Jews the greatest ethnic group in terms of accomplishments for mankind???

[QUOTE=sundizz]There are 3.22 Million Indians in America. 38% of Doctors in America are Indians. 12% of Scientists in America are Indians. 36% of NASA employees are Indians. 34% of MICROSOFT employees are Indians 28% of IBM employees are Indians 17% of INTEL employees are Indians 13% of XEROX employees are Indians[/QUOTE]

are they born in america or are they the best and brightest exported to america from india?

[QUOTE=sundizz]There are 3.22 Million Indians in America. 38% of Doctors in America are Indians. 12% of Scientists in America are Indians. 36% of NASA employees are Indians. 34% of MICROSOFT employees are Indians 28% of IBM employees are Indians 17% of INTEL employees are Indians 13% of XEROX employees are Indians[/QUOTE]
Yeh Indians are great too. The difference to me though is first of all they have a 7th of the worlds population. Next of all, many of them achieve these great things because they are pushed and pressured so much by their parents and family. Their parents just want them to have as much success as possible and have the highest status job in normal society.

Jews on the other hand have loads of doctors and lawyers in the world but aren't pressured and pushed as much as their families compared to Asians. It's just not Jewish culture to do that. ALSO Jews have many game changers in terms of human advancement, Freud, Marx, Einstein etc etc. Indians have alot of greats as well, Ghandi, Siddhartha Guatama, don't get me wrong.

But again they have a 7th of the world's entire population.

Also being a microsoft or IBM employee isn't anything to gloat about, most of those guys, while accomplished of course, only got their jobs because they cost much less to employ then workers of other nationalities.

[QUOTE=Nick Young]Yeh Indians are great too. The difference to me though is first of all they have a 7th of the worlds population. Next of all, many of them achieve these great things because they are pushed and pressured so much by their parents and family. Their parents just want them to have as much success as possible and have the highest status job in normal society.

Jews on the other hand have loads of doctors and lawyers in the world but aren't pressured and pushed as much as their families compared to Asians. It's just not Jewish culture to do that. ALSO Jews have many game changers in terms of human advancement, Freud, Marx, Einstein etc etc. Indians have alot of greats as well, Ghandi, Siddhartha Guatama, don't get me wrong.

But again they have a 7th of the world's entire population.

Also being a microsoft or IBM employee isn't anything to gloat about, most of those guys, while accomplished of course, only got their jobs because they cost much less to employ then workers of other nationalities.[/QUOTE]

And Jews aren't pushed and pressured by their family? :rolleyes:
BTW, Asians have the highest IQ per category... If you're going to take just the smartest tribe of Jews you'd have to take the smartest subgroup of east Asians as well :no:

[QUOTE=sundizz]There are 3.22 Million Indians in America. 38% of Doctors in America are Indians. 12% of Scientists in America are Indians. 36% of NASA employees are Indians. 34% of MICROSOFT employees are Indians 28% of IBM employees are Indians 17% of INTEL employees are Indians 13% of XEROX employees are Indians[/QUOTE]

Lol, the Indians cant even take care of their own. You ever been to Calcutta? It's like the worst shithole you can imagine.

[QUOTE=Nick Young]God's chosen people. We were always persecuted for our success, jealousy from the less successful majority leading to resentment and hatred.


One theory I read on Jewish success? Jews have always valued intelligence over physical strength like most other races. It was the smartest scholars, not the strongest warriors who were always most revered among the jews so the intelligence continues to get passed on genetically. Which is why today Jews are the smartest ethnic group IQ wise.[/QUOTE]
No group of people are inherently smarter than any other group. Stop talking out of your ass. And this is coming from a Jew.

[QUOTE=RRR3]No group of people are inherently smarter than any other group. Stop talking out of your ass. And this is coming from a Jew.[/QUOTE]
IQ testing says differently sport. You're the one talking out of your ass when you make blatantly false claims such as the one quoted.

[QUOTE=Nick Young]IQ testing says differently sport. You're the one talking out of your ass when you make blatantly false claims such as the one quoted.[/QUOTE]
IQ=/=intelligence. It's a test, and some people naturally don't do well on tests. One of my mom's best friends is a professor and didn't do well on an IQ test even though she's smart (and jewish fwiw). You have to think about the environments people are raised in anyways.

[QUOTE=Nick Young]ACTUALLY fool, educate yourself

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud#Present_day[/url]
It is basically the oral tradition written down, and rabbis discussing their interpretations of the laws. Generations of rabbis and scholars sometimes thousands of years apart write responses to eachother, sometimes rabbis interpret laws, often times contradicting and completely disagreeing with eachother, however no argument is considered wrong.
It basically teaches to look at every single side of an issue. It is pretty much the most complicated law book ever written, but it is also not just a law book but one of the greatest works of philosophy and explains why Jews have such a strong tradition in the field of law.

EDUCATE YOURSELF[/QUOTE]
So basically I was right. This is not even remotely close to actual logic. Not saying it doesn't require a lot of mental capacity to know this shit, but in no way does this move humanity forward and in no way is this at all scientific.
[QUOTE]IQ=/=intelligence. It's a test, and some people naturally don't do well on tests. One of my mom's best friends is a professor and didn't do well on an IQ test even though she's smart (and jewish fwiw). You have to think about the environments people are raised in anyways.[/QUOTE]
Agree with this, high IQ don't mean shit. The same way people think they're smart cause they do well in school.

[QUOTE=Nick Young]IQ testing says differently sport. You're the one talking out of your ass when you make blatantly false claims such as the one quoted.[/QUOTE]
They do not say differently, champ.

IQ tests measure the audience they were created for. It's called norms, and they're specific for the specific population. And you need all the different norms for all the different populations. And then adapt tests accordingly...

[QUOTE=RRR3]No group of people are inherently smarter than any other group. Stop talking out of your ass. And this is coming from a Jew.[/QUOTE]

The average person in Germany has an IQ of 106. If you substract the Turkish descent population the average IQ jumps to 112.

:oldlol:

[COLOR="White"]/troll[/COLOR]

It's no surprise ashkenazi Jews are smart. They've got a lot of German in them.

[QUOTE=BEAST Griffin][B]The average person in Germany has an IQ of 106. If you substract the Turkish descent population the average IQ jumps to 112.[/B]

:oldlol:

[COLOR="White"]/troll[/COLOR]

It's no surprise ashkenazi Jews are smart. They've got a lot of German in them.[/QUOTE]


:oldlol: :oldlol:
Is it wrong that I cracked up after reading that?


Germans are the alpha race.. They are strong, tough, smart, intellect, athletic and will kick the shit out of you if you piss them off. Although the modern ones can be a bit passive. After two world wars where their country was devastated they built from scratch. Today Germany is the only european country that can stand on it's feet.

Not to mention they are loaded with inventors, musicians, artists, writers, etc..

[QUOTE=knickballer]:oldlol: :oldlol:
Is it wrong that I cracked up after reading that?


Germans are the alpha race.. They are strong, tough, smart, intellect, athletic and will kick the shit out of you if you piss them off. Although the modern ones can be a bit passive. After two world wars where their country was devastated they built from scratch. Today Germany is the only european country that can stand on it's feet.

Not to mention they are loaded with inventors, musicians, artists, writers, etc..[/QUOTE]

But only one of them can play basketball in the NBA :lol

I agree that Marx has been influential, but to include him on a list of "greatest" accomplishments? What has the implementation of his ideas accomplished, exactly, besides the starvation of millions of people? Bread lines and totalitarianism don't seem very "great" to me.

I guess he's done a great job of inspiring Americans to feel guilty about their riches.

[QUOTE=joe]I agree that Marx has been influential, but to include him on a list of "greatest" accomplishments? What has the implementation of his ideas accomplished, exactly, besides the starvation of millions of people? Bread lines and totalitarianism don't seem very "great" to me.

I guess he's done a great job of inspiring Americans to feel guilty about their riches.[/QUOTE]
you have [i]no[/i] idea what you're talking about

Marx meant waaaaaaay more to the world than the way Lenin and Mao and the rest supposedly 'carried his torch'

his grandest economic views, the popularized stepping stones past feudalism and capitalism towards a socialist utopia, were probably his least influential... or at least less influential than other modes of thought. it was his conceptualization of the 'cog in the machine' mentality that was infecting underclasses throughout the world in the midst of the industrial revolution that really made his mark on the world. labour unions, regardless of how you feel towards them and how you feel they initially arose, would not have made their gains without the global socialist banner uniting under Marxist and neomarxist modes of thought. bringing people together to associate and demand an improvement in their most abysmal of conditions. these are not unspectacular changes in social organization.

he was also one of the first to recognize the overall importance of economic matters in politics... at the end of the day, your average joe doesn't [i]really[/i] care about the difference between the labour party and the conservative party and the freedom party and the rent is too damn high party... they care about how politics will affect [i]them[/i]. it was a realization that politics needn't occupy itself so much with idealistic fantasies, abstractions and theories that only the wealthy and prosperous even have the time to think about let alone the desire, that instead the focus should be far more utilitarian.

the implementation of his ideas is everywhere. literally.

lol @ reducing marx to 20th century 'communism'... they were perversions of marxist thought if anything. failed experiments at best, radical do-good authoritarianism more likely, outright power grab tyranny at worst

Amare has Jewish roots.


[IMG]http://katchop.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/amare-jewish-copy.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=RidonKs]you have [i]no[/i] idea what you're talking about

Marx meant waaaaaaay more to the world than the way Lenin and Mao and the rest supposedly 'carried his torch'

his grandest economic views, the popularized stepping stones past feudalism and capitalism towards a socialist utopia, were probably his least influential... or at least less influential than other modes of thought. it was his conceptualization of the 'cog in the machine' mentality that was infecting underclasses throughout the world in the midst of the industrial revolution that really made his mark on the world. labour unions, regardless of how you feel towards them and how you feel they initially arose, would not have made their gains without the global socialist banner uniting under Marxist and neomarxist modes of thought. bringing people together to associate and demand an improvement in their most abysmal of conditions. these are not unspectacular changes in social organization.

he was also one of the first to recognize the overall importance of economic matters in politics... at the end of the day, your average joe doesn't [i]really[/i] care about the difference between the labour party and the conservative party and the freedom party and the rent is too damn high party... they care about how politics will affect [i]them[/i]. it was a realization that politics needn't occupy itself so much with idealistic fantasies, abstractions and theories that only the wealthy and prosperous even have the time to think about let alone the desire, that instead the focus should be far more utilitarian.

the implementation of his ideas is everywhere. literally.

lol @ reducing marx to 20th century 'communism'... they were perversions of marxist thought if anything. failed experiments at best, radical do-good authoritarianism more likely, outright power grab tyranny at worst[/QUOTE]

Marxists always say that existing socialist regimes are "perversions" of his ideas. Or that they "didn't do it right." Not saying you're a marxist, but you can't just brush off that aspect of his legacy.

You really think labor unions and the like are the more influential part of his legacy? Not the millions of dead people, or people who went starving, or any of that?

And I don't think he was the first to recognize the importance of economics in politics. lol. But I guess you were just using a bit of hyperbole and I see what you mean.

[QUOTE=BEAST Griffin]The average person in Germany has an IQ of 106. If you substract the Turkish descent population the average IQ jumps to 112.

:oldlol:

[COLOR="White"]/troll[/COLOR]

It's no surprise ashke[B][SIZE="5"]nazi[/SIZE][/B] Jews are smart. They've got a lot of German in them.[/QUOTE]
:eek:

[QUOTE]Marxists always say that existing socialist regimes are "perversions" of his ideas. Or that they "didn't do it right." Not saying you're a marxist, but you can't just brush off that aspect of his legacy. [/QUOTE]
they are perversions. when Lenin formed his vanguard party to usher in the revolution of communism and maintain stability... that was a perversion of marxist thought.

this conversation isn't going to go anywhere though. you asked, literally, "what else, besides death and destruction, did Marx leave behind?". i told you. now you ask, "yeah, but was that [i]really[/i] as important as the death and destruction?".

maybe not. then again, i don't judge jesus christ by the fact that killing has been done in his name either. he was a fantastic dude from what i understand, real charismatic, preached peace and love and junk. nice guy overall. same thing with marx. he was one helluva a f*cking scholar and contributed to social democracy and workers rights as much as anybody. i hold those things in high regard the same way he did. if he wouldn't have approved of murderous coups and power grabbing and "socialism in one country" like Stalin preached with his death camps.... why should i incorporate that in judging him?

but i know, i know, 'legacy'. if you ignore the bad stuff, you're just playing selective games and not really analyzing the facts. i know where you're coming from. but if we start judging the ideas only, as well as all the weird f*cked up strains of good and bad that have branched off of them over the course of hundreds of years that have led to everything from feeding starving babies to murdering healthy ones... well, that's just going to go nowhere. so i'm not really interested.

i'll judge marx based on one criteria; marx. the way he lived his life, the ideas he formulated, and perhaps most importantly, the [i]intent[/i] of those ideas. they were brilliant and in the best interest of humanity.


