Every single thing that you just mentioned is wrong.

Please state the study that you found which shows the IQs for Arab countries, African countries, Asian countries, etc. What IQ test did the study employ? Were the measures accuratly translated to the test takers' language? I am asking you these questions because no Psychometrician in their right mind would administer IQ tests normed for Western cultures to outside countries, and I very much doubt that your comment is based on an actuall study (and if it is I would love for you to post the study so that it can be scrutinized).

1. Most IQ tests, such as the WAISC and Stanford-Binet are normed for use for specific culture groups and because they have cultrually sensitive information it is generally inappropriate to take these tests and administer on groups which are completely culturally different.

2. Genetics create a baseline for IQ. Environment (combination family, school, enrichment opportunities, nutrition) can increase or decrease IQ by up to about 20 points. 

3. There are more genetic variations within groups than between groups (perhaps, unsurprisingly, this is true with intelligence as well). This makes the idea of connecting race (a construct which I would argue does not even exist) to intelligence level quite disingenuous.

I would like to draw your attention to the Goddard intelligence tests performed on immigrants arriving at Ellis Island in the early 1900s. The results of these tests showed that the vast majority of individuals coming from Italy, Hungary, and Russia were "feeble-minded". Goddard concluded that Russians, Hungarians, Italians, as well as other groups were inherintly less intelligent than other groups.  As the practice of intelligence testing matured it was discovered that Goddard's tests were wrong because they did not take linguistic, cultural, and socio-economic status into account. Similar generalizations were made towards the Chinese and Japanese in the 1800s, and even by your own admission you can see how wrong those generalizations were.

I am not sure how you worked Kentucky Fried Chicken into your arguement. People simply like to eat things that are familiar to them, it is not a matter of race. If you bring an individual born in the continent of Africa to the United States, that person will most likely not have any particular affinity towards KFC (they will instead prefer to eat foods that they were raised on).

Read again what I ssaid and tell me if I said that peaple have left the country over this. I said basicly cuz theese people get marked for life like people who comit actual crimes and dont get employed or cant live in some areas or arent permited anyware near children.

And let me show you a few examples.

Man facing charges for disagreeing with someone over twiter.    Video and article, wich you prefer.

http://www.infowars.com/man-faces-6-months-in-jail-for-disagreeing-with-feminists-on-twitter/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNb7W8ZbjI0

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oNb7W8ZbjI0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Man fired over joke. Not even to an audience, in private to a friend and a feminist was evesdroping and reported him. 

http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/21/a-dongle-joke-that-spiraled-way-out-of-control/

NObel prize winer fired and removed from all sientist association and/or reserch for saying a joke over crushes in the work places.

http://news.yahoo.com/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-says-forced-resign-125443022.html

Man almost got fired after landing prove on comet for wearing a animated shirt with women in it. dint get fired cuz he was to important to the reserch, but man this thouse SJW's try.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/11/15/shirt-comet-girls-feminism-column/19083607/

Man got fired for racist coment. they dint know his name or anything, they post the video online so somebody could identify him and inform his employer.

http://www.phillyvoice.com/pa-man-fired-over-racist-tirade-anti-fracking-protest/

Women accused of racist post for aggreing with black lives matter crowd and saying all lives matter to. She was not fired, nor do theey seem to be after her as badly after she apologiest, most likely cuz it was a woman. I could nt find the man who said it first who was I belive a chief officer or something higher up, I doubt he got off as easy, while still also trying to please the black lives matter comunity and saying they matter just as much as whites.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/09/college-president-sorry-for-saying-all-lives-matter.html

Theres much more, but you can at least try and give it a search online. Cuz you would have to be living under a cave to never hear these crazzy reactions the SJW's have had, or you just look the other way or you just agree with the insanity.

Racism = hatred. Bias and prejudice =/= hatred. How many times do I have to tell you this? Is it really that hard to understand?
"A study can say anything you want" Its not "one study". It is not something that is debated even. It is, in the world of science, FACT.

