why did the first guy post an article disproving one of his points

"(1) Rushton & Templer drew on a review paper in an Ecology journal (Ducrest et al., 2008) which argues that genetic variants which influence skin colour may also influence aggression, sexual activity and resistance to stress – mainly based on birds and fish. The correspondent and geneticist each comment that the genes responsible for skin pigmentation in humans are completely different to the genes in these animals. It therefore makes no sense to extrapolate from these animal studies to humans. Ducrest et al. made this crystal clear: “human populations are therefore not expected to consistently exhibit the associations between melanin-based coloration and the physiological and behavioural traits reported in our study”. As the geneticist observes, “the point about genetic variants for skin pigmentation being different in humans makes all the other vertebrate work cited inconsequential”.
(2) Rushton & Templer claimed that there are black/white (human) differences in levels of psychopathy. As required of a review paper, the authors should have been aware of a literature showing that black-white differences in the best-available measure of psychopathy are negligible (Skeem et al., 2004). They instead relied on an analysis by Lynn (2002) which has been extensively criticized (Skeem, Edens, Sanford, & Colwell, 2003; Zuckerman, 2003).
(3) Rushton & Templer ignored obvious social and educational explanations for higher levels of violence, HIV infection etc. in African and Caribbean countries whilst favouring a genetic theory.
(4) Rushton & Templer made several errors when interpreting the results summarised by Ducrest et al. Although relatively minor, these errors consistently favoured their genetic thesis.
It is on the basis of our analysis supported by input from experts that forms the grounds for issuing a retraction decision of the Rushton and Temper (2012) paper published in Personality and Individual Differences."
This is literally the opposite of what he said lol
but ok ok
then it talks about immigrants and their skills and education. obviously they will usually be less skilled and educated. so thats a no brainer.
like 95% of the population descends from immigrants. the rest are native americans.
one of the articles is just female hypergamy and blackpill not intelligence
some of these studies are limited or anecdotal
racism cannot be caused by high T, racism is learned. none of us are born racist and hating minorities
as for violence, it is likely due to poverty. the poverty causes violence, and this violence and poverty is a constant cycle
did you know that 70-80% of school shooters are white? non whites committing 36% is not a good argument for the guy who posted this, he is contradicting himself
as for marriage and poverty and all that violence, i simply think its cuz of poverty and discrimination influencing that.
ok, for the second post:
"Blacks in South Africa are not indigenous inhabitants, but rather arrived just before White explorers."- that doesnt matter
in africa, countries are less developed and involved in major conflicts. if you took europe and threw it into mayhem and destroyed a lot then they would act like that too. not saying its good, but thats what happens.
there is also a belief that you can get rid of HIV if you have sex with a virgin, so many men with HIV have sex with children, even relatives. but it doesnt work and now kids are getting r***d and have hiv and herpes
south africa is a country with lots of conflict, especially between races.
the black men being undereducated and not being grandmasters is simply due to poverty and discrimination
it says that south africa has 35-50% of people inbred.
in arab countries its 86%. portugal and spain have 91 and 88%. brazil, japan, pakistan, and india are also very high.
there are so many other countries where inbreeding is/was common
also some of these articles are paywalled. i cannot access them :/
africa is the continent with highest genetic diversity.
meanwhile the other countries have less. so they will have potential to evolve more new traits.
also some of these articles are once again disproving his point



he says iq is still low in blacks even in idential environemnts and then provides this article?:
" There were no differences between the transracial adoptees and the biological offspring of the adoptive parents in IQ score change from Time 1 to Time 2. In general, the results support the original findings: Being reared in the culture of the tests and the culture of the schools benefits all children's IQ scores and school achievements."
???? bro is debunking himself
also he said blacks commit white collar crimes. then sent an article about violence??? the article said nothing about white collar crimes. its white males that are the majority of white collar crimes
he makes claims and links articles that disprove his claims. he is making little sense when he does that. why is he disproving himself?
whatever
i am not going to deny that blacks commit lots of crimes, significantly more than other races, are poor, and have lots of major conflcits in africa
but that doesnt mean racism is ok, racism is not gonna help that