[LeviBrawn]

Anti-intellectual bigotry.

[PheliarearY]

Moochers are worse than criminals.

[Srewxardsasv]

I don't feel like doing any research online today.

That's ok. You won't look any stupider in this thread than you do in the others.

[JTS_tv]

But then, you must hate white people.

[jdynwa]

You must have the wrong cracker since I have no ass.

[Rategbee]

WOW, if that's your concept of clever, I think we have a new winner in the "no brain" category.

[Teareerah]

Wow that was dumb.

[sensation]

I can't wait to call someone stupid.

You might want to change avatars first.

[ANCETPYNCTEXT]

There's too many possible guesses to choose from.

[poRmawayncmop]

QFT.

BTW, Watson isn't useful for arguments from authority, everyone knows he was a racist.

I don't really see anything inherently racist about the comment for which he was crucified.

He was just
"'inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa' because 'all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really.'" He is the co-discoverer of DNA and nobel prize winner, no dim bulb.

In my view he is probably a bit of a modern Galileo just like all the other scientists who have had their careers ruined to meet political or religious objectives. He should have been wiser and realized that one needs Decartre-like lip service to the modern clergy and hermetic language in order to get away with saying what the data shows.

And before you say his statement is not factually true realize that in 1994 during the height of the Bell Curve controversy the anthropological community stood firmly behind the IQ gaps recorded. All one can argue about is their causes and for Africa this makes little difference, even if the gap is purely environmental they wont break out of the low-IQ-poverty cycle without external intervention.

[Texdolley]

Asians are more European than Euros apparently.

[CoallyPax]

Ummmm, that's true, unless your only measure for the success of a country is social equality. Take race out of the picture, and give me the option of living in South Africa in 1980 or in 2000, and I'll still take 1980 every time and twice on Sunday.

Obviously because you're not black jerk!

[PlayboyAtWork]

If our only measure is societal equality, or however you want to phrase it, then yes, I'm sure South Africa is better off today. If we judge nations on any other criteria, South Africa was vastly better in 1980.
GDP/cap has doubled since 1980.

Literacy rates have gone from ~50% to ~85%

Malnutrition rates have improved.

Average level of education has increased.

Quality of justice system/legislation has vastly improved.

South Africa has improved since 1980 in pretty much every measureable way.

[HakSpeame]

I kinda feel like someone took a gimp-mask off my face. I can't wait to call someone stupid.

You missed your chance then, because in the post you were responding to, the term "stupider" was used. There's no such word. More stupid, yeah.
You wait all this time and then blow it. WTG.

[Kryfamid]

Yes, that's why taking race into account is stupid. If and only if I as black would I prefer South Africa today, and that's exactly the point. If our only measure is societal equality, or however you want to phrase it, then yes, I'm sure South Africa is better off today. If we judge nations on any other criteria, South Africa was vastly better in 1980.

Mm-hmm. Wiki says that SA today is about 80% black, with nearly 10% more mixed-race. I don't know the figures from '80, if you do, trot them out. In the meantime, we'll just say that, provided you were among that tenth of the population that could take a leak without the government's permission, those were the days for South Africa.

[HornyMolly]

Mm-hmm. Wiki says that SA today is about 80% black, with nearly 10% more mixed-race. I don't know the figures from '80, if you do, trot them out. In the meantime, we'll just say that, provided you were among that tenth of the population that could take a leak without the government's permission, those were the days for South Africa.

1904:

Black 67.45%
White 21.58%
Coloured 8.6%
Asiatic 2.37%

I assume the picture in 1994 was more like today than 1904 tho.

[Shipsyspeepay]

ps. I know stupider is not a word, sloww. Jesus fkn Christ.

You miss the point, Einstein.

[DghtRdc]

GDP/cap has nothing to do with distribution.

Fact is, South Africa has improved in every measurable way since 1980. I have no idea where you got the idea that it was better, in ANY measurable way, in 1980 (let alone your idiotic proposal that 1980 was superior in every way except social equality).

Seriously, dude... How long have you been saying that retarded crap and noone was like... hmm... wait a minute... according to the facts you are completely and totally wrong! wtf



ps. I know stupider is not a word, sloww. Jesus fkn Christ.

I agree with you, someone living in South Africa in 1980 is worse off on average than someone living in South Africa in 2010. Its relative standing has declined but the same is true of Europe and Japan so this isn't really an argument. Technology improves all our lives and reduces crime rates. The midterm future unless a breakdown occurs like it did in Rodhesia/Zimbabwe will be better than today for SA and the world on average.


David's argument would only have merit if he claimed that Sout Africa would have been better off if Apartheid lasted longer say to 2004 instead of 1994.

[finnmontserrat]

Yes, that's why taking race into account is stupid.

You must think we're stupid if you think we don't know that you take race into account.

[lalpphilalk]

GDP/cap has doubled since 1980.

Literacy rates have gone from ~50% to ~85%

Malnutrition rates have improved.

Average level of education has increased.

Quality of justice system/legislation has vastly improved.

South Africa has improved since 1980 in pretty much every measurable way.

A casual glance at the actual numbers...
http://www.nationmaster.com/time.php...gdp&country=sf

...reveals something fishy. See how GDP in 2003 was 50% larger than in 2002?

This does not happen. Not in rich countries, not in poor countries, nowhere.

Possible explanations:
1. They changed the methodology
2. GDP is heavily reliant on export of one or two commodities (say, gold) and the numbers reflect swings in market price of that commodity
3. The country is inhabited by only two people and the husband stopped slacking in 2003

I don't have the time to go into it, so use your imagination.