Infants display the same behaviour as adults. You can't possibly have even opened those articles :/

http://phys.org/news/2015-07-born-racist-bias-expert.html

This one will answer all your questions. And again, since you're having so much trouble, let me quote myself:

"We are born with a system in our brains (this includes you, get down from your pedistal) that leads us to classify and judge people and things, to make it easier for us to understand the world, which in turn will lead to biases and prejudice."

It is not the outside world that "teaches" us to differentiate, judge and classify. We are designed to do so. That does not mean that we can't fight it, but it also doesn't change the facts.

You're displaying very hypocritical behaviour when you paint yourself as some kind of holy person despite being dismissive and judgemental of others and their behavior. Yeah, that ruffled my feathers a bit. My point still stands, and I'm backed by the world of science.

Its an evolutionary trait seen in basicly all the animal kingdom as well. But your not going anyware, you aparently need to show how its prooven emotionally to be taken serious. Its not how it works but how does it make me feel to the SJW's.

First off, did you actually read those? Because I have a hard time believing that you did and still decided to post those as an example of the poor victims. Like the guy who called the black camera man a "Lazy monkey" and started making chimpanzee noises at him, how anyone let that poor man be fired is beyond me...right?

But, once again, all of that is besides the point. The current situation is an unbelievably small price to pay for our freedom of speech. Nobody should have to be reminded of what the alternative is.

That quote just backed everything I said to you

"We are born with a system in our brains that leads us to classify and judge people and things, to make it easier for us to understand the world, which in turn will lead to biases and prejudice."

This flat out says exactly the same thing I've been telling you and that is people are born with an ability to learn and that's it, it even tells you biases and prejudices are developed well done you proved me right, the system in your brain observes what's around you in order to classify things so in other words the world around us moulds us. We're born to learn and from what we learn we develop from it, that's what it basically.

I think it's time you yourself come off your high horse as you're enraged for no reason, the whole topic is about racism and you pushed the notion that it's part of us well guess what infants won't put sheets over their heads when they see another infant with different skin colour or think they're inferior and that shoots down. The notion you pushed and the argument you're now trying to cling to are two different concepts that you tried to bring together, don't care if you're having sleepless nights over the fact that I don't see things your way and if you want to get into a slanging match seeing as you're gearing towards personal attacks the past few posts I'll gladly provide that for you as well if you want to go down that route.

You are going to nit pick the one true racist in all thouse articles and stick to that? ok. It dosent change anything. He was a racist and even I mention in the description that he was a racist. Theres no hiding it. The point is that man was on his free time walking around and happen to pass some people with and behaved poorly. Then the people wwent to such an extreme to publicly show it and ask others to do the dirty work and facial recognicion him to find his name and work place to have him fired. It had nothing to do with his job. Where you to tell me, that he was on duty and to the place of contract he called the owner a monkey and made the noises then yea, he should get fired then, but this was entirely uncalled for. Where do you draw the line? Do you think we should have peoples homes randomly checked and make sure everithing is hate free? if not mark them to make sure he is diferent so he can be a pariah.  check their record to make sure they have at least one black friend? if a small town is all white have them acused of being a kkk town? Give chidren hate test every month to make sure they are tolerant? and if not expelled them. You tell me when the freedom starts.

Again? AGAIN?! "racism is part of us" wow... I'm facepalming so hard. Can you explain how you got there? Show me the process you went through to twist my words into this. After that, please go back and actually read what I said. I've been extremely consistent, through this entire thread.

"we're not born with that system mate that's an excuse, that whole system is taught to you" These are your words.
"This flat out says exactly the same thing I've been telling you"

Those are also your words, regarding the exact same quote. Isnt that kinda... you know... contradictory? Inconsistent? Hmmm

Even if "evil" society did not "feed" us with these horrible subliminal messages about how we have to hate blacks or whatever, we would still discriminate, we would still be biased and we would still show prejudice. Both postitive and negative. Maybe you're talking about specific things? Like, you have to know what a trans is before you can form a positive or negative opinion, and an infant doesn't know? I mean, sure. But that's pointless. The reason we want to classify it in the first place is because we are built to do so. By the understanding of today, humans are very flawed. We have pretty good potential though.

