fix those problems .
I will quit ranting but IMO you are not the Bastion of Conservatism you are pretending to be
[/quote]
I’ll give you credit for the troll job, but I really don’t give a fuck what you think or what your opinions about me are. I’m not pretending to be anything.
[quote]pat wrote:
I commend you on getting your life together and working hard to achieve despite having formidable obstacles to over come. [/quote]
Thanks, pat
[quote]Liv92 wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
A problem With the idea that africans have an average IQ score of 70 and aboriginals have an IQ score of 60, kind of suggests its a miracle that they have survided. Humans in contrast too animals are weak and slow and ergo Depends on Our minds and ability to make Things With Our hands. A score of 60 and 70 seems to low for a human cultures existing for thousands of years. It opens the question regarding the validity regarding IQ tests and the concept of IQ. How important can IQ be if we dont need to much of it to survive and dominate other animals?[/quote]
Having an iq of 70 is enough intelligence to have a spoken language and manipulate simple tools. That of course makes them able to survive in numbers and overcome wild animals. What a silly notion[/quote]
“A diagnosis of intellectual disability is in part based on the results of IQ testing. Borderline intellectual functioning is a categorization where a person has below average cognitive ability (an IQ of 71â??85), but the deficit is not as severe as intellectual disability (70 or below).” ( IQ. 02/08-2014. Wikipedia.org )
Acording to the wikipedia article on IQ a score of 70 is classified as “intellectual disability”. Are you telling me that the cultures of Africa and the Aboriginals came to be within Groups of People who are in plain Language retarded? Remember that both Africans and Aboriginals had more than simple Tools, they had art and religion. You need abstract thinking to develop art and religion.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Liv92 wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
A problem With the idea that africans have an average IQ score of 70 and aboriginals have an IQ score of 60, kind of suggests its a miracle that they have survided. Humans in contrast too animals are weak and slow and ergo Depends on Our minds and ability to make Things With Our hands. A score of 60 and 70 seems to low for a human cultures existing for thousands of years. It opens the question regarding the validity regarding IQ tests and the concept of IQ. How important can IQ be if we dont need to much of it to survive and dominate other animals?[/quote]
Having an iq of 70 is enough intelligence to have a spoken language and manipulate simple tools. That of course makes them able to survive in numbers and overcome wild animals. What a silly notion[/quote]
“A diagnosis of intellectual disability is in part based on the results of IQ testing. Borderline intellectual functioning is a categorization where a person has below average cognitive ability (an IQ of 71â??85), but the deficit is not as severe as intellectual disability (70 or below).” ( IQ. 02/08-2014. Wikipedia.org )
Acording to the wikipedia article on IQ a score of 70 is classified as “intellectual disability”. Are you telling me that the cultures of Africa and the Aboriginals came to be within Groups of People who are in plain Language retarded? Remember that both Africans and Aboriginals had more than simple Tools, they had art and religion. You need abstract thinking to develop art and religion. [/quote]
Lol please show said art and religion haha. I hope you don’t mean south Africa and the pyramids that are a result of Caucasoid descent.
PLEASE SOMEONE EXPLAIN THIS!!!
Fuck zionist and ANYONE that supports them
[quote]Liv92 wrote:
PLEASE SOMEONE EXPLAIN THIS!!!
Fuck zionist and ANYONE that supports them[/quote]
You don’t actually believe that wasn’t a cheap fake voice over do you?
[quote]Liv92 wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Liv92 wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
A problem With the idea that africans have an average IQ score of 70 and aboriginals have an IQ score of 60, kind of suggests its a miracle that they have survided. Humans in contrast too animals are weak and slow and ergo Depends on Our minds and ability to make Things With Our hands. A score of 60 and 70 seems to low for a human cultures existing for thousands of years. It opens the question regarding the validity regarding IQ tests and the concept of IQ. How important can IQ be if we dont need to much of it to survive and dominate other animals?[/quote]
Having an iq of 70 is enough intelligence to have a spoken language and manipulate simple tools. That of course makes them able to survive in numbers and overcome wild animals. What a silly notion[/quote]
“A diagnosis of intellectual disability is in part based on the results of IQ testing. Borderline intellectual functioning is a categorization where a person has below average cognitive ability (an IQ of 71Ã?¢??85), but the deficit is not as severe as intellectual disability (70 or below).” ( IQ. 02/08-2014. Wikipedia.org )
Acording to the wikipedia article on IQ a score of 70 is classified as “intellectual disability”. Are you telling me that the cultures of Africa and the Aboriginals came to be within Groups of People who are in plain Language retarded? Remember that both Africans and Aboriginals had more than simple Tools, they had art and religion. You need abstract thinking to develop art and religion. [/quote]
Lol please show said art and religion haha. I hope you don’t mean south Africa and the pyramids that are a result of Caucasoid descent.[/quote]
aboriginal art:
Aboriginal religion: