Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Low Poverty: the result of having fewer high poverty minority group individuals.
Low Crime: the result of having fewer high crime minority group individuals.
First Rate Education: Not an indication of the quality of the state's teachers, but more or less an indication of having fewer numbers of lower IQ'd minority group individuals who perform poorly at school.
Quality of Life: Subjective, but I'll give you this one-the result of having a relatively homogeneous, low-poverty, low-crime, higher IQ'd population.
Any state with similar demographics could do such, granted that industries/jobs were always available to the people, and I'm not referring to public sector jobs.
With having fewer minorities, who disproportionately contribute more crime, perform poorly at schools, and who are of a lower socioeconomic status, you are able to "spread around" the taxpayers money to the much smaller population who receives some type of government benefit. This is why socialist policies, though ultimately destined to fail, can survive the longest in such atmospheres, such as Sweden, Minnesota, or other more homogeneously white locales, with some seeming short-term benefits.
why are you illogical? look at this post. you make sure that the buck stops at minorities, but ignore the institutional problems that cause these disparities. in other words, you're barely scratching the surface of problems that go 20 miles deep.
Why is the continent of Africa the way it is, while the continent of Europe, and the descendants from the continent of Europe, is the way they are?
Why have studies on intelligence, time after time, revealed that the average black African has an intelligence quotient of around 70, considered border-line retarded in the western world? Why have these same studies shown black Americans, most of whom have some admixture of white blood, as having an average intelligence quotient of 85, considered borderline slow in the western world? Why do whites generally score at one hundred on intelligence quotient tests the world round?
Considering IQ, why have over ninety five percent of techonological inventions been created by Europeans and descendants from Europe? Why has nothing significant come out of sub-saharan Africa? Why has less inventiveness been seen in the rest of the non-European/descendant world over the course of history?
It clearly seems that socioeconomic status is more a product of genes, and that nurture doesn't quite tell the whole story.
now i know you're kidding. nobody's that ignorant (i hope). i'm also hoping you're somewhere laughing it up because you can't believe people think you're serious.
The South ranks lower in education because about thirty percent of its population is black, which generally scores lower on standardized tests, as well as IQ tests.
In terms of southern whites, at least in Georgia, the population outscores whites in other portions of the country on the ACT and other educational measures. This isn't to say that all parts of the South are like this, only that the differences aren't as pronounced when the various differences in demographics are taken into account.
The South's large black population may be the one reason for its lower education ranking nowadays, but this hasn't always been the case. For most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Southern whites fell far behind whites from all other regions of the country in test scores (including IQ) and in educational attainment, just as Southern blacks were outperformed by blacks from the rest of the U.S.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,080,865 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marya
The South's large black population may be the one reason for its lower education ranking nowadays, but this hasn't always been the case. For most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Southern whites fell far behind whites from all other regions of the country in test scores (including IQ) and in educational attainment, just as Southern blacks were outperformed by blacks from the rest of the U.S.
You think maybe it's all those fried twinkies and boiled goobers?J/K
why are you illogical? look at this post. you make sure that the buck stops at minorities, but ignore the institutional problems that cause these disparities. in other words, you're barely scratching the surface of problems that go 20 miles deep.
You know, this kind of illogical thinking, the idea that blacks or other minorities can't get ahead, the result of decades, even centuries of "racism", is getting old.
It ignores the fact that the entire continent of Africa is much, much worse than the conditions in which American blacks find themselves. If such problems of American blacks and other minorities are "twenty miles deep", then why is the whole continent of Africa in the predicament that it is? Why has it never developed beyond that of mud huts in much of the continent?
What about Intelligent quotient differences, which are real? You don't think that this has an effect on a people's innovativeness and, thus, ability for a higher lifestyle or society?
Why are many Asians, who have made their way to the U.S. without an inkling of knowledge of the English language, been so successful in a society that has so many roots in "discrimination", I figure you'll say? I mean, shouldn't someone who was born in the U.S., and who can speak the English language, be in a much better position to be successful than someone who arrives in the country very poor and illiterate?
Maybe the Houston girls are not impressed with him. I find that most people say things like this when they have been rejected.
I think your right, lol! He wanted to date my friend but she sort of rejected him and ever since he always complains to me about how their is nothing to do in Houston and that the girls are ugly.
Wasn't trying to offend anyone, but I've just dealt with this with a lot of northeners.
The South's large black population may be the one reason for its lower education ranking nowadays, but this hasn't always been the case. For most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Southern whites fell far behind whites from all other regions of the country in test scores (including IQ) and in educational attainment, just as Southern blacks were outperformed by blacks from the rest of the U.S.
In more agrarian times, it is true that education was not available to many southerners, or was not seen as important. As such, education levels were lower. This was the case of a nurture issue, not a nature issue, as the genes of northern whites and southern whites are generally the same, relatively speaking.
now i know you're kidding. nobody's that ignorant (i hope). i'm also hoping you're somewhere laughing it up because you can't believe people think you're serious.
Refute what I stated. Why is what I posted incorrect?
The fact is that what I posted is one hundred percent true, and instead of tell me why I am incorrect, by posting the so-called facts of why I am wrong, you start to attack my character. Isn't that like a leftist?
Why is the continent of Africa the way it is, while the continent of Europe, and the descendants from the continent of Europe, is the way they are?
Why have studies on intelligence, time after time, revealed that the average black African has an intelligence quotient of around 70, considered border-line retarded in the western world? Why have these same studies shown black Americans, most of whom have some admixture of white blood, as having an average intelligence quotient of 85, considered borderline slow in the western world? Why do whites generally score at one hundred on intelligence quotient tests the world round?
Considering IQ, why have over ninety five percent of techonological inventions been created by Europeans and descendants from Europe? Why has nothing significant come out of sub-saharan Africa? Why has less inventiveness been seen in the rest of the non-European/descendant world over the course of history?
It clearly seems that socioeconomic status is more a product of genes, and that nurture doesn't quite tell the whole story.
Scraper, that's illogical man. I not talking about the current situation I'm speaking on the 'genetic holdback', it just isn't true. To honor this topic I'll just PM you my thoughts. I'll just say that Africa has or had the most natural resources but didn't use it like the Europeans.
I have found the transition to texas quite difficult especially on an intellectual level. I keep trying, and trying to meet compatible professional people of my age group 20-35 and older. anyone... I have yet to have a well rounded conversation with anyone I have met so far. The only thing that woman seem to care about here is the family and having babies. Not too many career, ambitious, worldy women. If there any out there, please please tell where you are. so I can network and make some friends.
In the east coast, ( tristate area) someone can make new friends within days. I have been here 3 months -- haven't meet a soul. Why? is that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
