>65 IQ
>Stab some one for looking at you "wrong"
>Get worse sentence than someone normal
At what point is the dumb nigger no longer criminally responsible?
Most of their problems in modern society seem to stem from their under developed cerebral cortex (concept of time/ longterm thinking, impulsiveness, inability to grasp abstract concepts like honor and duty) at what point does their crimes become our responsibility because we refuse to acknowledge this difference.
Hey retard, they're dumb because they were raised by a single nigress in a shitty violent culture and because they didn't pay any attention at school, not because of some pseudoscientific "underdeveloped cerebral cortex". They 100% deserve to be held responsible for their crimes, just like anyone else.
Of course, what kind of a question is this? This is a nation of laws, as well as personal responsibility for one's actions. Doesn't matter how dumb or subhuman you are, you do the crime you do the time.
>criminal responsibility
this imply niggers are humans at the eyes of law, which is the actual problem
It's mostly the libtards' fault that things are the way they are, since they promoted single motherhood so much; read this:
“Of all single mothers in America, only 6.5 percent of them are widows, 37.8 percent are divorced, and 41.3 percent gave birth out of wedlock. The 6.5 percent of single mothers whose husbands have died shouldn’t be called ‘single mothers’ at all. We already have a word for them: ‘widows.’ Their children do just fine compared with the children of married parents.” — P.35
“Here is the lottery ticket that single mothers are handing their innocent children by choosing to raise them without fathers: Controlling for socioeconomic status, race, and place of residence, the strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single parent. By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. Seventy-two percent of juvenile murderers and 60 percent of rapists come from single-mother homes. Seventy percent of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents, and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers. Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced. A 1990 study by the Progressive Policy Institute showed that after controlling for single motherhood, the difference between black and white crime rates disappeared.
Continued:
Various studies have come up with slightly different numbers, but all the figures are grim. According to the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, children from single-parent families account for 63 percent of all youth suicides, 70 percent of all teenage pregnancies, 71 percent of all adolescent chemical/substance abuse, 80 percent of all prison inmates, and 90 percent of all homeless and runaway children.
A study cited in the Village Voice produced similar numbers. It found that children brought up in single-mother homes ‘are five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape (for the boys), 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and 32 times more likely to run away from home.’ Single motherhood is like a farm team for future criminals and social outcasts.
Source:
rightwingnews.com
>Get worse sentence than someone normal
you Sir is living in the US
In Europe that kind of degenerate gets less than Whites
>1 additional parent gives +20 to IQ
This isn't a video game faggot. IQ is 100% inherited.
They should be shipped back to africa.
All of them.
Niggers been retarded and illiterate is exactly the reason why we need segregation. Put niggers in ghettos with no access to welfare and let them do their thing. In a generation the niggers will all be gone. Problem solved.
You may be right OP, they deserve to be put down instead.
Meanwhile in reality, IQ is actually considered between 40% and 80% inheritable.
>Of course, what kind of a question is this? This is a nation of laws, as well as personal responsibility for one's actions. Doesn't matter how dumb or subhuman you are
But why?
Shouldn't punishment for the crime differ according to the understanding of said crime?
For example, you will go easy on a child and hard on an adult, because a child doesn't know better.
Doesn't low IQ imply they have the development of children and the same grasp on the abstract concepts of good and bad, right and wrong, the inability to understand this and have empathy should be considered, shouldn't it?
Personally, I'm a "men are responsible for their actions" kinda guy, but how far down the "niggers are literal animals" rabbit hole do we go before we can no longer reasonably expect them to adhere t modern human standards because they're not fully human, according to some.
No it's not, dumbshit.
>Meanwhile in reality, IQ is actually considered between 40% and 80% inheritable.
I love when estimates are so wide as to not even be considered an actual estimate and then some dickweed like you uses them to make yourself look smart
We don't know enough about the brain yet to know how much IQ is inherited, but my guess is that it's 0%, in part since IQ is a retarded intelligence measurer which doesn't take into account various other factors, such as learning disabilities.