I've been reading a lot about this now, and I've yet to encounter anything that debunks it. Lots of things that support it though.

"We naturally discriminate against people who are obviously different from us from birth. As a society we can then either reinforce or condemn that behaviour. As children it's not out of malice or anything, it's just a pre-programmed survival tool"

"Racism as a specific behaviour is taught, however a natural tendency to sort people into 'us' and 'them' is part of our make-up. using race as the deciding factor is learnt but in a perfectly ethnically mixed society there would still be group segregation and discrimination. 
In that example it'd probably be wealth, accent or physical characteristics like haircut. In a monoracial group, race is used because it makes it easy to spot an outsider, but the relevance of race as a group identifier will fade rapidly in the coming century.

Basically you're built to discriminate, but what you discriminate against is informed by your community."

I'm stealing 2 quotes, because they are more eloquent than me.

This isn't "just my opinion", its scientific. The facts are out there.

Your last sentence really sounds like you want to fight :) I'm not losing any sleep over this, are you? If you prove something to me, I will accept it. I take no issue with facts.
And hey, if you wanna throw insults at me, feel free to do so. You have the moral high ground ofc, so I'm in no position to stop you.

Here's the full quote of my first reply.

"We aren't, if you place a group of infants together they'd get along just fine, the's a term "Love is natural, Hate is learnt", people's characters are influenced by their surroundings and who is around them. We aren't built like how you say we're taught to be that way, some of us are just able to maintain an open mind."

This is in response to when someone specifically said we're not all a little bit racist at which point you bring up the current concept of bias essentially like you're tying racism and the development of preference togther, your very own quote from your link flat out says it can LEAD to bias and prejudice after trying to understand the world, not that it's a default trait in other words it's a developed trait that is caused by what we learn from around us. Your scientific this and that is actually saying flat out what I'm saying here these aren't default traits they're ones that are developed through learning.

 You're saying we discriminate against people who are born different from us by default I say that's BS and is what I pulled in the first place, children are more curious towards each other they only know as a survival instinct to run from something that doesn't resemble another human or something far bigger than themselves, skin colour and such is a non issue them, it's only when they begin to understand the world around them that they develop such discriminate traits to those born differently.

My last line is in response to your constant attempt at personal attacks, you seem to take the open mind part personally like someone ran over your dog when it's just referencing that some people don't let their preferences dictate them as much, I'm letting you know if you want to take it there I'll deliver what you're looking for just ask for it,  you clearly lost sleep over this after declaring bye bye only to come squirming back.

The bold is a joke, right? You're trying to claim that I, the person who has over, and over, and over, and over again said that this is a product of our right to free speech, and that it's the price we pay, want government to sensor people that might say something offensive? Are you kidding me? Did you read aaannnyyyyttthhhiiinnggg that I wrote?

In fact! You seem to be the one with the issue as far as the first ammendment goes (though, you still haven't provided an alternative). You seem to believe that the rights of the offensive are more important than the rights of the offended. Which I have to say, I disagree with because in my opinion, they are equal. Which is pretty much how it works, as long as the will to make it so is there. Actually, you provide a pretty good example so...thanks for that.

A woman overhears a guy make a joke she fines offensive, makes a stink about it, and gets him fired. Then, people get mad at her, and get her fired.

Equal protection under the law, in this case...no protection under the law. Because we, as adults, should be capable of handiling these situations on our own.

If you have a problem with that, I hear feminists don't have much say in....oh, I don't know, Burma? Sure, Burma, I'm sure you'd love it there. Though, I'd get there soon. I hear there are some SJW upstarts fighting for things like freedom of the press.