[QUOTE]And I don't think he was the first to recognize the importance of economics in politics. lol. But I guess you were just using a bit of hyperbole and I see what you mean.
[/QUOTE]
you're probably right, that part of my post was definitely layden with more bullshit than any other. i sorta just came up with that myself and it seemed right... but it probably isn't. nevertheless, i'm gonna go ahead and say it's at least... 10% true.

Well.. they did create the a-bomb.

[QUOTE=RidonKs]they are perversions. when Lenin formed his vanguard party to usher in the revolution of communism and maintain stability... that was a perversion of marxist thought.

this conversation isn't going to go anywhere though. you asked, literally, "what else, besides death and destruction, did Marx leave behind?". i told you. now you ask, "yeah, but was that [i]really[/i] as important as the death and destruction?".

maybe not. then again, i don't judge jesus christ by the fact that killing has been done in his name either. he was a fantastic dude from what i understand, real charismatic, preached peace and love and junk. nice guy overall. same thing with marx. he was one helluva a f*cking scholar and contributed to social democracy and workers rights as much as anybody. i hold those things in high regard the same way he did. if he wouldn't have approved of murderous coups and power grabbing and "socialism in onecountry" like Stalin preached with his death camps.... why should i incorporate that in judging him?

but i know, i know, 'legacy'. if you ignore the bad stuff, you're just playing selective games and not really analyzing the facts. i know where you're coming from. but if we start judging the ideas only, as well as all the weird f*cked up strains of good and bad that have branched off of them over the course of hundreds of years that have led to everything from feeding starving babies to murdering healthy ones... well, that's just going to go nowhere. so i'm not really interested.

i'll judge marx based on one criteria; marx. the way he lived his life, the ideas he formulated, and perhaps most importantly, the [i]intent[/i] of those ideas. they were brilliant and in the best interest of humanity.


you're probably right, that part of my post was definitely layden with more bullshit than any other. i sorta just came up with that myself and it seemed right... but it probably isn't. nevertheless, i'm gonna go ahead and say it's at least... 10% true.[/QUOTE]

I won't stand here and say Marx didn't have any positive contributions, even if they're things I disagree with. I've been reading about Marx lately and I'll look more into his influence on labor unions.

I'm also sure he had great intentions. But wait, wasn't it Marx himself who said the road to hell was paved with good intentions? ha. Maybe I'm wrong about that, not sure.

Socialist regimes have been perversions of what Marx intended, but I think the problem is... ideas like that will always be perverted. Because his ideas assume people are too stupid to watch their own backs, and they need someone else to do it for them. That "someone else" will take that power and **** you in the ass with it, 10 times out of 10.

The guy who invents a faulty car has good intentions. But if 2,000 people die driving his car, don't you judge him for it?

And hey, there's not one person in the world who has completely abstained from hyperbole. So don't sweat it :D

[QUOTE]I'm also sure he had great intentions. But wait, wasn't it Marx himself who said the road to hell was paved with good intentions? ha. Maybe I'm wrong about that, not sure.[/QUOTE]
lol, i... don't think so. sounds more like a milton quote. but i'm only saying that because he liked to talk about heaven and stuff.


[QUOTE]Socialist regimes have been perversions of what Marx intended, but I think the problem is... ideas like that will always be perverted. Because his ideas assume people are too stupid to watch their own backs, and they need someone else to do it for them. That "someone else" will take that power and **** you in the ass with it, 10 times out of 10.[/QUOTE]
i don't think you've read much Marx. i think you're literally equating Marxism, all the strains of his thought over decades of thinking and writing, with words like 'welfare state' and 'dependence' and junk. it's just not that simple. sorry. your conception of what he thought is a product of what you think, which let me tell you, is tremendously flawed -- primarily psychologically speaking in the opinion of yours truly, which hell, i guess shouldn't count for much. i'm just another dude.

regardless, if you're going to look into some Marx, my recommendation is to check out his writing on worker alienation, which from what i recall is much more sociology than political science or theory or economics. but beware, it will boggle your mind or bore your socks off or both. he writes in ridiculously technical and convoluted language where comprehending even a single sentence can be a total pain in the ass.

regardless, check it with an open mind and try to absolve yourself of your preconceived notions, difficult though that may be. i've noticed more and more how often i read to confirm my own way of thought, even subconsciously... i am, and actually try to be, as open minded an intellectual as i possibly can. but in the midst of swallowing new ideas, all you can do is compare it to what you already know and what you already think. and the stuff you remember from the new work you check out will almost always be what confirmed your prior notions as opposed to what contradicted them... no matter how much you wanted to convince yourself otherwise. the mind is a confusing territory. lol

[QUOTE=joe]Marxists always say that existing socialist regimes are "perversions" of his ideas. Or that they "didn't do it right." Not saying you're a marxist, but you can't just brush off that aspect of his legacy.