Thats because there are a lot of different findings typically ranging from 40% to 80% and it's not entirely clear which is the most accurate. The general accepted figure is 45% inheritence as a child and 75% as an adult. Have a good day, uninformed user.
>IQ doesn't take into account learning disabilities
lol if you have "learning disabilities" it's a nice way of saying you're SLOW and you have A LOW IQ
sorry there little cracka
We need to allow this. Get all the niggers to claim they are retarded, hilarity ensues.
I have never understood this argument. They comitted a crime, they get punished. What kind of madness is it to say that they are so stupid that they can't be punished?
Read this:
oregonlive.com
IQ is retarded, kind of like you. Everyone has learning disabilities to varying degrees. Learning disabilities don't mean that you're dumb. Being slow is not the same thing as being stupid. Some students are slower at doing their work than the people around them, but with a little bit of exta time they get A+'s that nobody else would have gotten, even given the extra time. Now STFU about stuff you know nothing about, you ignorant piece of shit.
>A+'s that nobody else would have gotten
>slow people really believe this
>Have a good day, uninformed user.
You too.
LMFAO
>IQ is relative
>Just because you are considered to have a learning disability, it doesn't mean you are of low intelligence
Do you not see the conflict?
>What kind of madness is it to say that they are so stupid that they can't be punished?
It's the degree of punishment and how it's inflicted that stupidity becomes a factor
See
if a dogs bites some one he is put to death
why is it diferent with niggers?
You need a higher IQ in order to see the conflict. But don't worry-- with just a little more time, he can solve a puzzle that non-retards can solve in less time! It means IQ is irrelevant! Duh, ignoramus.
It's true. Stop conflating "slow" with "stupid". Have you ever heard of ADD or ADHD?
>inb4 Sup Forumstard conspiritards say they're made up
>Have you heard of ADD or ADHD?
no, i'm an alien from another planet. What does ADD and ADHD have to do with this?
I know personally a guy with ADHD with an estimated IQ of 135.
Everyone else i've met with the disorder that (((requires))) various amphetamines to be prescribed to 6 year-old boys was a rube.
So what is your point, genius?
My point was that low IQ ≠ low intelligence. I see no conflict because there is none. Now go neck yourselves, dumbshits.
IQ is irrelevant, but there's evidence that certain learning disabilities do not affect intelligence.
We tested intelligence while disregarding the idea of an intellectual quotient. Sounds legit.
If they can't understand how it's a crime, then it's more reason to lock them up. If they infringe on other people's rights, you know, like the basic right to not get stabbed, then more reason to lock them up for good. Sucks that they can't comprehend it, but you or I shouldn't get stabbed because of that.
>low IQ ≠ low intelligence
>IQ is irrelevant
IQ is a less-than-perfect metric, but is a pretty accurate estimate of cognitive ability. Those with a lower IQ are likely less intelligent. This is not false. Sorry, that is just a fact.
I had a below-average IQ health/gym teacher in high school who was pretty cool.
I was also forced to take some senior-level communications courses during undergraduate studies in order to meet gen ed requirements, so I met quite a few low-IQ rubes who can no doubt get along in society--- but they are nonetheless idiots with low IQ (Less capacity for fast learning, SLOW). (STUPID. )
SORRY, slow, low-IQ people. THEM'S THE BREAKS. Stick to the military and trade school. Universities are well shitted-up already.
Whether they understand what they are doing is completely irrelevant. They are still a danger to society and have to be removed, no matter what their intentions are.
Fine, I don't disagree with you. Still, this type of authoritarian bullshit of breaking up families because of low-IQ parents pisses me off very much.
oregonlive.com
By authoritarian, I meant Orwellian.
There is definitely a correlation between IQ and "intelligence," the issue is that the term is subjective and means different things to different people. Typically in western society we attribute intelligence to things like logic, reason, and problem solving ability. However, there is plenty of evidence for things such as social intelligence (severely lacking on Sup Forums), musical intelligence, kinesic intelligence etc. In most cultures intelligence is tied to whatever is most likely to help you succeed in that culture, which for Americans is highly correlated with IQ tests. Things like ADHD can definitely impact learning speed, so can dyscalculia, dysgraphia, dyslexia, hearing disorders, and other forms of learning disabilities that don't always result in lower IQ scores or intelligence, but definitely have the capability to significantly impact them. Take a chill, my dude.