You really think labor unions and the like are the more influential part of his legacy? Not the millions of dead people, or people who went starving, or any of that?

And I don't think he was the first to recognize the importance of economics in politics. lol. But I guess you were just using a bit of hyperbole and I see what you mean.[/QUOTE]

Marx's contribution to the study of philosophy has nothing to do with "bread lines" or whatever "marxists" did in his name.

Marx's systematic critique of social philosophers goes far beyond espousing communism. In fact Marx wrote very sparsely about what communist societies should look like. His critical take on the epistemic study of human history proposed a new entire narrative to the [I]study[/I] of history. through his conception of dialectic materialism, he derived that economy was the foundation for social change. but it's the lens with which he dissected history that is perhaps the culmination of centuries of political philosophy itself.

Marx is without a doubt one of 19th century greatest philosophers in fact I would say that Marx's really the bridge between Hegel and Nietzsche

[QUOTE]Marx is without a doubt one of 20th century greatest philosophers[/QUOTE]
err... i've got [i]some[/i] doubt

^^ Ridonks, I'm sending you a private message as to not take over this thread with our convo..

[QUOTE=heyhey]Marx's contribution to the study of philosophy has nothing to do with "bread lines" or whatever "marxists" did in his name.

Marx's systematic critique of social philosophers goes far beyond espousing communism. In fact Marx wrote very sparsely about what communist societies should look like. His critical take on the epistemic study of human history proposed a new entire narrative to the [I]study[/I] of history. through his conception of dialectic materialism, he derived that economy was the foundation for social change. but it's the lens with which he dissected history that is perhaps the culmination of centuries of political philosophy itself.

Marx is without a doubt one of 19th century greatest philosophers in fact I would say that Marx's really the bridge between Hegel and Nietzsche[/QUOTE]

Explain to me how what Marxist's "did in his name," is any different from what he would have wanted? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm serious.

I'm not talking about the murders and stuff. Obviously he didn't want that. But just the base level SET UP of the socialist systems we've seen. The fundamentals of the way they are put together. What are the differences?

Ridonks, you too

[QUOTE]Explain to me how what Marxist's "did in his name," is any different from what he would have wanted? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm serious. [/QUOTE]
Marx disapproved of the very idea of revolutionary leaders in his theoretical work. it was literally all or nothing. communism could not be forced upon masses that didn't want it. they had to rise up collectively, as in the literal 99%, seize the modes of production, and then tralalalala something would happen and all would be well. but from the getgo, as soon as 'party elites' were established to harness the folks and get 'em good and riled up, as soon as the red army was created to do the military leg work, actually f*ck it as soon as Lenin adopted Leninism... Marxism was sorta dropped from the occasion. Lenin was a violent revolutionary who put practise above theory. very different dudes.

in the end, his work is so theoretical that your question is difficult to answer even if i knew a lot more about marx, and while i know a little, i don't feel well versed enough to give you a well grounded answer. but from my understanding, he didn't exactly lay out the precise process by which groups of people in different countries would collectivize and eventually live communally by revolting against the onslaught of privately owned everything and shit. he just didn't write about that... probably because it's impossible to write about. the ideas that he's most famous for are cloudy, vague, dreamlike. he wasn't Nostradamus, not even close. maybe there was more than a little wishful thinking in his supposed prophecies. but again, now i'm just bullshitting. maybe heyhey can give you a more satisfactory answer, but honestly i doubt it... the question isn't very answerable.

sorry but that's the truth. you need to revise your conception of what Marx really thought before you start pondering questions to ask of people who disagree with you.

Jews, India, China are all up there.

[QUOTE=Nick Young]Freud, Marx, Einstein, one can argue that these are the three biggest minds who shaped the entire 20th century.

All Jews.[/QUOTE]

Let's not forget we did have 19 centuries before that lol (and a few more BC). Although 20th is where mankind advanced the furthest.