I'm black and not stupid.
If they can't comprehend laws, perhaps they shouldn't be in our country.
Just euthanize them
Yeah, I doubt there's even any correlation between IQ and learning disabilities such as ADD and ADHD. I kind of made that up.
>Take a chill, my dude.
I'm very chill. To me, Sup Forums is a place to take all your frustrations out on other shitposters, like you can't do to other people IRL.
>intelligence is subjective
IQ, or rather, G does a phenomenal job distilling it down to a mostly objective measure.
They test a bunch of different "intelligences", run it through some mathemagical statistics programs, see which "intelligences" overlap so much as to have a statistically insignificant difference between them and then use all of the distinct "intelligences" they're left with. Then they collect the data again, run it through the gauntlet of statistical horsefuckery once more and the overlap between the results in all of those distinct categories of intelligence they call G, general intelligence.
So no, I wouldn't agree with that. No matter how cooky people's image of intelligence, there is a shared element between those various abilities and that makes it partly objective.
the 0.4 heritability is for young children. It's 0.85-0.9 for western adults. Slightly lower for, say, Africans given the increased effect of environmental factors(malaria, malnutrition) but nowhere close to 0.4.
Don't be an idiot. And don't act smug about being one again.
When i am allowed to own and kill one of my own.
Like with animals, then they are no longer criminally responsible
no. there really is gold in bald peoples heads.
No, if anything you should be harsher as a person too dumb to properly understand the crime and its implications will doubtlessly have a much higher rate of recidivism and setting him loose would carry a larger societal risk than an average criminal. If one were to discriminate sentencing based on that criteria, of course.
democrats have solved this problem by means of planned parenthood, but moralist retards think abortion is bad for some reason. But yeah, reasons like these are part of why I fucking hate America. Too many people are too dumb to understand what it means to be actually responsible and able to be held accountable.
>At what point is the dumb nigger no longer criminally responsible?
When he's dead.
I already went into that in a later post, although I used 0.45 for children and 0.75 for adults.
As for this, I'll have to admit that I'm not fully informed on the relation of g factor and modern IQ tests. I was under the impression that IQ tests were based on g factor but a bit more specific in what they test compared to g factor. I definitely believe in a testable general intelligence that affects all branches of intelligence to varying levels of correlation with some being more highly correlated than others. Teach me senpai.
Sure, but if we do that, then they don't get the same rights as people. If we're going to acknowledge that they're dumb animals, then we will give them the same rights as animals.
In that case though, we'll do the same with them as we do with a dog; if the dog bites someone (nog stabs someone) and the bitten person decides to press charges, then the dog is put down. The same will be applied to them.
Just have them killed, low IQ individuals are one thing but marry that with violent genetics and they fail the basic qualities of being "human"
Key word: uniform
If you believe that every single black person is brought up in wretched, grinding poverty and chronic malnutrition (aka the only kind of deprivation that actually seems to have an effect on IQ) you're fooling yourself.
If environment was what caused the entirety of the difference (don't get me wrong, I'm sure it accounts for some fraction), then the gap would be far wider at the low end of the family income distribution, disappearing as you move up the income distribution, since it's ludicrous to suggest that black children in households that make $100k+ are being malnourished.
It doesn't though, it remains almost perfectly consistent at 1 standard deviation across all income brackets.
IQ test is just a guideline. It's not tuned to most accurately assess the G factor, it's made for developmental bench-marking. That's why they weigh the different portions of the test so as to give men and women the same exact mean on the aggregate score. If they instead tuned it to assess the G factor it would likely be biased against either men or women and would be very misleading as a benchmark tool.
Have some statistical fuckery from wikipedia that I don't understand.
You either lock them up for committing a crime, or you lock them up from day one because they're potentially a danger to others and cant carry the weight of responsibility for their own actions.
Like dogs.
I think most people, niggers included, will go with the first option.
Nothing in that article suggests they have IQs higher than low 70s. Neither of them work and the woman didn't even know she was pregnant
If I'm reading into this correctly, it seems like I had a grasp on the general concept. G factor seems much more accurate to a measurement of total intelligence compared to the watered down IQ tests which focus on the more western terminology of intelligence and ignore most of the general intelligence aspect. Thank you for the information, user!
I'm calling him a retard since he's acting smug about not understanding the fact that degree of heritability varies with the sample and statistical model used.
If you have a uniform environment, everything is always 100% genetic. That's tautological. Same thing if your model perfectly accounts for all environmental factors. Heritability is just a measure of how much of the difference in a certain population can be explained with by genetics. Of course it varies with the sample, that's always the case with any trait. That's how the measure fucking works. A heritability of 0.85-0.9 in just a general western population(very varied and disparate environment) is massive. It's higher than height.
I'm not going to tell you niggers aren't genetically inferior because that is very clearly the case.
That's my understanding as well. Still have a lot of faith in the IQ measure overall, but the G-factor is a pretty good refutation of most criticisms of it. As an aggregate, of course you can't beat the dis-aggregated scores when assessing ability.
Somebody hit me with the good infographics re black on black crime, 13 percent of population and 60 percent of the crime, all of them you have. I am in an argument on Facebook and I would like to drop some tactical nukes.
the b l a x i t thing should have included "the option to have citizenship revoked and be taken one-way to africa."
*for prison sentences
i have blown the doors off of both of my parents regarding iq.
a nigger is no longer responsible when they are hanging from a tree
know the difference between right and wrong?
ok, prison
Yeah, I definitely don't think that IQ is irrelevant in the slightest I just think that is often used by people as the ultimate test of intelligence when I definitely feel g factor is better for actual intelligence in a fully developed adult. That said, I see the reasons IQ tests are used and give a lot of insight into someone's development. I haven't done a ton of research into these kinds of things because I focus more on industrial-organizational psychology but it's definitely important even in that field. Thanks for the conversation and have a good day, swedebro!
Yes, of course, they shouldn't even have a jail sentence and only instant death because they are inferior.
Don't see how a statistical outlier would disprove a statistical trend though. Allowing for them is sort of the point of it being stochastic instead of deterministic. Some people get lucky, some don't and most are neither. Good on you if you're in the former camp.
Likewise, always a good time when you stumble into an honest discussion. Godspeed.
you guys would be interested in episode 8 of season 2 of the practice.
>A black client is tried for the brutal beating of a department store security guard during a riot. Bobby plans to use a defense very unpopular (hes got low iq so he cant help it) with both his client and second-chair Eugene. Meanwhile, Ellenor's obnoxious cousin wants to sue the travel agent that booked her honeymoon on allegations of 'emotional distress'.
haha
>be a nigress
>too stupid to plan for fucking anything
>live life on impulse
>get knocked up constantly
>nigger loving "democrats" push welfare
>literally get paid according to how many niglets you shit out
even niggers aren't this stupid
not proving anything, just agreeing with the hypothesis
Yes being stupid is not an excuse, some of the nicest people I know are dumb as a rock. They should be held responsible for their actions entirely.
>why do we keep memeing the negro ape into personhood?
Ffy
>if a dogs bites some one he is put to death
>why is it diferent with niggers?
That folds into my point quite nicely.
You put the dog down, but you don't consider it "bad" because it's a dog being a dog.
So what I'm asking is where is the balance between "a nigger is an animal and can't be blamed for acting like that," and, "a nigger should know better and needs to be held criminally responsible for his actions."
Keep in mind the distinction between accountability and responsibility, can hold them accountable (shooting the dog) while not criminally responsible
if we agree that they cannot be held responsible just like animals, we must treat then like animals
I propose we execute criminal retards. We can keep the non-criminals for the circus and operation of heavy equipment at county fairs.